1
|
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] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [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
|
2
|
Ward M, Saura S, Williams B, Ramírez-Delgado JP, Arafeh-Dalmau N, Allan JR, Venter O, Dubois G, Watson JEM. Just ten percent of the global terrestrial protected area network is structurally connected via intact land. Nat Commun 2020; 11:4563. [PMID: 32917882 PMCID: PMC7486388 DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-18457-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 37] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/31/2020] [Accepted: 08/24/2020] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
Abstract
Land free of direct anthropogenic disturbance is considered essential for achieving biodiversity conservation outcomes but is rapidly eroding. In response, many nations are increasing their protected area (PA) estates, but little consideration is given to the context of the surrounding landscape. This is despite the fact that structural connectivity between PAs is critical in a changing climate and mandated by international conservation targets. Using a high-resolution assessment of human pressure, we show that while ~40% of the terrestrial planet is intact, only 9.7% of Earth's terrestrial protected network can be considered structurally connected. On average, 11% of each country or territory's PA estate can be considered connected. As the global community commits to bolder action on abating biodiversity loss, placement of future PAs will be critical, as will an increased focus on landscape-scale habitat retention and restoration efforts to ensure those important areas set aside for conservation outcomes will remain (or become) connected.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michelle Ward
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, 4072, Australia.
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, 4072, Australia.
| | - Santiago Saura
- European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Via E. Fermi 2749, I-21027, Ispra, VA, Italy
- ETSI Montes, Forestal y del Medio Natural, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Ciudad Universitaria s/n, 28040, Madrid, Spain
| | - Brooke Williams
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, 4072, Australia
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, 4072, Australia
| | - Juan Pablo Ramírez-Delgado
- Natural Resources and Environmental Studies Institute, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, BC, Canada
| | - Nur Arafeh-Dalmau
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, 4072, Australia
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, 4072, Australia
| | - James R Allan
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, 4072, Australia
- Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics (IBED), University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 94240, 1090 GE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Oscar Venter
- Natural Resources and Environmental Studies Institute, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, BC, Canada
| | - Grégoire Dubois
- European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Via E. Fermi 2749, I-21027, Ispra, VA, Italy
| | - James E M Watson
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, 4072, Australia
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, 4072, Australia
- Wildlife Conservation Society, Global Conservation Program, Bronx, NY, 20460, USA
| |
Collapse
|