Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Figures
References
All Topics
Biology
Conservation Biology

Protected Areas and Effective Biodiversity Conservation

Profile image of josh davisjosh davis
https://doi.org/10.1126/SCIENCE.1239268
visibility

…

description

3 pages

link

1 file

Abstract
sparkles

AI

Protected areas (PAs) encompass 13% of Earth's land but show significant gaps in biodiversity coverage, necessitating both expansion and improved management. The authors emphasize enhancing the operational effectiveness of existing PAs while strategically allocating management efforts. By utilizing extensive global datasets, they provide guidance aimed at reinforcing PAs' contributions to global biodiversity conservation, specifically in preventing species extinctions.

Figures (2)
$2). Nearly all are located in biogeographic regions of exceptional levels of endemism (12) and nearly all have already been iden- ified as key biodiversity areas (/3). Collec- ively, they are responsible for the long-term onservation prospects of 627 species (119 pirds, 385 amphibians, and 123 mammals), including 304 globally threatened species ‘60 birds, 179 amphibians, and 65 mam- mals) whose global distributions fall mostly >50%) within these sites. For 88 of these PAs, the conservation stakes are particularly nigh, as they overlap sites previously iden- The Bale Mountains National Park in the Ethiopian highlands is home more than half of the world’s esti- mated 366 Ethiopian wolves, Canis simensis (10) seen at right. We estimated the irreplaceability of each of the world’s 173,461 designated PAs, and of 2059 proposed sites (9), for ensuring rep- resentation of 21,419 vertebrate species, encompassing all amphibians, nonmarine mammals, and birds, of which 4329 are glob- ally threatened (/0, 17) [see the supplemen- tary materials (SM)]. Irreplaceability was estimated from the fraction of the global dis- tribution of each species that is contained within each PA, by following a new approach that reduces the effect of the commission errors (falsely assuming species presence
$2). Nearly all are located in biogeographic regions of exceptional levels of endemism (12) and nearly all have already been iden- ified as key biodiversity areas (/3). Collec- ively, they are responsible for the long-term onservation prospects of 627 species (119 pirds, 385 amphibians, and 123 mammals), including 304 globally threatened species ‘60 birds, 179 amphibians, and 65 mam- mals) whose global distributions fall mostly >50%) within these sites. For 88 of these PAs, the conservation stakes are particularly nigh, as they overlap sites previously iden- The Bale Mountains National Park in the Ethiopian highlands is home more than half of the world’s esti- mated 366 Ethiopian wolves, Canis simensis (10) seen at right. We estimated the irreplaceability of each of the world’s 173,461 designated PAs, and of 2059 proposed sites (9), for ensuring rep- resentation of 21,419 vertebrate species, encompassing all amphibians, nonmarine mammals, and birds, of which 4329 are glob- ally threatened (/0, 17) [see the supplemen- tary materials (SM)]. Irreplaceability was estimated from the fraction of the global dis- tribution of each species that is contained within each PA, by following a new approach that reduces the effect of the commission errors (falsely assuming species presence
The world’s most irreplaceable PAs for conservation of amphibian, bird, and mammal species.(A) Global distribution. (B) Central and South America. (C) East Africa. (D) Southern and Southeast Asia. To facilitate representation, clusters of overlapping or nearby sites are presented here as a single symbol; see fig. S1 and table S2 for a full list of sites comprising 137 protected areas in 78 clusters. See SM for details.
The world’s most irreplaceable PAs for conservation of amphibian, bird, and mammal species.(A) Global distribution. (B) Central and South America. (C) East Africa. (D) Southern and Southeast Asia. To facilitate representation, clusters of overlapping or nearby sites are presented here as a single symbol; see fig. S1 and table S2 for a full list of sites comprising 137 protected areas in 78 clusters. See SM for details.

Related papers

Mixed effectiveness of global protected areas in resisting habitat loss
Jianguo Liu

Nature Communications, 2024

Protected areas are the cornerstones of conservation efforts to mitigate the anthropogenic pressures driving biodiversity loss. Nations aim to protect 30% of Earth's land and water by 2030, yet the effectiveness of protected areas remains unclear. Here we analyze the performance of over 160,000 protected areas in resisting habitat loss at different spatial and temporal scales, using high-resolution data. We find that 1.14 million km 2 of habitat, equivalent to three times the size of Japan, across 73% of protected areas, had been altered between 2003 and 2019. These protected areas experienced habitat loss due to the expansion of built-up land, cropland, pastureland, or deforestation. Larger and stricter protected areas generally had lower rates of habitat loss. While most protected areas effectively halted the expansion of built-up areas, they were less successful in preventing deforestation and agricultural conversion. Protected areas were 33% more effective in reducing habitat loss compared to unprotected areas, though their ability to mitigate nearby human pressures was limited and varied spatially. Our findings indicate that, beyond establishing new protected areas, there is an urgent need to enhance the effectiveness of existing ones to better prevent habitat loss and achieve the post-2020 global biodiversity goals. The Anthropocene 1,2 has resulted in a dramatic loss of biodiversity and even potentially a sixth mass extinction event 3-5. Habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation caused by anthropogenic activities are the critical factors inducing an unprecedented decline in biodiversity 6-8. Establishing and expanding protected areas (PAs) have been the key instruments used by nations to alleviate and reverse biodiversity loss, as PAs are seen as the backbone of global conservation efforts 9,10. This has resulted in rapid growth of the global network of PAs, which currently cover about 16.64% of Earth's land surface and 7.74% of the marine realm 11. The newly adopted Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework further calls for 30% of the world's land and water to be PAs 12,13. This is an ambitious goal, but simply expanding PAs cannot guarantee biodiversity conservation 10. Given the crucial importance of addressing biodiversity loss for human well-being, biodiversity conservation efforts in the next decade must be implemented through the most effective conservation strategies and actions. Some studies have shown that many individual PAs slow habitat loss 14 and stop land clearing 15. Moreover, it is generally recognized that biodiversity will likely be better protected from human activities after an area has been designated as a PA 16. There is no doubt that wellmanaged PAs can conserve biodiversity 17. However, habitat loss and human encroachment, especially those due to urbanization 18 , conversion to cropland 19 and pastureland, and deforestation 20 have been found to occur inside the boundaries of many PAs, and these pressures are still the greatest threat to terrestrial biodiversity loss 21. A recent comprehensive assessment revealed that one-third of global PAs are under intense human industrial-level pressure 22. The encroachment of anthropogenic land use on natural habitats, which has caused habitat

View PDFchevron_right
Shortfalls and solutions for meeting national and global conservation area targets
James Watson

Governments have committed to conserving ࣙ17% of terrestrial and ࣙ10% of marine environments globally, especially "areas of particular importance for biodiversity" through "ecologically representative" Protected Area (PA) systems or other "area-based conservation measures", while individual countries have committed to conserve 3-50% of their land area. We estimate that PAs currently cover 14.6% of terrestrial and 2.8% of marine extent, but 59-68% of ecoregions, 77-78% of important sites for biodiversity, and 57% of 25,380 species have inadequate coverage. The existing 19.7 million km 2 terrestrial PA network needs only 3.3 million km 2 to be added to achieve 17% terrestrial coverage. However, it would require nearly doubling to achieve, costefficiently, coverage targets for all countries, ecoregions, important sites, and species. Poorer countries have the largest relative shortfalls. Such extensive and rapid expansion of formal PAs is unlikely to be achievable. Greater focus is therefore needed on alternative approaches, including community-and privately managed sites and other effective area-based conservation measures.

View PDFchevron_right
Conservation beyond the existing protected area network is required to improve species and habitat representation in a global biodiversity hotspot
Kyaw Thinn Latt

Biological Conservation, 2021

Adequate representation of species and habitats is a critical aspect of an effective protected area (PA) network. Here, we evaluate the representation of focal wildlife species and forest types within the existing 11,241-km 2 PA network of the Tanintharyi Region in southern Myanmar, a frontier forest landscape and global biodiversity hotspot, and use spatial prioritisation tools to identify additional priority areas for conservation outside the existing network that contribute towards meeting a 30% representation target. Our study showed that the current configuration of the existing PA network underrepresented 32 of 60 threatened wildlife species and 6 of 8 forest types, with mangroves being the least represented. Spatial prioritisation revealed that by protecting an additional 4032 km 2 (8.4% of Tanintharyi's land area), 31% of which were adjacent to the existing PA network, the target representation for all wildlife species and forest types can be achieved. Enhancing the effectiveness of the existing network entails modest expansion by establishing additional conservation areas through various area-based conservation strategies, specifically targeting mangrove forests. Large oil palm agribusiness concessions, however, overlapped with almost 12% of priority conservation areas (consisting of additional areas and parts of the existing PA network), thereby competing with conservation interests. Expanding the area of representation will only succeed if the species and their habitats are adequately protected. Efforts therefore must prioritise the involvement and leadership of local communities and reflect local realities in negotiations among stakeholders.

View PDFchevron_right
Key biodiversity areas as site conservation targets
Thomas Brooks

BioScience, 2004

Site conservation is among the most effective means to reduce global biodiversity loss. Therefore, it is critical to identify those sites where unique biodiversity must be conserved immediately. To this end, the concept of key biodiversity areas (KBAs) has been developed, seeking to identify and, ultimately, ensure that networks of globally important sites are safeguarded. This methodology builds up from the identification of species conservation targets (through the IUCN Red List) and nests within larger-scale conservation approaches. Sites are selected using standardized, globally applicable, threshold-based criteria, driven by the distribution and population of species that require site-level conservation. The criteria address the two key issues for setting site conservation priorities: vulnerability and irreplaceability.We also propose quantitative thresholds for the identification of KBAs meeting each criterion, based on a review of existing approaches and ecological theory to date. However, these thresholds require extensive testing, especially in aquatic systems.

View PDFchevron_right
The identification of sites of biodiversity conservation significance: progress with the application of a global standards
Stephen Woodley

Journal of Threatened Taxa, 2012

As a global community, we have a responsibility to ensure the long-term future of our natural heritage. As part of this, it is incumbent upon us to do all that we can to reverse the current trend of biodiversity loss, using all available tools at our disposal. One effective mean is safeguarding of those sites that are highest global priority for the conservation of biodiversity, whether through formal protected areas, community managed reserves, multiple-use areas, or other means. This special issue of the Journal of Threatened Taxa examines the application of the Key Biodiversity Area (KBA) approach to identifying such sites. Given the global mandate expressed through policy instruments such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the KBA approach can help countries meet obligations in an efficient and transparent manner. KBA methodology follows the well-established general principles of vulnerability and irreplaceability, and while it aims to be a globally standardized approach, it recognizes the fundamental need for the process to be led at local and national levels. In this series of papers the application of the KBA approach is explored in seven countries or regions: the Caribbean, Indo-Burma, Japan, Macedonia, Mediterranean Algeria, the Philippines and the Upper Guinea region of West Africa. This introductory article synthesizes some of the common main findings and provides a comparison of key summary statistics.

View PDFchevron_right
LETTER Shortfalls and Solutions for Meeting National and Global Conservation Area Targets
Amy Milam

2016

Governments have committed to conserving ࣙ17% of terrestrial and ࣙ10% of marine environments globally, especially "areas of particular importance for biodiversity" through "ecologically representative" Protected Area (PA) systems or other "area-based conservation measures", while individual countries have committed to conserve 3-50% of their land area. We estimate that PAs currently cover 14.6% of terrestrial and 2.8% of marine extent, but 59-68% of ecoregions, 77-78% of important sites for biodiversity, and 57% of 25,380 species have inadequate coverage. The existing 19.7 million km 2 terrestrial PA network needs only 3.3 million km 2 to be added to achieve 17% terrestrial coverage. However, it would require nearly doubling to achieve, costefficiently, coverage targets for all countries, ecoregions, important sites, and species. Poorer countries have the largest relative shortfalls. Such extensive and rapid expansion of formal PAs is unlikely to be achievable. Greater focus is therefore needed on alternative approaches, including community-and privately managed sites and other effective area-based conservation measures.

View PDFchevron_right
Strengthening the global system of protected areas post-2020: A perspective from the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas
Penelope Figgis

Parks Stewardship Forum, 2020

Protected areas are the cornerstones of biodiversity conservation and have never been more relevant than at the present time when the world is facing both a biodiversity and a climate change crisis. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) has been helping to set global standards and best practice guidelines in protected area planning and management for 60 years. Following this guidance, many countries have made significant progress toward their Aichi Target 11 commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The global community will be coming together at the 15th Conference of the Parties of the CBD to set new biodiversity conservation targets for the next decade, as milestones to 2050 and a vision of "a world living in harmony with nature." This paper lays out the WCPA perspective on priorities for supporting effective protected and conserved areas for the post2020 era.

View PDFchevron_right
Linking political and scientifically derived targets for global biodiversity conservation: implications for the expansion of the global network of protected areas: Political and scientific targets for global conservation
Vicente Urios

Diversity and Distributions, 2007

Despite the global network of protected areas covers 12% of the world's land surface, its performance is still unsatisfactory. Although political and scientifically sound conservation targets usually portray different pictures of the task ahead, we show that in terms of priority areas for expanding the global network of reserves, there is much agreement between the political targets of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and the scientifically derived goals endorsed by international conservation organizations. Here we analyse four global databases to identify priority areas for fulfilling the CBD target of representing 10% of every ecological region within protected areas, and compare the distribution of priority regions for fulfilling that political target, with the distribution of the priority areas for global biodiversity conservation identified by Conservation International, the WWF, and the Wildlife Conservation Society on scientific basis. For 63% (549) of the world's terrestrial ecoregions the CBD 10% target is still not met; fulfilling it requires protecting another 4.6% of the Earth's land surface (6,239,894 km 2 ). Yet, at least 78% of the priority regions for fulfilling that target lay within priority regions for the main global conservation strategies. By pursuing the political target set by the CBD much ancillary gains in terms of other global conservation objectives can be obtained.

View PDFchevron_right

References (22)

  1. References and Notes
  2. B. Bertzky et al., Protected Planet Report 2012: Tracking Progress Towards Global Targets for PAs (IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, 2012).
  3. A. S. L. Rodrigues et al., Bioscience 54, 1092 (2004).
  4. SCBD, COP 10 Decision X/2: Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Nagoya, Japan, 2010).
  5. R. L. Pressey, C. J. Humphries, C. R. Margules, R. I. Vane- Wright, P. H. Williams, Trends Ecol. Evol. 8, 124 (1993).
  6. A. Moilanen, K. A. Wilson, H. Possingham, Spatial Conser- vation Prioritization: Quantitative Methods and Computa- tional Tools (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, UK, 2009).
  7. F. Leverington, K. L. Costa, H. Pavese, A. Lisle, M. Hockings, Environ. Manage. 46, 685 (2010).
  8. W. F. Laurance et al., Nature 489, 290 (2012).
  9. A. J. Hartley et al. The Assessment of African PAs (European Commission: Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environ- ment and Sustainability, Luxembourg, 2007).
  10. IUCN, UNEP-WCMC, The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA): October 2012 (UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, 2012); www.protectedplanet.net
  11. IUCN, 2012 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2 (IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, 2012); www.iucnredlist.org.
  12. We focus on terrestrial vertebrate groups (for which better spatial information exists) both as targets in their own right and as surrogates for broader global biodiversity. As data improve, the proposed methodology can be extended to marine PAs and to other taxa.
  13. T. M. Brooks et al., Science 313, 58 (2006).
  14. G. Eken et al., Bioscience 54, 1110 (2004).
  15. T. H. Ricketts et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 102, 18497 (2005).
  16. B. Bertzky et al., Terrestrial Biodiversity and the World Heritage List (UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, 2013); www.unep- wcmc.org/biodiversity-wh_975.html.
  17. These recommendations are integrated and further devel- oped in ( 15).
  18. F. Courchamp et al. Science 302, 1532 (2003).
  19. M. Hoffmann et al., Science 330, 1503 (2010).
  20. This information is available for 2370 PAs (covering 6117 species) either through a link from each PA's page on www.protectedplanet.net, or searchable from http:// irreplaceability.cefe.cnrs.fr. For the example discussed in the text, Gunung Lorentz National Park, see either the "Irreplaceability Analysis" link in www.protectedplanet.net/ sites/1500 or http://irreplaceability.cefe.cnrs.fr/sites/1500.
  21. A. S. L. Rodrigues et al. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 71 (2006).
  22. D. P. McCarthy et al., Science 338, 946 (2012).

Related papers

Protecting important sites for biodiversity contributes to meeting global conservation targets
Thomas Brooks

2012

Protected areas (PAs) are a cornerstone of conservation efforts and now cover nearly 13% of the world’s land surface, with the world’s governments committed to expand this to 17%. However, as biodiversity continues to decline, the effectiveness of PAs in reducing the extinction risk of species remains largely untested. We analyzed PA coverage and trends in species’ extinction risk at globally significant sites for conserving birds (10,993 Important Bird Areas, IBAs) and highly threatened vertebrates and conifers (588 Alliance for Zero Extinction sites, AZEs) (referred to collectively hereafter as ‘important sites’). Species occurring in important sites with greater PA coverage experienced smaller increases in extinction risk over recent decades: the increase was half as large for bird species with.50% of the IBAs at which they occur completely covered by PAs, and a third lower for birds, mammals and amphibians restricted to protected AZEs (compared with unprotected or partially protected sites). Globally, half of the important sites for biodiversity conservation remain unprotected (49% of IBAs, 51% of AZEs). While PA coverage of important sites has increased over time, the proportion of PA area covering important sites, as opposed to less important land, has declined (by 0.45–1.14% annually since 1950 for IBAs and 0.79–1.49% annually for AZEs). Thus, while appropriately located PAs may slow the rate at which species are driven towards extinction, recent PA network expansion has under-represented important sites. We conclude that better targeted expansion of PA networks would help to improve biodiversity trends.

View PDFchevron_right
Targeting global protected area expansion for imperiled biodiversity
Richard Fuller

Governments have agreed to expand the global protected area network from 13% to 17% of the world’s land surface by 2020 (Aichi target 11) and to prevent the further loss of known threatened species (Aichi target 12). These targets are interdependent, as protected areas can stem biodiversity loss when strategically located and effectively managed. However, the global protected area estate is currently biased toward locations that are cheap to protect and away from important areas for biodiversity. Here we use data on the distribution of protected areas and threatened terrestrial birds, mammals, and amphibians to assess current and possible future coverage of these species under the convention. We discover that 17% of the 4,118 threatened vertebrates are not found in a single protected area and that fully 85% are not adequately covered (i.e., to a level consistent with their likely persistence). Using systematic conservation planning, we show that expanding protected areas to reach 17% coverage by protecting the cheapest land, even if ecoregionally representative, would increase the number of threatened vertebrates covered by only 6%. However, the nonlinear relationship between the cost of acquiring land and species coverage means that fivefold more threatened vertebrates could be adequately covered for only 1.5 times the cost of the cheapest solution, if cost efficiency and threatened vertebrates are both incorporated into protected area decision making. These results are robust to known errors in the vertebrate range maps. The Convention on Biological Diversity targets may stimulate major expansion of the global protected area estate. If this expansion is to secure a future for imperiled species, new protected areas must be sited more strategically than is presently the case.

View PDFchevron_right
Pinpointing and preventing imminent extinctions
Eric Wikramanayake

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2005

View PDFchevron_right
Emerging Paradigms for Biodiversity and Protected Areas
Karen Beazley

Land, 2019

Despite significant investments in protected areas, biodiversity continues to show the negative influence of human domination of earth's ecosystems with population reductions across many taxa (Dirzo et al. 2014) [1]. Biodiversity loss ("biosphere integrity") is one of two "core planet boundaries", and currently exceeds the "safe operating space for humanity" as an intrinsic biophysical process that regulates the stability of the Earth system: it is at high risk, "beyond the zone of uncertainty" that human perturbations will destabilize the Earth system at a planetary scale (Steffen et al. 2015) [2]. Shifts towards globalization and increased emphasis on ecosystem services pose further challenges to biodiversity and its conservation (Cimon-Morin et al. 2013) [3]. Particularly threatened are organisms that require large, undisturbed areas where natural patterns and processes can occur freely (Laliberte & Ripple 2004) [4]. Such areas are increasingly under-protected. The amount of area under traditional protection varies by country but globally is about 15%, short of the 25-75% required to capture vulnerable biodiversity (Juffe-Bignoli et al. 2014) [5]. Habitat fragmentation is an ongoing process isolating remaining areas of high quality habitat (Haddad et al. 2015) [6]. For example, 50% of the continent of Europe is within 1.5 km of transportation infrastructure (Torres et al. 2016) [7]. A summary of 35 years of studies of habitat fragmentation caused by infrastructural development has shown that it has reduced biodiversity by 13-75% in various regions across the globe (Lawton 2018) [8]. The Global Human Footprint in terrestrial systems increased 9% from 1993 to 2009 with 75% of the surface experiencing measurable pressures (Venter et al. 2016) [9]. Using these same measures, one-third of protected land is influenced by intense human activity (Jones et al. 2018) [10]. The increasing drumbeat of alarm that protected areas, as special and valuable as they are, have not been an adequate answer to the biodiversity crisis is supported by a plethora of studies. Protected areas are often located in the wrong places to protect the greatest diversity (Jenkins et al. 2015) [11], are systematically biased in location (Margules & Pressey 2000) [12], are too small, scattered, and disconnected to protect diversity under changing climatic conditions (McGuire et al. 2016) [13], and internally and at landscape scales are often mismanaged such that biodiversity establishment goals are not achieved (Belote et al. 2016 [14]; Joppa & Pfaff 2009 [15]). Protected areas alone, unless increased in area and landscape-level management practices beyond those currently considered political acceptability, are unlikely to reduce decline let alone stimulate recovery and provide resilience in response to climate changes. On the positive side, there has been a vast increase in research and practical engagement in systematic conservation planning, habitat connectivity, and socioeconomic and cultural mechanisms (Sinclair et al. 2018) [16], and widespread international biodiversity and protected areas initiatives (IUCN 2005 [17], 2017 [18]; UNEP 2010 [19]). The global map of marine and terrestrial protected areas illustrates the impressive scope and extent of effort that has been invested to create the protected areas estate (Figure 1). There are approximately 200,000 significant terrestrial and 12,000 marine sites globally, covering 15.4% and 8.4%, respectively (World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA)). These numbers are underestimates of the actual amount

View PDFchevron_right
Spatially Explicit Trends in the Global Conservation Status of Vertebrates
Thomas Brooks

PLoS ONE, 2014

The world's governments have committed to preventing the extinction of threatened species and improving their conservation status by 2020. However, biodiversity is not evenly distributed across space, and neither are the drivers of its decline, and so different regions face very different challenges. Here, we quantify the contribution of regions and countries towards recent global trends in vertebrate conservation status (as measured by the Red List Index), to guide action towards the 2020 target. We found that.50% of the global deterioration in the conservation status of birds, mammals and amphibians is concentrated in ,1% of the surface area, 39/1098 ecoregions (4%) and eight/195 countries (4%) -Australia, China, Colombia, Ecuador, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, and the United States. These countries hold a third of global diversity in these vertebrate groups, partially explaining why they concentrate most of the losses. Yet, other megadiverse countries -most notably Brazil (responsible for 10% of species but just 1% of deterioration), plus India and Madagascar -performed better in conserving their share of global vertebrate diversity. Very few countries, mostly island nations (e.g. Cook Islands, Fiji, Mauritius, Seychelles, and Tonga), have achieved net improvements. Per capita wealth does not explain these patterns, with two of the richest countries -United States and Australia -fairing conspicuously poorly. Different countries were affected by different combinations of threats. Reducing global rates of biodiversity loss will require investment in the regions and countries with the highest responsibility for the world's biodiversity, focusing on conserving those species and areas most in peril and on reducing the drivers with the highest impacts.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Conservation Biology
  • Ecology

    • Cited by

    Global protected area expansion is compromised by projected land-use and parochialism
    Joona Lehtomäki

    Nature, 2014

    Protected areas are one of the main tools for halting the continuing global biodiversity crisis 1-4 caused by habitat loss, fragmentation and other anthropogenic pressures . According to the Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 adopted by the Convention on Biological Diversity, the protected area network should be expanded to at least 17% of the terrestrial world by 2020 (http://www.cbd.int/sp/targets). To maximize conservation outcomes, it is crucial to identify the best expansion areas. Here we show that there is a very high potential to increase protection of ecoregions and vertebrate species by expanding the protected area network, but also identify considerable risk of ineffective outcomes due to land-use change and uncoordinated actions between countries. We use distribution data for 24,757 terrestrial vertebrates assessed under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) 'red list of threatened species' 9 , and terrestrial ecoregions 10 (827), modified by land-use models for the present and 2040, and introduce techniques for global and balanced spatial conservation prioritization. First, we show that with a coordinated global protected area network expansion to 17% of terrestrial land, average protection of species ranges and ecoregions could triple. Second, if projected landuse change by 2040 (ref. 11) takes place, it becomes infeasible to reach the currently possible protection levels, and over 1,000 threatened species would lose more than 50% of their present effective ranges worldwide. Third, we demonstrate a major efficiency gap between national and global conservation priorities. Strong evidence is shown that further biodiversity loss is unavoidable unless international action is quickly taken to balance land-use and biodiversity conservation. The approach used here can serve as a framework for repeatable and quantitative assessment of efficiency, gaps and expansion of the global protected area network globally, regionally and nationally, considering current and projected land-use pressures.

    View PDFchevron_right
    Primates Decline Rapidly in Unprotected Forests: Evidence from a Monitoring Program with Data Constraints
    Alessandro Araldi, Amani Kitegile, Mtui Arafat

    PLOS ONE, 2015

    Growing threats to primates in tropical forests make robust and long-term population abundance assessments increasingly important for conservation. Concomitantly, monitoring becomes particularly relevant in countries with primate habitat. Yet monitoring schemes in these countries often suffer from logistic constraints and/or poor rigor in data collection, and a lack of consideration of sources of bias in analysis. To address the need for feasible monitoring schemes and flexible analytical tools for robust trend estimates, we analyzed data collected by local technicians on abundance of three species of arboreal monkey in the Udzungwa Mountains of Tanzania (two Colobus species and one Cercopithecus), an area of international importance for primate endemism and conservation. We counted primate social groups along eight line transects in two forest blocks in the area, one protected and one unprotected, over a span of 11 years. We applied a recently proposed open metapopulation model to estimate abundance trends while controlling for confounding effects of observer, site, and season. Primate populations were stable in the protected forest, while the colobines, including the endemic Udzungwa red colobus, declined severely in the unprotected forest. Targeted hunting pressure at this second site is the most plausible explanation for the trend observed. The unexplained variability in detection probability among transects was greater than the variability due to observers, indicating consistency in data collection among observers. There were no significant differences in both primate abundance and detectability between wet and dry seasons, supporting the choice of sampling during the dry season only based on minimizing practical constraints. Results show that simple monitoring routines implemented by trained local technicians can effectively detect changes in primate populations in tropical countries. The hierarchical Bayesian model formulation adopted provides a flexible tool to determine temporal trends with full account for any imbalance in the data set and for imperfect detection.

    View PDFchevron_right
    The performance and potential of protected areas
    Marc Hockings, Nigel Dudley

    Nature, 2014

    Originally conceived to conserve iconic landscapes and wildlife, protected areas are now expected to achieve an increasingly diverse set of conservation, social and economic objectives. The amount of land and sea designated as formally protected has markedly increased over the past century, but there is still a major shortfall in political commitments to enhance the coverage and effectiveness of protected areas. Financial support for protected areas is dwarfed by the benefits that they provide, but these returns depend on effective management. A step change involving increased recognition, funding, planning and enforcement is urgently needed if protected areas are going to fulfil their potential.

    View PDFchevron_right
    Benefitting from geoinformatics: Estimating floristic diversity of Warwan Valley in Northwestern Himalaya, India
    Anzar Khuroo

    Journal of Mountain Science, 2015

    diversity wh socio-econo diversity of based on in satellite da during 200 from satelli covered wit green conif scrub lands extracted f surveys we diversity o composition belonging t species are trees. The species, mo

    View PDFchevron_right
    Role of African protected areas in maintaining connectivity for large mammals
    Kamran Safi

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2014

    View PDFchevron_right
    580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved