How did your interest in ecology, and more specifically, in biodiversity in agricultural and forest ecosystems (which is moreover one of your main research interests), emerge?
The first influence that shaped my preferences was my father. When I was still very young, he used to buy instalments of a 12‑volume encyclopaedia called Fauna. In it, I saw photographs of elephants, zebras and crocodiles and, I would say, that this was possibly a first moment that sparked my interest in issues related to biodiversity. As I grew up, and as this interest persisted, I eventually chose to study Biology when I reached university. Naturally, there were several lecturers who ended up shaping my academic outlook. Why biodiversity in agricultural and forest areas? This was a realisation that developed over time: there was a clear difference between Europe and the rest of the world. By this I mean that when we want to conserve biodiversity in the Amazon, the main approach is to protect that tropical forest from surrounding threats - in much of the world, preserving biodiversity means geographically isolating areas from human impact. In Europe, and in very few regions of the world, I began to realise that this was not quite the case. This is because Europe is a landscape built over millennia, resulting in landscapes created by humans that nevertheless have value for biodiversity conservation. Suddenly, it becomes clear that management is required and that people are needed to achieve conservation objectives. When we want to carry out conservation in Europe, we are often dealing with land that is not public, but agricultural or forest land, where biodiversity is associated with landscapes shaped by a much higher level of human intervention. This contrast between the classical conservation approach - putting up a fence so that no one interferes - and the European reality gave rise to my interest in the relationships between agriculture, forestry and biodiversity. Interestingly, I have always been very urban, despite my father coming from a farming family; therefore, it was mainly the experiences I had over time and the people I encountered that made me realise that, in much of the world, agriculture is a threat to biodiversity, but in Europe, particularly in Mediterranean Europe, this is not necessarily the case. There are many agricultural landscapes that were created over millennia and with which plant and animal species became associated, species that today exist only in those landscapes. In this context, agriculture ceases to be merely an enemy of biodiversity (as intensive agriculture certainly is). Traditional agriculture creates landscapes that, in many cases, in addition to having important cultural value, also have biodiversity value. Agriculture is, in essence, like a coin with two sides: there is good agriculture and there is bad agriculture.

In your opinion, what are the main challenges currently facing biodiversity conservation in ecosystems that are heavily impacted by human activity?
In our European geographical context, the challenges are essentially the same as those at the global scale, albeit with some differences, starting with those we cannot control. Climate change is, in the medium and long term, a factor that will influence the geographical patterns of occurrence of different fauna and flora species. Species that depend on cooler climates will suffer, while species associated with hotter and more arid climates may benefit. Climate change is, above all, an additional burden on biodiversity. There is another challenge associated with what, at a global scale, is called habitat destruction: destruction caused by human activity, such as the conversion of tropical forests into soybean plantations or agricultural land, which is a major threat. In the European context, it cannot really be described as habitat destruction because many habitats have already been transformed; nevertheless, there are land‑use changes that have consequences for biodiversity, for example those caused by forest fires. Another example is modern agricultural crops that are expanding very rapidly (we could mention super‑intensive olive groves or avocado plantations). Along the entire Portuguese coastline, urban pressure is increasing and expanding into natural areas. All these are examples of land‑use changes that are not biodiversity‑friendly and represent threats that lead to the replacement of areas that previously had other functions. These changes include factors related to agricultural intensification or the planting of so‑called ‘forests’ that consist of only one species, whether pine or eucalyptus (the latter being an exotic species), for example. Another highly relevant factor is invasive alien species, which are increasingly around us, although most citizens are unaware of them. Some are even aesthetically very attractive, but they occupy the space of native species and represent another major challenge to biodiversity conservation today. Invasive alien species are of growing importance and impact. I would say that these are perhaps the main threats in a European context.

You are the principal investigator of the research group ‘Biodiversity in Agricultural and Forest Ecosystems’ at CIBIO‑InBIO. What are currently the scientific priorities and strategic axes of this group?
In broad terms, within the group’s thematic area we have an agricultural component and a forest component. In each of these we address different challenges, whether it is attempting to preserve agricultural or forest systems with higher biodiversity potential, or, in more intensive contexts, exploring which types of management can be implemented to minimise the impact that more intensive activities have on biodiversity. Given the recognition that biodiversity in Europe is being lost very rapidly, the European Union established a law, a regulation for nature restoration, called the Nature Restoration Law, whose aim is to begin reversing the trend of biodiversity decline and loss. This law imposes concrete actions on different Member States in various contexts. One of these contexts is agriculture, which gave rise to a project called LAFERIA (LAndscape FEatures Reintroduction in Intensive Agricultural land). Its objective is to reintroduce small semi‑natural elements (such as hedgerows, small ponds, among others) into intensive agricultural areas in order to increase biodiversity. One of the goals of the Nature Restoration Law is for agricultural areas in Europe to have at least 10% coverage by these biodiversity‑enhancing elements. This is an example of a European project in which we are trying to understand which types of agricultural areas in Europe have lost these elements. The reality is that in many agricultural regions these elements have disappeared, and the aim is therefore to understand how to reintroduce them, where to do so, and what makes a landowner willing to reintegrate these elements into their farm. Another example within the agricultural component concerns landscape changes over the last ten years. In Alentejo, for instance, there has been a marked increase in super‑intensive olive groves and almond orchards, and one of the areas we are working on is understanding the impacts of these new systems, which did not exist before, by comparing them with traditional olive groves, which are an example of an agricultural system with high biodiversity potential. The aim is therefore to understand what is lost and what is gained when moving from a traditional olive grove to a super‑intensive one. In the forest component, we currently have the support of a structure located in the Mértola region called the Mértola Biological Station, managed by the University of Porto, CIBIO‑Biopolis, the Municipality of Mértola and the Alqueva company. This is an ambitious project in which we are trying to understand, in a forest context, how to carry out ecological restoration: how to replace old stone pine plantations that are highly degraded, or areas that were formerly eucalyptus plantations, and essentially how to reconvert them into native forest with higher biodiversity potential. Another example within the forest component arises from a collaboration with the Belmiro de Azevedo Foundation and SONAE, this time in a production forest context. We are essentially trying to help them understand how active forest management with production objectives can, nevertheless, maintain some value for biodiversity. This includes studying ways of achieving such compatibility and multi‑use management so that, without compromising the economic component, biodiversity and so‑called ecosystem services are enhanced. Finally, forest fires are not currently a core area of our research, but they are always present as a topic because fire is one of the main drivers of land‑use change in landscapes, with impacts that are not all negative. We are interested in understanding how nature responds to forest fires and how this response can be used by us, humans, to achieve, for example, more effective post‑fire management. In this regard, there is a classic political response: ‘5,000 hectares burned, so we will reforest 5,000 hectares’. Instead of ploughing the land or bringing in nursery plants (most of which will die in the first year), what we are trying to demonstrate is that burned areas often show natural regeneration, and it is therefore much more sensible to use this natural regeneration in restoration than to carry out large‑scale interventions and soil disturbance that subsequently cause erosion. Of course, responses like these are more visible from a media and social point of view, but they are often far less effective than managing and supporting natural regeneration – which will be there anyway after the fire, is much cheaper, generally has a better chance of survival, and grows faster.

You were Chair of the REN Chair in Biodiversity. What assessment would you make of the project, what contributions emerged from it, and how should science function better in terms of knowledge transfer (for example, in forest restoration and other areas)?
Here we address a new subject, not necessarily linked to agriculture and forestry, but rather to another type of impact on biodiversity: man-made infrastructures. In this particular case, infrastructures related to the energy sector, where elements such as power lines, solar parks, wind farms and dams for energy production also have an impact on biodiversity. This Chair lasted five years and has formally ended, but the truth is that the collaboration with REN (responsible for the national electricity and gas transmission system) has continued up to the present day. It is therefore a very interesting example of collaboration between a company, a university and a research centre. This collaboration was made possible through a programme of the Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) involving visiting professorships, which had precisely this aim: co-funding by the FCT and a private partner of a research programme created in collaboration between both entities. In essence, it turned into an applied research programme designed to address concrete problems. This was exactly what happened, and it has been an extraordinary experience for both sides, I believe. Within the scope of the Chair, we undertook activities such as scientifically evaluating practices that the company believed to be effective but for which there was little scientific evidence. We transferred knowledge to company technicians and staff, created a manual for impact monitoring, updated and used the information so that those building a new power line could know what kinds of impacts to expect and how to monitor them. We also assessed whether the mitigation measures in place were effective, including a very noticeable and curious phenomenon - storks nesting on electricity pylons. This example shows how nature sometimes adapts to human activities. Currently, 20% or more of the country's stork population nests on pylons, raising many interesting questions about how to manage this and understand, on one hand, the impacts on the company and, on the other, on the stork population. This was one of the research lines we developed. For instance, we produced a national-scale model that allows REN to anticipate, when building a new line in a given region of Portugal, whether it is likely to be heavily colonised by storks, and thus decide whether it needs to implement measures to reduce the impact of nest presence. I would add that, if a reader happens to travel along the roads again and looks closely, they may notice certain pylons with fan-like devices attached to the top - these are designed precisely to discourage storks from nesting there, diverting nests away from the most hazardous points. The company also provides basket-like supports on the sides where storks can build their nests without affecting the infrastructure. All these are examples of the activities we developed within the Chair, where, as I said, the main aim was to carry out applied research directly targeted at solving concrete problems.

You have coordinated and participated in several large-scale international projects. What lessons and good practices would you highlight regarding collaboration between research units and industry?
With regard to industry - and more broadly, society - this possibility of close collaboration for co-creation and discussion of scientific questions oriented towards solving concrete problems is fascinating. It allows for a remarkable opportunity for University-Industry cooperation, something not so common in the field of ecology and ecological systems. International collaboration between research centres is another great advantage. My experience is that tremendous effort goes into preparing a collaborative proposal for a European programme such as Horizon Europe, but the exchange of experiences is highly productive, especially in helping generalise what each research centre is doing to a transnational or European scale. This way, the results can have greater policy impact and - returning to the beginning of this interview - since much of Europe’s biodiversity is linked to agriculture and forestry, both are policy-related topics. These collaborations also foster new contacts and knowledge networks, increasing the likelihood of forming a project consortium or being invited to join one. In sum, that has been my experience. The major challenge is, in fact, the ability to craft a proposal properly aligned with the thematic areas launched by the European Commission. Regarding the difficulty of preparing such proposals, I would say that trying to force a project around our own research interests rarely works. One must have the flexibility to adapt to the objectives of the specific calls. Often, these objectives are not directly related to our field of research, and fundamental science is frequently left out, meaning we have to look for other opportunities. In short, we must - though I dislike the expression - “step out of our comfort zone” and propose a work plan that fully aligns, word for word, with what is required in the call. That is a major challenge and often frustrating, especially when a proposal is rejected after so much effort, particularly if one is the coordinator. But that’s part of the process. Success rates are always low. Still, it is worth it, because the gains, when achieved, are significant.

In your opinion, how can the European Commission ensure greater and more effective sustainability in biodiversity conservation?
That is a broad and difficult question, but I would say awareness-raising is crucial. The truth is that a vast amount of scientific information is simply ignored by policymakers. It’s a well-known phenomenon: regardless of available information, people’s perceptions and beliefs are often stronger than scientific evidence. One might criticise the Commission for steering research too much towards major political questions and challenges, leaving little space for fundamental science. In that regard, Horizon Europe is not the most suitable mechanism - one should aim instead for European Research Council grants, for instance. It is hard to say how the Commission could be more effective, but the main difficulty undoubtedly lies in getting knowledge to those who can actually use it. That means raising awareness among potential users of that knowledge and changing their mindsets. Forest fires are an excellent example: Portugal is among the world leaders in fire research, and science has already provided many answers. The great challenge lies in making the political decisions needed to implement them. As we have discussed, post-fire restoration is a good example: for a politician, “doing nothing” after a fire to observe natural regeneration and assess whether it is sufficient is not very “televised.” It’s far more media-friendly to show tractors planting trees on burnt hillsides. Yet, that often goes against the best scientific advice. Another example: we know that to change the current fire regime, we would need to change our landscapes. Transforming landscapes takes time - longer than the lifespan of a government. Science also shows that, in high-intensity fires, a plane dropping water is almost useless. But it would be unthinkable for a politician not to be able to claim that five Canadair planes are fighting the fire. Fires demonstrate how abundant research exists - the challenge is ensuring that knowledge is actually used for better management, contrary to the usual reactive political practices.

In Portugal and worldwide, forest fires remain a persistent threat. This year, 2025, has been particularly severe for our country. What does science have to say about future solutions?
The topic of fires is highly sensitive, and everyone has an opinion. Part of the answer we have already discussed: there is extensive scientific knowledge (for instance, the value of nature-based solutions such as natural regeneration in restoring burnt areas), yet little implementation. I belong to the group of scientists who believe that, under current conditions, completely avoiding large fires is virtually impossible. This results from a mixture of climate change and the way we manage land. Landscapes can be changed, but that takes time - years, even decades. And until that happens (if it happens), we remain trapped in a situation where what burns each year is primarily determined by the climate context. If you told me how much rainfall we had and the average temperature for a given year, I could probably estimate how many hectares burned. This simple observation shows that the determining factor is not management, nor government policy, but climate. We should therefore accept that large fires will always occur at regular intervals, much like earthquakes - and, as with earthquakes, we cannot “put them out”. What we can do is prepare our infrastructure so that damage is minimised. In the case of fires, that means preparing the landscape so that impacts are as small as possible - prioritising the protection of villages and their surroundings (which, interestingly, ties in with agricultural issues). Traditionally, villages used to be surrounded by small agricultural belts - gardens and fields - acting as protective buffers. With the abandonment of agriculture and the loss of profitability in these areas, they were abandoned, and forest and scrubland have encroached upon villages, erasing that protective barrier. It is essential to recreate it through both forest and agricultural policies. The evidence is clear: agricultural areas burn much less than forests, and when they do, fire severity is lower. We should therefore invest not in more firefighting equipment (more planes or firefighters), which are necessary only to protect infrastructure and people, but in preparing the territory itself - making it more resilient and easier to defend. Large wildfires cannot be fully fought; they will continue to happen. Ironically, each successful firefighting year increases the problem in following years - because vegetation keeps growing unchecked in areas that did not burn. With much of the country depopulated and unmanaged, each success only fuels future mega-fires. The priority must be to prepare the land, because large fires will return. More firefighters and planes will not prevent that - they will, at best, delay it.

What can ordinary citizens do in their daily lives to help preserve biodiversity (simple actions that make a real difference)?
There are countless ways for ordinary citizens to contribute. Getting involved in conservation organisations - whether national, municipal or local - is one. What matters is contributing one’s time to support various initiatives. Also, anyone who enjoys observing animals or plants can now do so easily thanks to technology. By taking a photo of a beetle, a small flower, or an animal spotted in the countryside, there are apps that can identify the species and, once verified by scientists, contribute to scientific knowledge. Citizen science platforms allow anyone to become a “weekend scientist”, going out into nature with a smartphone and, using these tools, recording and learning about different species of plants, amphibians or trees along the way. These are two excellent ways for ordinary citizens to help and contribute: by volunteering in organisations and by supporting the growth of scientific knowledge. Both are valuable ways to spend one’s time.

You can find more information on the professor and researcher here.