1
|
Calders K, Brede B, Newnham G, Culvenor D, Armston J, Bartholomeus H, Griebel A, Hayward J, Junttila S, Lau A, Levick S, Morrone R, Origo N, Pfeifer M, Verbesselt J, Herold M. StrucNet: a global network for automated vegetation structure monitoring. REMOTE SENSING IN ECOLOGY AND CONSERVATION 2023; 9:587-598. [PMID: 38505271 PMCID: PMC10946942 DOI: 10.1002/rse2.333] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/22/2022] [Revised: 03/01/2023] [Accepted: 03/27/2023] [Indexed: 03/21/2024]
Abstract
Climate change and increasing human activities are impacting ecosystems and their biodiversity. Quantitative measurements of essential biodiversity variables (EBV) and essential climate variables are used to monitor biodiversity and carbon dynamics and evaluate policy and management interventions. Ecosystem structure is at the core of EBVs and carbon stock estimation and can help to inform assessments of species and species diversity. Ecosystem structure is also used as an indirect indicator of habitat quality and expected species richness or species community composition. Spaceborne measurements can provide large-scale insight into monitoring the structural dynamics of ecosystems, but they generally lack consistent, robust, timely and detailed information regarding their full three-dimensional vegetation structure at local scales. Here we demonstrate the potential of high-frequency ground-based laser scanning to systematically monitor structural changes in vegetation. We present a proof-of-concept high-temporal ecosystem structure time series of 5 years in a temperate forest using terrestrial laser scanning (TLS). We also present data from automated high-temporal laser scanning that can allow upscaling of vegetation structure scanning, overcoming the limitations of a typically opportunistic TLS measurement approach. Automated monitoring will be a critical component to build a network of field monitoring sites that can provide the required calibration data for satellite missions to effectively monitor the structural dynamics of vegetation over large areas. Within this perspective, we reflect on how this network could be designed and discuss implementation pathways.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kim Calders
- CAVElab – Computational & Applied Vegetation Ecology, Department of EnvironmentGhent UniversityCoupure links 653Ghent9000Belgium
- School of Forest Sciences, University of Eastern FinlandJoensuu80101Finland
| | - Benjamin Brede
- Helmholtz Center Potsdam GFZ German Research Centre for GeosciencesSection 1.4 Remote Sensing and GeoinformaticsTelegrafenbergPotsdam14473Germany
| | | | - Darius Culvenor
- Environmental Sensing SystemsBentleigh EastVictoria3165Australia
| | - John Armston
- Department of Geographical SciencesUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkMarylandUSA
| | - Harm Bartholomeus
- Laboratory of Geo‐Information Science and Remote SensingWageningen UniversityWageningen6708 PBthe Netherlands
| | - Anne Griebel
- Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment, Western Sydney UniversityLocked Bag 1797PenrithNew South Wales2751Australia
| | - Jodie Hayward
- CSIRO564 Vanderlin DriveBerrimahNorthern Territory0828Australia
| | - Samuli Junttila
- School of Forest Sciences, University of Eastern FinlandJoensuu80101Finland
| | - Alvaro Lau
- Laboratory of Geo‐Information Science and Remote SensingWageningen UniversityWageningen6708 PBthe Netherlands
| | - Shaun Levick
- CSIRO564 Vanderlin DriveBerrimahNorthern Territory0828Australia
| | - Rosalinda Morrone
- Climate and Earth Observation GroupNational Physical LaboratoryHampton Road, TeddingtonLondonUK
| | - Niall Origo
- Climate and Earth Observation GroupNational Physical LaboratoryHampton Road, TeddingtonLondonUK
| | - Marion Pfeifer
- School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle UniversityNewcastle Upon TyneNE1 7RUUK
| | - Jan Verbesselt
- Laboratory of Geo‐Information Science and Remote SensingWageningen UniversityWageningen6708 PBthe Netherlands
| | - Martin Herold
- Helmholtz Center Potsdam GFZ German Research Centre for GeosciencesSection 1.4 Remote Sensing and GeoinformaticsTelegrafenbergPotsdam14473Germany
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Simmonds JS, Suarez-Castro AF, Reside AE, Watson JEM, Allan JR, Atkinson SC, Borrelli P, Dudley N, Edwards S, Fuller RA, Game ET, Linke S, Maxwell SL, Panagos P, Puydarrieux P, Quétier F, Runting RK, Santini T, Sonter LJ, Maron M. Retaining natural vegetation to safeguard biodiversity and humanity. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY : THE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 2023; 37:e14040. [PMID: 36424859 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.14040] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/01/2021] [Revised: 11/05/2022] [Accepted: 11/15/2022] [Indexed: 05/30/2023]
Abstract
Global efforts to deliver internationally agreed goals to reduce carbon emissions, halt biodiversity loss, and retain essential ecosystem services have been poorly integrated. These goals rely in part on preserving natural (e.g., native, largely unmodified) and seminatural (e.g., low intensity or sustainable human use) forests, woodlands, and grasslands. To show how to unify these goals, we empirically derived spatially explicit, quantitative, area-based targets for the retention of natural and seminatural (e.g., native) terrestrial vegetation worldwide. We used a 250-m-resolution map of natural and seminatural vegetation cover and, from this, selected areas identified under different international agreements as being important for achieving global biodiversity, carbon, soil, and water targets. At least 67 million km2 of Earth's terrestrial vegetation (∼79% of the area of vegetation remaining) required retention to contribute to biodiversity, climate, soil, and freshwater conservation objectives under 4 United Nations' resolutions. This equates to retaining natural and seminatural vegetation across at least 50% of the total terrestrial (excluding Antarctica) surface of Earth. Retention efforts could contribute to multiple goals simultaneously, especially where natural and seminatural vegetation can be managed to achieve cobenefits for biodiversity, carbon storage, and ecosystem service provision. Such management can and should co-occur and be driven by people who live in and rely on places where natural and sustainably managed vegetation remains in situ and must be complemented by restoration and appropriate management of more human-modified environments if global goals are to be realized.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jeremy S Simmonds
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
| | - Andres Felipe Suarez-Castro
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
- Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt, Bogotá, D.C., Colombia
| | - April E Reside
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
| | - James E M Watson
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
- Global Conservation Program, Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, New York, USA
| | - James R Allan
- Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics (IBED), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Pasquale Borrelli
- Department of Science, Roma Tre University, Rome, Italy
- Department of Biological Environment, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon, Republic of Korea
| | | | - Stephen Edwards
- International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Gland, Switzerland
| | - Richard A Fuller
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
- School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
| | - Edward T Game
- The Nature Conservancy, South Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Simon Linke
- Australian Rivers Institute, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, Australia
- CSIRO Land & Water, Dutton Park, Queensland, Australia
| | - Sean L Maxwell
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
| | - Panos Panagos
- Joint Research Centre (JRC), European Commission, Ispra, Italy
| | | | | | - Rebecca K Runting
- School of Geography, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - Talitha Santini
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
- School of Agriculture and Environment, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Laura J Sonter
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
| | - Martine Maron
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Chowdhury S, Jennions MD, Zalucki MP, Maron M, Watson JEM, Fuller RA. Protected areas and the future of insect conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 2023; 38:85-95. [PMID: 36208964 DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2022.09.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/06/2021] [Revised: 08/23/2022] [Accepted: 09/08/2022] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
Abstract
Anthropogenic pressures are driving insect declines across the world. Although protected areas (PAs) play a prominent role in safeguarding many vertebrate species from human-induced threats, insects are not widely considered when designing PA systems or building strategies for PA management. We review the effectiveness of PAs for insect conservation and find substantial taxonomic and geographic gaps in knowledge. Most research focuses on the representation of species, and few studies assess threats to insects or the role that effective PA management can play in insect conservation. We propose a four-step research agenda to help ensure that insects are central in efforts to expand the global PA network under the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shawan Chowdhury
- School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia; Institute of Biodiversity, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Dornburger Straße 159, 07743 Jena, Germany; Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Department of Ecosystem Services, Permoserstraße 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany; German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Puschstraße 4, 04103 Leipzig, Germany.
| | - Michael D Jennions
- Division of Ecology and Evolution, Research School of Biology, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2600, Australia
| | - Myron P Zalucki
- School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia
| | - Martine Maron
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia
| | - James E M Watson
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia
| | - Richard A Fuller
- School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Pillay R, Watson JEM, Hansen AJ, Jantz PA, Aragon-Osejo J, Armenteras D, Atkinson SC, Burns P, Ervin J, Goetz SJ, González-Del-Pliego P, Robinson NP, Supples C, Virnig ALS, Williams BA, Venter O. Humid tropical vertebrates are at lower risk of extinction and population decline in forests with higher structural integrity. Nat Ecol Evol 2022; 6:1840-1849. [PMID: 36329351 DOI: 10.1038/s41559-022-01915-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/18/2022] [Accepted: 09/23/2022] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
Reducing deforestation underpins global biodiversity conservation efforts. However, this focus on retaining forest cover overlooks the multitude of anthropogenic pressures that can degrade forest quality and imperil biodiversity. We use remotely sensed indices of tropical rainforest structural condition and associated human pressures to quantify the relative importance of forest cover, structural condition and integrity (the cumulative effect of condition and pressures) on vertebrate species extinction risk and population trends across the global humid tropics. We found that tropical rainforests of high integrity (structurally intact and under low pressures) were associated with lower likelihood of species being threatened and having declining populations, compared with forest cover alone (without consideration of condition and pressures). Further, species were more likely to be threatened or have declining populations if their geographic ranges contained high proportions of degraded forest than if their ranges contained lower proportions of forest cover but of high quality. Our work suggests that biodiversity conservation policies to preserve forest integrity are now urgently required alongside ongoing efforts to halt deforestation in the hyperdiverse humid tropics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rajeev Pillay
- Natural Resources and Environmental Studies Institute, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, British Columbia, Canada.
| | - James E M Watson
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Andrew J Hansen
- Department of Ecology, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT, USA
| | - Patrick A Jantz
- School of Informatics, Computing and Cyber Systems, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA
| | - Jose Aragon-Osejo
- Natural Resources and Environmental Studies Institute, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Dolors Armenteras
- Departamento de Biología, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia
| | | | - Patrick Burns
- School of Informatics, Computing and Cyber Systems, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA
| | - Jamison Ervin
- United Nations Development Programme, New York, NY, USA
| | - Scott J Goetz
- School of Informatics, Computing and Cyber Systems, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA
| | | | | | | | | | - Brooke A Williams
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Oscar Venter
- Natural Resources and Environmental Studies Institute, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, British Columbia, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Carroll C, Noss RF. How percentage-protected targets can support positive biodiversity outcomes. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY : THE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 2022; 36:e13869. [PMID: 34856009 PMCID: PMC9540251 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13869] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/12/2021] [Revised: 10/07/2021] [Accepted: 11/19/2021] [Indexed: 05/26/2023]
Abstract
Global targets for the percentage area of land protected, such as 30% by 2030, have gained increasing prominence, but both their scientific basis and likely effectiveness have been questioned. As with emissions-reduction targets based on desired climate outcomes, percentage-protected targets combine values and science by estimating the area over which conservation actions are required to help achieve desired biodiversity outcomes. Protected areas are essential for achieving many biodiversity targets, in part because many species are highly sensitive to human-associated disturbance. However, because the contribution of protected areas to biodiversity outcomes is contingent on their location, management, governance, threats, and what occurs across the broader landscape matrix, global percentage-protected targets are unavoidably empirical generalizations of ecological patterns and processes across diverse geographies. Percentage-protected targets are insufficient in isolation but can complement other actions and contribute to biodiversity outcomes within a framework that balances accuracy and pragmatism in a global context characterized by imperfect biodiversity data. Ideally, percentage-protected targets serve as anchors that strengthen comprehensive national biodiversity strategies by communicating the level of ambition necessary to reverse current trends of biodiversity loss. If such targets are to fulfill this role within the complex societal process by which both values and science impel conservation actions, conservation scientists must clearly communicate the nature of the evidence base supporting percentage-protected targets and how protected areas can function within a broader landscape managed for sustainable coexistence between people and nature. A new paradigm for protected and conserved areas recognizes that national coordination, incentives, and monitoring should support rather than undermine diverse locally led conservation initiatives. However, the definition of a conserved area must retain a strong focus on biodiversity to remain consistent with the evidence base from which percentage-protected targets were originally derived.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carlos Carroll
- Klamath Center for Conservation ResearchOrleansCaliforniaUSA
| | - Reed F. Noss
- Florida Institute for Conservation ScienceMelroseFloridaUSA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Allan JR, Possingham HP, Atkinson SC, Waldron A, Di Marco M, Butchart SHM, Adams VM, Kissling WD, Worsdell T, Sandbrook C, Gibbon G, Kumar K, Mehta P, Maron M, Williams BA, Jones KR, Wintle BA, Reside AE, Watson JEM. The minimum land area requiring conservation attention to safeguard biodiversity. Science 2022; 376:1094-1101. [PMID: 35653463 DOI: 10.1126/science.abl9127] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 17.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
Ambitious conservation efforts are needed to stop the global biodiversity crisis. In this study, we estimate the minimum land area to secure important biodiversity areas, ecologically intact areas, and optimal locations for representation of species ranges and ecoregions. We discover that at least 64 million square kilometers (44% of terrestrial area) would require conservation attention (ranging from protected areas to land-use policies) to meet this goal. More than 1.8 billion people live on these lands, so responses that promote autonomy, self-determination, equity, and sustainable management for safeguarding biodiversity are essential. Spatially explicit land-use scenarios suggest that 1.3 million square kilometers of this land is at risk of being converted for intensive human land uses by 2030, which requires immediate attention. However, a sevenfold difference exists between the amount of habitat converted in optimistic and pessimistic land-use scenarios, highlighting an opportunity to avert this crisis. Appropriate targets in the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework to encourage conservation of the identified land would contribute substantially to safeguarding biodiversity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- James R Allan
- Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics (IBED), University of Amsterdam, 1090 GE Amsterdam, Netherlands.,Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia
| | - Hugh P Possingham
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia.,The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA 22203, USA
| | - Scott C Atkinson
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia.,United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), New York, NY, USA
| | - Anthony Waldron
- Cambridge Conservation Initiative, Department of Zoology, Cambridge University, Cambridge CB2 3QZ, UK.,Faculty of Science and Engineering ARU, Cambridge CB1 1PT, UK
| | - Moreno Di Marco
- Department of Biology and Biotechnologies, Sapienza University of Rome, I-00185 Rome, Italy.,School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia
| | - Stuart H M Butchart
- BirdLife International, Cambridge CB2 3QZ, UK.,Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK
| | - Vanessa M Adams
- School of Geography, Planning, and Spatial Sciences, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS 7001, Australia
| | - W Daniel Kissling
- Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics (IBED), University of Amsterdam, 1090 GE Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | | | - Chris Sandbrook
- Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3QZ, UK
| | - Gwili Gibbon
- Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, School of Anthropology and Conservation, University of Kent, Canterbury CT2 7NR, UK
| | - Kundan Kumar
- Rights and Resources Initiative, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Piyush Mehta
- Department of Geography and Spatial Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA
| | - Martine Maron
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia.,School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia
| | - Brooke A Williams
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia.,School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia
| | | | - Brendan A Wintle
- School of BioSciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - April E Reside
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia.,School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia
| | - James E M Watson
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia.,School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Jhala Y, Saini S, Kumar S, Qureshi Q. Distribution, Status, and Conservation of the Indian Peninsular Wolf. Front Ecol Evol 2022. [DOI: 10.3389/fevo.2022.814966] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
An understanding of the distribution range and status of a species is paramount for its conservation. We used photo captures from 26,838 camera traps deployed over 121,337 km2 along with data from radio-telemetry, published, and authenticated wolf sightings to infer wolf locations. A total of 3,324 presence locations were obtained and after accounting for spatial redundancy 574 locations were used for modeling in maximum entropy framework (MaxEnt) with ecologically relevant covariates to infer potentially occupied habitats. Relationships of wolf occurrence with eco-geographical variables were interpreted based on response curves. Wolves avoided dense wet forests, human disturbances beyond a threshold, arid deserts, and areas with high top-carnivore density, but occurred in semi-arid scrub, grassland, open forests systems with moderate winter temperatures. The potential habitat that can support wolf occupancy was 364,425 km2 with the largest wolf habitat available in western India (Saurashtra-Kachchh-Thar landscape 102,837 km2). Wolf habitats across all landscapes were connected with no barriers to dispersal. Breeding packs likely occurred in ≈89,000 km2. Using an average territory size of 188 (SE 23) km2, India could potentially hold 423–540 wolf packs. With an average adult pack size of 3 (SE 0.24), and a wolf density < 1 per 100 km2 in occupied but non-breeding habitats, a wolf population of 3,170 (SE range 2,568–3,847) adults was estimated. The states of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Gujarat, and Maharashtra were major strongholds for the species. Within forested landscapes, wolves tended to avoid top-carnivores but were more sympatric with leopards and dhole compared to tigers and lions. This ancient wolf lineage is threatened by habitat loss to development, hybridization with dogs, fast-traffic roads, diseases, and severe persecution by pastoralists. Their status is as precarious as that of the tiger, yet focused conservation efforts are lacking. Breeding habitat patches within each landscape identified in this study should be made safe from human persecution and free of feral dogs so as to permit packs to breed and successfully recruit individuals to ensure wolf persistence in the larger landscape for the long term.
Collapse
|
8
|
Ramírez-Delgado JP, Di Marco M, Watson JEM, Johnson CJ, Rondinini C, Corredor Llano X, Arias M, Venter O. Matrix condition mediates the effects of habitat fragmentation on species extinction risk. Nat Commun 2022; 13:595. [PMID: 35105881 PMCID: PMC8807630 DOI: 10.1038/s41467-022-28270-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/07/2021] [Accepted: 01/18/2022] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
Habitat loss is the leading cause of the global decline in biodiversity, but the influence of human pressure within the matrix surrounding habitat fragments remains poorly understood. Here, we measure the relationship between fragmentation (the degree of fragmentation and the degree of patch isolation), matrix condition (measured as the extent of high human footprint levels), and the change in extinction risk of 4,426 terrestrial mammals. We find that the degree of fragmentation is strongly associated with changes in extinction risk, with higher predictive importance than life-history traits and human pressure variables. Importantly, we discover that fragmentation and the matrix condition are stronger predictors of risk than habitat loss and habitat amount. Moreover, the importance of fragmentation increases with an increasing deterioration of the matrix condition. These findings suggest that restoration of the habitat matrix may be an important conservation action for mitigating the negative effects of fragmentation on biodiversity. The influence of human pressure within the matrix surrounding habitat fragments remains poorly understood. This study measures the relationship between habitat fragmentation, matrix condition and the change in extinction risk of 4,426 terrestrial mammals, finding that fragmentation and matrix condition are stronger predictors of risk than habitat loss and habitat amount.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Juan Pablo Ramírez-Delgado
- Natural Resources and Environmental Studies Institute, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, V2N 4Z9, Canada.
| | - Moreno Di Marco
- Department of Biology and Biotechnologies, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185, Rome, Italy
| | - James E M Watson
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Queensland, St Lucia, 4072, Australia.,Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, 4072, QLD, Australia
| | - Chris J Johnson
- Natural Resources and Environmental Studies Institute, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, V2N 4Z9, Canada
| | - Carlo Rondinini
- Global Mammal Assessment Program, Department of Biology and Biotechnologies, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, 00185, Italy
| | - Xavier Corredor Llano
- Natural Resources and Environmental Studies Institute, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, V2N 4Z9, Canada
| | - Miguel Arias
- Natural Resources and Environmental Studies Institute, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, V2N 4Z9, Canada
| | - Oscar Venter
- Natural Resources and Environmental Studies Institute, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, V2N 4Z9, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Kearney SG, Carwardine J, Reside AE, Adams VM, Nelson R, Coggan A, Spindler R, Watson JEM. Saving species beyond the protected area fence: Threats must be managed across multiple land tenure types to secure Australia's endangered species. CONSERVATION SCIENCE AND PRACTICE 2022. [DOI: 10.1111/csp2.617] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Stephen G. Kearney
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences University of Queensland Brisbane Queensland Australia
| | | | - April E. Reside
- School of Biological Science University of Queensland Brisbane Queensland Australia
| | - Vanessa M. Adams
- School of Technology, Environments and Design University of Tasmania Hobart Tasmania Australia
| | - Rebecca Nelson
- University of Melbourne Law School Melbourne Victoria Australia
| | | | | | - James E. M. Watson
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences University of Queensland Brisbane Queensland Australia
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Lemieux CJ, Beazley KF, MacKinnon D, Wright P, Kraus D, Pither R, Crawford L, Jacob AL, Hilty J. Transformational changes for achieving the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework ecological connectivity goals. Facets (Ott) 2022. [DOI: 10.1139/facets-2022-0003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
The first draft of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) includes an unprecedented call for states that have ratified the treaty (Parties) to implement measures to maintain and enhance ecological connectivity as urgent actions to abate further biodiversity loss and ecosystem decline. Considering the challenges that lie ahead for Parties to the CBD, we highlight the ways in which effective and equitable connectivity conservation can be achieved through four transformative changes, including: (1) mainstreaming connectivity retention and restoration within biodiversity conservation sector and influencing sectors (e.g., transportation, energy, agriculture, forestry); (2) mainstreaming financial resources and incentives to support effective implementation; (3) fostering collaboration with a focus on cross-sector collective action; and (4) investing in diverse forms of knowledge (co-)production and management in support of adaptive governance. We detail 15 key actions that can be used to support the implementation of these transformative changes. While ambitious, the transformative changes and associated key actions recommended in this perspective will need to be put in place with unprecedented urgency, coherency, and coordination if Parties to the CBD truly aspire to achieve the goals and targets of the forthcoming Post-2020 GBF in this new decade of biodiversity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher J. Lemieux
- Canadian Council on Ecological Areas (CCEA)/Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, ON N2L 3C5, Canada
| | - Karen F. Beazley
- School for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS B3H 4R2, Canada
| | - David MacKinnon
- Protected Areas and Ecosystems Branch, Nova Scotia Environment, Halifax, NS B3J 2P8, Canada
| | - Pamela Wright
- Ecosystem Science and Management, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, BC V2N 4Z9, Canada
| | - Daniel Kraus
- Wildlife Conservation Society Canada, Toronto, ON M5S 3A7, Canada
| | - Richard Pither
- Environment and Climate Change Canada, Gatineau, QC K1A 0H3, Canada
| | - Lindsay Crawford
- Environment and Climate Change Canada, Gatineau, QC K1A 0H3, Canada
| | - Aerin L. Jacob
- Ecosystem Science and Management, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, BC V2N 4Z9, Canada
- Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative, Canmore, AB T1W 1P6, Canada
| | - Jodi Hilty
- Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative, Canmore, AB T1W 1P6, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Shiono T, Kubota Y, Kusumoto B. Area-based conservation planning in Japan: The importance of OECMs in the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. Glob Ecol Conserv 2021. [DOI: 10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01783] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/27/2022] Open
|
12
|
Nicholson E, Watermeyer KE, Rowland JA, Sato CF, Stevenson SL, Andrade A, Brooks TM, Burgess ND, Cheng ST, Grantham HS, Hill SL, Keith DA, Maron M, Metzke D, Murray NJ, Nelson CR, Obura D, Plumptre A, Skowno AL, Watson JEM. Scientific foundations for an ecosystem goal, milestones and indicators for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. Nat Ecol Evol 2021; 5:1338-1349. [PMID: 34400825 DOI: 10.1038/s41559-021-01538-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/19/2021] [Accepted: 07/15/2021] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
Despite substantial conservation efforts, the loss of ecosystems continues globally, along with related declines in species and nature's contributions to people. An effective ecosystem goal, supported by clear milestones, targets and indicators, is urgently needed for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework and beyond to support biodiversity conservation, the UN Sustainable Development Goals and efforts to abate climate change. Here, we describe the scientific foundations for an ecosystem goal and milestones, founded on a theory of change, and review available indicators to measure progress. An ecosystem goal should include three core components: area, integrity and risk of collapse. Targets-the actions that are necessary for the goals to be met-should address the pathways to ecosystem loss and recovery, including safeguarding remnants of threatened ecosystems, restoring their area and integrity to reduce risk of collapse and retaining intact areas. Multiple indicators are needed to capture the different dimensions of ecosystem area, integrity and risk of collapse across all ecosystem types, and should be selected for their fitness for purpose and relevance to goal components. Science-based goals, supported by well-formulated action targets and fit-for-purpose indicators, will provide the best foundation for reversing biodiversity loss and sustaining human well-being.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emily Nicholson
- Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia. .,IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management, Gland, Switzerland.
| | - Kate E Watermeyer
- Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia
| | - Jessica A Rowland
- Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia
| | - Chloe F Sato
- Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia
| | - Simone L Stevenson
- Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia
| | - Angela Andrade
- IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management, Gland, Switzerland.,Conservación Internacional, Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia
| | - Thomas M Brooks
- IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.,World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF), University of The Philippines, Los Baños, The Philippines.,Institute for Marine & Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
| | - Neil D Burgess
- UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), Cambridge, UK.,Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Climate, GLOBE Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Su-Ting Cheng
- School of Forestry & Resource Conservation, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
| | - Hedley S Grantham
- Wildlife Conservation Society, Global Conservation Program, New York, NY, USA
| | - Samantha L Hill
- UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), Cambridge, UK
| | - David A Keith
- IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management, Gland, Switzerland.,Centre for Ecosystem Science, University of NSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.,NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment, Hurstville, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Martine Maron
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Daniel Metzke
- Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Potsdam, Germany
| | - Nicholas J Murray
- College of Science and Engineering, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia
| | - Cara R Nelson
- IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management, Gland, Switzerland.,Department of Ecosystem and Conservation Sciences, University of Montana, Missoula, MT, USA
| | | | - Andy Plumptre
- Key Biodiversity Area Secretariat, BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK
| | - Andrew L Skowno
- South African National Biodiversity Institute, Kirstenbosch Research Centre, Cape Town, South Africa.,Department of Biological Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
| | - James E M Watson
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Pressey RL, Visconti P, McKinnon MC, Gurney GG, Barnes MD, Glew L, Maron M. The mismeasure of conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 2021; 36:808-821. [PMID: 34303527 DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2021.06.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/16/2020] [Revised: 06/15/2021] [Accepted: 06/17/2021] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
One of the basic purposes of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation interventions is to achieve conservation impact, the sum of avoided biodiversity loss and promoted recovery relative to outcomes without protection. In the context of the Convention on Biological Diversity's negotiations on the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, we find that targets for area-based interventions are framed overwhelmingly with measures that fail to inform decision-makers about impact and that risk diverting limited resources away from achieving it. We show that predicting impact in space and time is feasible and can provide the basis for global guidance for jurisdictions to develop targets for conservation impact and shift investment priorities to areas where impact can be most effectively achieved.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert L Pressey
- Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia.
| | - Piero Visconti
- International Institute for Applied System Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria
| | | | - Georgina G Gurney
- Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
| | - Megan D Barnes
- Centre for Environmental Economics and Policy, School of Agriculture and Environment, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia; University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI, USA
| | | | - Martine Maron
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences & Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Maron M, Juffe‐Bignoli D, Krueger L, Kiesecker J, Kümpel NF, ten Kate K, Milner‐Gulland E, Arlidge WNS, Booth H, Bull JW, Starkey M, Ekstrom JM, Strassburg B, Verburg PH, Watson JEM. Setting robust biodiversity goals. Conserv Lett 2021. [DOI: 10.1111/conl.12816] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/10/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Martine Maron
- The University of Queensland Centre for Biodiversity & Conservation Science and School of Earth and Environmental Science Brisbane Queensland Australia
| | - Diego Juffe‐Bignoli
- UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP‐WCMC) Cambridge UK
- Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, School of Anthropology and Conservation University of Kent Kent UK
| | | | | | | | | | | | - William N. S. Arlidge
- Department of Zoology University of Oxford Oxford UK
- Department of Biology and Ecology of Fishes Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries Berlin Germany
- Faculty of Life Sciences Albrecht Daniel Thaer Institute of Agricultural and Horticultural Sciences, Humboldt‐Universität zu Berlin Berlin Germany
| | - Hollie Booth
- Department of Zoology University of Oxford Oxford UK
- Wildlife Conservation Society Global Conservation Program Bronx New York USA
| | - Joseph W. Bull
- Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, School of Anthropology and Conservation University of Kent Kent UK
| | | | | | - Bernardo Strassburg
- Sustainability Laboratory, Department of Geography and the Environment Pontifícia Universidade Católica Rio de Janeiro Brazil
| | - Peter H. Verburg
- Institute for Environmental Studies Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Amsterdam The Netherlands
- Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL Birmensdorf Switzerland
| | - James E. M. Watson
- Wildlife Conservation Society Global Conservation Program Bronx New York USA
- School of Earth and Environmental Science The University of Queensland Brisbane Queensland Australia
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Anthropogenic modification of forests means only 40% of remaining forests have high ecosystem integrity. Nat Commun 2020; 11:5978. [PMID: 33293507 PMCID: PMC7723057 DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-19493-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 78] [Impact Index Per Article: 19.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/18/2020] [Accepted: 10/13/2020] [Indexed: 11/08/2022] Open
Abstract
Many global environmental agendas, including halting biodiversity loss, reversing land degradation, and limiting climate change, depend upon retaining forests with high ecological integrity, yet the scale and degree of forest modification remain poorly quantified and mapped. By integrating data on observed and inferred human pressures and an index of lost connectivity, we generate a globally consistent, continuous index of forest condition as determined by the degree of anthropogenic modification. Globally, only 17.4 million km2 of forest (40.5%) has high landscape-level integrity (mostly found in Canada, Russia, the Amazon, Central Africa, and New Guinea) and only 27% of this area is found in nationally designated protected areas. Of the forest inside protected areas, only 56% has high landscape-level integrity. Ambitious policies that prioritize the retention of forest integrity, especially in the most intact areas, are now urgently needed alongside current efforts aimed at halting deforestation and restoring the integrity of forests globally. Mapping and quantifying degree of forest modification is critical to conserve and manage forests. Here the authors propose a new quantitative metric for landscape integrity and apply it to a global forest map, showing that less than half of the world’s forest cover has high integrity, most of which is outside nationally designed protected areas.
Collapse
|
16
|
Global priority areas for ecosystem restoration. Nature 2020; 586:724-729. [DOI: 10.1038/s41586-020-2784-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 235] [Impact Index Per Article: 58.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/14/2019] [Accepted: 09/08/2020] [Indexed: 01/28/2023]
|
17
|
Maxwell SL, Cazalis V, Dudley N, Hoffmann M, Rodrigues ASL, Stolton S, Visconti P, Woodley S, Kingston N, Lewis E, Maron M, Strassburg BBN, Wenger A, Jonas HD, Venter O, Watson JEM. Area-based conservation in the twenty-first century. Nature 2020; 586:217-227. [PMID: 33028996 DOI: 10.1038/s41586-020-2773-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 190] [Impact Index Per Article: 47.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/13/2019] [Accepted: 08/20/2020] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
Humanity will soon define a new era for nature-one that seeks to transform decades of underwhelming responses to the global biodiversity crisis. Area-based conservation efforts, which include both protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, are likely to extend and diversify. However, persistent shortfalls in ecological representation and management effectiveness diminish the potential role of area-based conservation in stemming biodiversity loss. Here we show how the expansion of protected areas by national governments since 2010 has had limited success in increasing the coverage across different elements of biodiversity (ecoregions, 12,056 threatened species, 'Key Biodiversity Areas' and wilderness areas) and ecosystem services (productive fisheries, and carbon services on land and sea). To be more successful after 2020, area-based conservation must contribute more effectively to meeting global biodiversity goals-ranging from preventing extinctions to retaining the most-intact ecosystems-and must better collaborate with the many Indigenous peoples, community groups and private initiatives that are central to the successful conservation of biodiversity. The long-term success of area-based conservation requires parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity to secure adequate financing, plan for climate change and make biodiversity conservation a far stronger part of land, water and sea management policies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sean L Maxwell
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia.
| | - Victor Cazalis
- CEFE, Univ Montpellier, CNRS, EPHE, IRD, Univ Paul Valéry Montpellier 3, Montpellier, France
| | - Nigel Dudley
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia.,Equilibrium Research, Bristol, UK
| | - Michael Hoffmann
- Conservation and Policy, Zoological Society of London, London, UK
| | - Ana S L Rodrigues
- CEFE, Univ Montpellier, CNRS, EPHE, IRD, Univ Paul Valéry Montpellier 3, Montpellier, France
| | | | - Piero Visconti
- Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, London, UK.,Centre for Biodiversity and Environment Research, University College London, London, UK.,International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria
| | - Stephen Woodley
- World Commission on Protected Areas, International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland
| | - Naomi Kingston
- UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), Cambridge, UK
| | - Edward Lewis
- UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), Cambridge, UK
| | - Martine Maron
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
| | - Bernardo B N Strassburg
- Rio Conservation and Sustainability Science Centre, Department of Geography and the Environment, Pontifícia Universidade Católica, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.,International Institute for Sustainability, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.,Programa de Pós Graduacão em Ecologia, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
| | - Amelia Wenger
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia.,Global Marine Program, Wildlife Conservation Society, New York, NY, USA
| | - Harry D Jonas
- World Commission on Protected Areas, International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland.,Future Law, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia
| | - Oscar Venter
- Ecosystem Science and Management, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, British Columbia, Canada
| | - James E M Watson
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia.,Global Conservation Program, Wildlife Conservation Society, New York, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Williams BA, Venter O, Allan JR, Atkinson SC, Rehbein JA, Ward M, Di Marco M, Grantham HS, Ervin J, Goetz SJ, Hansen AJ, Jantz P, Pillay R, Rodríguez-Buriticá S, Supples C, Virnig AL, Watson JE. Change in Terrestrial Human Footprint Drives Continued Loss of Intact Ecosystems. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2020. [DOI: 10.1016/j.oneear.2020.08.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/21/2023]
|
19
|
Riggio J, Baillie JEM, Brumby S, Ellis E, Kennedy CM, Oakleaf JR, Tait A, Tepe T, Theobald DM, Venter O, Watson JEM, Jacobson AP. Global human influence maps reveal clear opportunities in conserving Earth's remaining intact terrestrial ecosystems. GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY 2020; 26:4344-4356. [PMID: 32500604 PMCID: PMC7383735 DOI: 10.1111/gcb.15109] [Citation(s) in RCA: 35] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/17/2019] [Accepted: 02/28/2020] [Indexed: 05/05/2023]
Abstract
Leading up to the Convention on Biological Diversity Conference of the Parties 15, there is momentum around setting bold conservation targets. Yet, it remains unclear how much of Earth's land area remains without significant human influence and where this land is located. We compare four recent global maps of human influences across Earth's land, Anthromes, Global Human Modification, Human Footprint and Low Impact Areas, to answer these questions. Despite using various methodologies and data, these different spatial assessments independently estimate similar percentages of the Earth's terrestrial surface as having very low (20%-34%) and low (48%-56%) human influence. Three out of four spatial assessments agree on 46% of the non-permanent ice- or snow-covered land as having low human influence. However, much of the very low and low influence portions of the planet are comprised of cold (e.g., boreal forests, montane grasslands and tundra) or arid (e.g., deserts) landscapes. Only four biomes (boreal forests, deserts, temperate coniferous forests and tundra) have a majority of datasets agreeing that at least half of their area has very low human influence. More concerning, <1% of temperate grasslands, tropical coniferous forests and tropical dry forests have very low human influence across most datasets, and tropical grasslands, mangroves and montane grasslands also have <1% of land identified as very low influence across all datasets. These findings suggest that about half of Earth's terrestrial surface has relatively low human influence and offers opportunities for proactive conservation actions to retain the last intact ecosystems on the planet. However, though the relative abundance of ecosystem areas with low human influence varies widely by biome, conserving these last intact areas should be a high priority before they are completely lost.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jason Riggio
- National Geographic SocietyWashingtonDCUSA
- Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation BiologyMuseum of Wildlife and Fish BiologyUniversity of California, DavisDavisCAUSA
| | | | | | - Erle Ellis
- Department of Geography and Environmental SystemsUniversity of MarylandBaltimore CountyMDUSA
| | | | | | - Alex Tait
- National Geographic SocietyWashingtonDCUSA
| | | | | | - Oscar Venter
- Natural Resource and Environmental Studies InstituteUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaPrince GeorgeBCCanada
| | - James E. M. Watson
- School of Earth and Environmental ScienceThe University of QueenslandBrisbaneQldAustralia
- Global ConservationWildlife Conservation SocietyBronxNYUSA
| | - Andrew P. Jacobson
- National Geographic SocietyWashingtonDCUSA
- Department of Environment and SustainabilityCatawba CollegeSalisburyNCUSA
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Effectiveness of private land conservation areas in maintaining natural land cover and biodiversity intactness. Glob Ecol Conserv 2020. [DOI: 10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e00935] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
|
21
|
Utami NWF, Wirawan IGP, Firn J, Kepakisan ANK, Kusdyana IPGA, Nicol S, Carwardine J. Prioritizing management strategies to achieve multiple outcomes in a globally significant Indonesian protected area. CONSERVATION SCIENCE AND PRACTICE 2020. [DOI: 10.1111/csp2.157] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/27/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Jennifer Firn
- Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Science and Engineering Faculty Brisbane Queensland Australia
| | | | | | - Sam Nicol
- CSIRO Land and Water Brisbane Queensland Australia
| | | |
Collapse
|
22
|
Buschke F, Brownlie S. Reduced ecological resilience jeopardizes zero loss of biodiversity using the mitigation hierarchy. Nat Ecol Evol 2020; 4:815-819. [PMID: 32251380 DOI: 10.1038/s41559-020-1177-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/27/2019] [Accepted: 03/11/2020] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
One proposal for the Convention on Biological Diversity's post-2020 strategic plan is 'zero loss' of natural habitats. However, the feasibility of zero loss was questioned during the Trondheim Conference for Biodiversity, and it was suggested that biodiversity losses are instead balanced by compensatory efforts (that is, 'no net loss'). The focus on net outcomes is echoed by separate calls for a global mitigation hierarchy to deliver no net biodiversity loss and accommodate both conservation and development goals. Here we show that 'no net loss' is not the same as 'zero loss'. We use a delayed differential model of nonlinear habitat dynamics to demonstrate how applying the mitigation hierarchy for net biodiversity outcomes will lead to biodiversity declines by midcentury. Delayed compensation of human impacts reduces ecological resilience and causes prolonged biodiversity losses. These effects are greatest when impacts are large and compensation delays are long. Our results support the use of fixed targets, rather than net outcomes, as part of the post-2020 biodiversity framework.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Falko Buschke
- Centre for Environmental Management (IB 67), University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa. .,Section for Animal Ecology, Global Change and Sustainable Development, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
| | | |
Collapse
|
23
|
Buotte PC, Law BE, Ripple WJ, Berner LT. Carbon sequestration and biodiversity co-benefits of preserving forests in the western United States. ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS : A PUBLICATION OF THE ECOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA 2020; 30:e02039. [PMID: 31802566 PMCID: PMC7078986 DOI: 10.1002/eap.2039] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/04/2019] [Revised: 10/10/2019] [Accepted: 10/21/2019] [Indexed: 06/02/2023]
Abstract
Forest carbon sequestration via forest preservation can be a viable climate change mitigation strategy. Here, we identify forests in the western conterminous United States with high potential carbon sequestration and low vulnerability to future drought and fire, as simulated using the Community Land Model and two high carbon emission scenario (RCP 8.5) climate models. High-productivity, low-vulnerability forests have the potential to sequester up to 5,450 Tg CO2 equivalent (1,485 Tg C) by 2099, which is up to 20% of the global mitigation potential previously identified for all temperate and boreal forests, or up to ~6 yr of current regional fossil fuel emissions. Additionally, these forests currently have high above- and belowground carbon density, high tree species richness, and a high proportion of critical habitat for endangered vertebrate species, indicating a strong potential to support biodiversity into the future and promote ecosystem resilience to climate change. We stress that some forest lands have low carbon sequestration potential but high biodiversity, underscoring the need to consider multiple criteria when designing a land preservation portfolio. Our work demonstrates how process models and ecological criteria can be used to prioritize landscape preservation for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and preserving biodiversity in a rapidly changing climate.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Polly C Buotte
- Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University, 321 Richardson Hall, Corvallis, Oregon, 97331 , USA
| | - Beverly E Law
- Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University, 321 Richardson Hall, Corvallis, Oregon, 97331 , USA
| | - William J Ripple
- Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University, 321 Richardson Hall, Corvallis, Oregon, 97331 , USA
| | - Logan T Berner
- EcoSpatial Services L.L.C., 2498 North Oakmont Drive, Flagstaff, Arizona, 86004, USA
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
|
25
|
|
26
|
Global no net loss of natural ecosystems. Nat Ecol Evol 2019; 4:46-49. [DOI: 10.1038/s41559-019-1067-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/10/2019] [Accepted: 11/19/2019] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
|
27
|
Simmonds JS, Reside AE, Stone Z, Walsh JC, Ward MS, Maron M. Vulnerable species and ecosystems are falling through the cracks of environmental impact assessments. Conserv Lett 2019. [DOI: 10.1111/conl.12694] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Jeremy S. Simmonds
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science The University of Queensland St Lucia Australia
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences The University of Queensland St Lucia Australia
| | - April E. Reside
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science The University of Queensland St Lucia Australia
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences The University of Queensland St Lucia Australia
| | - Zoe Stone
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science The University of Queensland St Lucia Australia
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences The University of Queensland St Lucia Australia
| | - Jessica C. Walsh
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science The University of Queensland St Lucia Australia
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences The University of Queensland St Lucia Australia
- School of Biological Sciences Monash University Clayton Australia
| | - Michelle S. Ward
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science The University of Queensland St Lucia Australia
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences The University of Queensland St Lucia Australia
| | - Martine Maron
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science The University of Queensland St Lucia Australia
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences The University of Queensland St Lucia Australia
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Simmonds JS, Sonter LJ, Watson JE, Bennun L, Costa HM, Dutson G, Edwards S, Grantham H, Griffiths VF, Jones JP, Kiesecker J, Possingham HP, Puydarrieux P, Quétier F, Rainer H, Rainey H, Roe D, Savy CE, Souquet M, ten Kate K, Victurine R, Hase A, Maron M. Moving from biodiversity offsets to a target‐based approach for ecological compensation. Conserv Lett 2019. [DOI: 10.1111/conl.12695] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/01/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Jeremy S. Simmonds
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation ScienceThe University of Queensland St Lucia Australia
- School of Earth and Environmental SciencesThe University of Queensland St Lucia Australia
| | - Laura J. Sonter
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation ScienceThe University of Queensland St Lucia Australia
- School of Earth and Environmental SciencesThe University of Queensland St Lucia Australia
| | - James E.M. Watson
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation ScienceThe University of Queensland St Lucia Australia
- School of Earth and Environmental SciencesThe University of Queensland St Lucia Australia
- Wildlife Conservation SocietyGlobal Conservation Program New York New York
| | - Leon Bennun
- The Biodiversity Consultancy Cambridge United Kingdom
- Conservation Science Group, Department of ZoologyUniversity of Cambridge Cambridge United Kingdom
| | - Hugo M. Costa
- Wildlife Conservation SocietyGlobal Conservation Program New York New York
| | - Guy Dutson
- The Biodiversity Consultancy Cambridge United Kingdom
| | - Stephen Edwards
- International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Gland Switzerland
| | - Hedley Grantham
- Wildlife Conservation SocietyGlobal Conservation Program New York New York
| | | | - Julia P.G. Jones
- College of Environmental Sciences and EngineeringBangor University Bangor United Kingdom
| | - Joseph Kiesecker
- Global Conservation Lands ProgramThe Nature Conservancy Boulder Colorado
| | - Hugh P. Possingham
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation ScienceThe University of Queensland St Lucia Australia
- The Nature Conservancy Arlington Virginia
| | | | | | | | - Hugo Rainey
- Wildlife Conservation SocietyGlobal Conservation Program New York New York
| | - Dilys Roe
- International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) London United Kingdom
| | | | | | - Kerry ten Kate
- Forest Trends Washington, DC
- Forest Trends Hampshire United Kingdom
| | - Ray Victurine
- Wildlife Conservation SocietyGlobal Conservation Program New York New York
| | - Amrei Hase
- Forest Trends Washington, DC
- Forest Trends Cape Town South Africa
| | - Martine Maron
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation ScienceThe University of Queensland St Lucia Australia
- School of Earth and Environmental SciencesThe University of Queensland St Lucia Australia
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Beyer HL, Venter O, Grantham HS, Watson JE. Substantial losses in ecoregion intactness highlight urgency of globally coordinated action. Conserv Lett 2019. [DOI: 10.1111/conl.12692] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/08/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Hawthorne L. Beyer
- School of Biological SciencesUniversity of QueenslandSt. Lucia Queensland Australia
| | - Oscar Venter
- Natural Resource and Environmental Studies InstituteUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaPrince George British Columbia Canada
| | - Hedley S. Grantham
- Wildlife Conservation SocietyGlobal Conservation ProgramNew York New York USA
| | - James E.M. Watson
- Wildlife Conservation SocietyGlobal Conservation ProgramNew York New York USA
- School of Environmental and Earth SciencesUniversity of QueenslandSt. Lucia Queensland Australia
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Rowland JA, Bland LM, Keith DA, Juffe‐Bignoli D, Burgman MA, Etter A, Ferrer‐Paris JR, Miller RM, Skowno AL, Nicholson E. Ecosystem indices to support global biodiversity conservation. Conserv Lett 2019. [DOI: 10.1111/conl.12680] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Jessica A. Rowland
- Centre of Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental SciencesDeakin University Victoria Australia
| | - Lucie M. Bland
- Centre of Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental SciencesDeakin University Victoria Australia
| | - David A. Keith
- Centre for Ecosystem ScienceUniversity of NSW Sydney Australia
- New South Wales Department of PlanningIndustry and Environment
- IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management Gland Switzerland
| | - Diego Juffe‐Bignoli
- United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP‐WCMC) Cambridge UK
| | - Mark A. Burgman
- Centre for Environmental PolicyImperial College London London UK
| | - Andres Etter
- Departmento de Ecología y Territorio, Facultad de Estudios Ambientales y RuralesPontificia Universidad Javeriana Bogotá DC Colombia
| | | | | | - Andrew L. Skowno
- South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI)Kirstebosch Research Centre Cape Town South Africa
- Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of Cape Town Cape Town South Africa
| | - Emily Nicholson
- Centre of Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental SciencesDeakin University Victoria Australia
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
|
32
|
Jacobson AP, Riggio J, M Tait A, E M Baillie J. Global areas of low human impact ('Low Impact Areas') and fragmentation of the natural world. Sci Rep 2019; 9:14179. [PMID: 31578431 PMCID: PMC6775135 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-50558-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 51] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/07/2019] [Accepted: 09/13/2019] [Indexed: 11/08/2022] Open
Abstract
Habitat loss and fragmentation due to human activities is the leading cause of the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Protected areas are the primary response to this challenge and are the cornerstone of biodiversity conservation efforts. Roughly 15% of land is currently protected although there is momentum to dramatically raise protected area targets towards 50%. But, how much land remains in a natural state? We answer this critical question by using open-access, frequently updated data sets on terrestrial human impacts to create a new categorical map of global human influence ('Low Impact Areas') at a 1 km2 resolution. We found that 56% of the terrestrial surface, minus permanent ice and snow, currently has low human impact. This suggests that increased protected area targets could be met in areas minimally impacted by people, although there is substantial variation across ecoregions and biomes. While habitat loss is well documented, habitat fragmentation and differences in fragmentation rates between biomes has received little attention. Low Impact Areas uniquely enabled us to calculate global fragmentation rates across biomes, and we compared these to an idealized globe with no human-caused fragmentation. The land in Low Impact Areas is heavily fragmented, compromised by reduced patch size and core area, and exposed to edge effects. Tropical dry forests and temperate grasslands are the world's most impacted biomes. We demonstrate that when habitat fragmentation is considered in addition to habitat loss, the world's species, ecosystems and associated services are in worse condition than previously reported.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew P Jacobson
- National Geographic Society, Washington D.C., 20036, USA.
- Department of Environment and Sustainability, Catawba College, Salisbury, NC, 28144, USA.
- Nicholas School of the Environment, Box 90328, Duke University, Durham, NC, 27708, USA.
| | - Jason Riggio
- National Geographic Society, Washington D.C., 20036, USA
- Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology, University of California, Davis, California, 95616, USA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
33
|
Bacon E, Gannon P, Stephen S, Seyoum-Edjigu E, Schmidt M, Lang B, Sandwith T, Xin J, Arora S, Adham KN, Espinoza AJR, Qwathekana M, Prates APL, Shestakov A, Cooper D, Ervin J, Dias BFDS, Leles B, Attallah M, Mulongoy J, Gidda SB. Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 in the like-minded megadiverse countries. J Nat Conserv 2019. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jnc.2019.125723] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/26/2022]
|
34
|
Affiliation(s)
- J. S. Simmonds
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science; The University of Queensland; St Lucia QLD Australia
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences; The University of Queensland; St Lucia QLD Australia
| | - J. E. M. Watson
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science; The University of Queensland; St Lucia QLD Australia
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences; The University of Queensland; St Lucia QLD Australia
- Global Conservation Program; Wildlife Conservation Society; New York NY USA
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Affiliation(s)
- James E M Watson
- The University of Queensland, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia.,Global Conservation Program, Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, NY, USA
| | - Julia P G Jones
- College of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Heywood VH. Conserving plants within and beyond protected areas - still problematic and future uncertain. PLANT DIVERSITY 2019; 41:36-49. [PMID: 31193163 PMCID: PMC6520483 DOI: 10.1016/j.pld.2018.10.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/23/2018] [Revised: 10/15/2018] [Accepted: 10/17/2018] [Indexed: 05/16/2023]
Abstract
Against a background of continuing loss of biodiversity, it is argued that for the successful conservation of threatened plant species we need to ensure the more effective integration of the various conservation actions employed, clarify the wording of the CBD targets and provide clearer operational guidance as to how they are to be implemented and their implementation monitored. The role and effectiveness of protected areas in conserving biodiversity and in particular plant species in situ are discussed as are recent proposals for a massive increase of their extent. The need for much greater effort and investment in the conservation or protection of threatened species outside protected areas where most plant diversity occurs is highlighted. The difficulties involved in implementing effective in situ conservation of plant diversity both at an area- and species/population-based level are discussed. The widespread neglect of species recovery for plants is noted and the desirability of making a clearer distinction between species recovery and reintroduction is emphasized. Key messages from a global overview of species recovery are outlined and recommendations made, including the desirability of each country preparing a national species recovery strategy. The projected impacts of global change on protected areas and on species conservation and recovery, and ways of addressing them are discussed.
Collapse
|
37
|
Limits to the world's green water resources for food, feed, fiber, timber, and bioenergy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2019; 116:4893-4898. [PMID: 30804199 PMCID: PMC6421454 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1817380116] [Citation(s) in RCA: 62] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/01/2022] Open
Abstract
Precipitation over land partitions into runoff via surface water and groundwater (blue water) and evapotranspiration (green water). We expand the traditional debate on water scarcity, which solely focuses on blue water, by assessing green water scarcity. The current debate on water scarcity is heavily skewed, since it leaves unnoticed the bulk of water availability––which is green––and the bulk of water use––which is also green. Green water is the main source of water to produce food, feed, fiber, timber, and bioenergy. Thus, to understand how freshwater scarcity constrains the production of these vital goods, explicating and including (limits to) green water use is imperative. Green water––rainfall over land that eventually flows back to the atmosphere as evapotranspiration––is the main source of water to produce food, feed, fiber, timber, and bioenergy. To understand how freshwater scarcity constrains production of these goods, we need to consider limits to the green water footprint (WFg), the green water flow allocated to human society. However, research traditionally focuses on scarcity of blue water––groundwater and surface water. Here we expand the debate on water scarcity by considering green water scarcity (WSg). At 5 × 5 arc-minute spatial resolution, we quantify WFg and the maximum sustainable level to this footprint (WFg,m), while accounting for green water requirements to support biodiversity. We then estimate WSg per country as the ratio of the national aggregate WFg to the national aggregate WFg,m. We find that globally WFg amounts to 56% of WFg,m, and overshoots it in several places, for example in countries in Europe, Central America, the Middle East, and South Asia. The sustainably available green water flows in these countries are mostly or fully allocated to human activities (predominately agriculture and forestry), occasionally at the cost of green water flows earmarked for nature. By ignoring limits to the growing human WFg, we risk further loss of ecosystem values that depend on the remaining untouched green water flows. We emphasize that green water is a critical and limited resource that should explicitly be part of any assessment of water scarcity, food security, or bioenergy potential.
Collapse
|
38
|
The essential role of other effective area-based conservation measures in achieving big bold conservation targets. Glob Ecol Conserv 2018. [DOI: 10.1016/j.gecco.2018.e00424] [Citation(s) in RCA: 83] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
|