Meeting global commitments to conservation, climate, and sustainable development requires consideration of synergies and tradeoffs among targets. We evaluate the spatial congruence of ecosystems providing globally high levels of nature’s contributions to people, biodiversity, and areas with high development potential across several sectors. We find that conserving approximately half of global land area through protection or sustainable management could provide 90% of the current levels of ten of nature’s contributions to people and meet minimum representation targets for 26,709 terrestrial vertebrate species. This finding supports recent commitments by national governments under the Global Biodiversity Framework to conserve at least 30% of global lands and waters, and proposals to conserve half of the Earth. More than one-third of areas required for conserving nature’s contributions to people and species are also highly suitable for agriculture, renewable energy, oil and gas, mining, or urban expansion. This indicates potential conflicts among conservation, climate and development goals.
- Award ID(s):
- 1934790
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10294228
- Author(s) / Creator(s):
- ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; more »
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Nature Ecology & Evolution
- ISSN:
- 2397-334X
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
more » « less
Abstract -
more » « less
Abstract Land conservation and increased carbon uptake on land are fundamental to achieving the ambitious targets of the climate and biodiversity conventions. Yet, it remains largely unknown how such ambitions, along with an increasing demand for agricultural products, could drive landscape-scale changes and affect other key regulating nature’s contributions to people (NCP) that sustain land productivity outside conservation priority areas. By using an integrated, globally consistent modelling approach, we show that ambitious carbon-focused land restoration action and the enlargement of protected areas alone may be insufficient to reverse negative trends in landscape heterogeneity, pollination supply, and soil loss. However, we also find that these actions could be combined with dedicated interventions that support critical NCP and biodiversity conservation outside of protected areas. In particular, our models indicate that conserving at least 20% semi-natural habitat within farmed landscapes could primarily be achieved by spatially relocating cropland outside conservation priority areas, without additional carbon losses from land-use change, primary land conversion or reductions in agricultural productivity.
-
BACKGROUND Madagascar is one of the world’s foremost biodiversity hotspots. Its unique assemblage of plants, animals, and fungi—the majority of which evolved on the island and occur nowhere else—is both diverse and threatened. After human arrival, the island’s entire megafauna became extinct, and large portions of the current flora and fauna may be on track for a similar fate. Conditions for the long-term survival of many Malagasy species are not currently met because of multiple anthropogenic threats. ADVANCES We review the extinction risk and threats to biodiversity in Madagascar, using available international assessment data as well as a machine learning analysis to predict the extinction risks and threats to plant species lacking assessments. Our compilation of global International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List assessments shows that overexploitation alongside unsustainable agricultural practices affect 62.1 and 56.8% of vertebrate species, respectively, and each affects nearly 90% of all plant species. Other threats have a relatively minor effect today but are expected to increase in coming decades. Because only one-third (4652) of all Malagasy plant species have been formally assessed, we carried out a neural network analysis to predict the putative status and threats for 5887 unassessed species and to evaluate biases in current assessments. The percentage of plant species currently assessed as under threat is probably representative of actual numbers, except in the case of the ferns and lycophytes, where significantly more species are estimated to be threatened. We find that Madagascar is home to a disproportionately high number of Evolutionarily Distinct and Globally Endangered (EDGE) species. This further highlights the urgency for evidence-based and effective in situ and ex situ conservation. Despite these alarming statistics and trends, we find that 10.4% of Madagascar’s land area is protected and that the network of protected areas (PAs) covers at least part of the range of 97.1% of terrestrial and freshwater vertebrates with known distributions (amphibians, freshwater fishes, reptiles, birds, and mammal species combined) and 67.7% of plant species (for threatened species, the percentages are 97.7% for vertebrates and 79.6% for plants). Complementary to this, ex situ collections hold 18% of vertebrate species and 23% of plant species. Nonetheless, there are still many threatened species that do not occur within PAs and are absent from ex situ collections, including one amphibian, three mammals, and seven reptiles, as well as 559 plants and more yet to be assessed. Based on our updated vegetation map, we find that the current PA network provides good coverage of the major habitats, particularly mangroves, spiny forest, humid forest, and tapia, but subhumid forest and grassland-woodland mosaic have very low areas under protection (5.7 and 1.8% respectively). OUTLOOK Madagascar is among the world’s poorest countries, and its biodiversity is a key resource for the sustainable future and well-being of its citizens. Current threats to Madagascar’s biodiversity are deeply rooted in historical and present social contexts, including widespread inequalities. We therefore propose five opportunities for action to further conservation in a just and equitable way. First, investment in conservation and restoration must be based on evidence and effectiveness and be tailored to meet future challenges through inclusive solutions. Second, expanded biodiversity monitoring, including increased dataset production and availability, is key. Third, improving the effectiveness of existing PAs—for example through community engagement, training, and income opportunities—is more important than creating new ones. Fourth, conservation and restoration should not focus solely on the PA network but should also include the surrounding landscapes and communities. And finally, conservation actions must address the root causes of biodiversity loss, including poverty and food insecurity. In the eyes of much of the world, Madagascar’s biodiversity is a unique global asset that needs saving; in the daily lives of many of the Malagasy people, it is a rapidly diminishing source of the most basic needs for subsistence. Protecting Madagascar’s biodiversity while promoting social development for its people is a matter of the utmost urgency Visual representation of five key opportunities for conserving and restoring Madagascar’s rapidly declining biodiversity identified in this Review. The dashed lines point to representative vegetation types where these recommendations could have tangible effects, but the opportunities are applicable across Madagascar. ILLUSTRATION: INESSA VOETmore » « less
-
more » « less
ABSTRACT It is often claimed that conserving evolutionary history is more efficient than species‐based approaches for capturing the attributes of biodiversity that benefit people. This claim underpins academic analyses and recommendations about the distribution and prioritization of species and areas for conservation, but evolutionary history is rarely considered in practical conservation activities. One impediment to implementation is that arguments related to the human‐centric benefits of evolutionary history are often vague and the underlying mechanisms poorly explored. Herein we identify the arguments linking the prioritization of evolutionary history with benefits to people, and for each we explicate the purported mechanism, and evaluate its theoretical and empirical support. We find that, even after 25 years of academic research, the strength of evidence linking evolutionary history to human benefits is still fragile.
Most – but not all – arguments rely on the assumption that evolutionary history is a useful surrogate for phenotypic diversity. This surrogacy relationship in turn underlies additional arguments, particularly that, by capturing more phenotypic diversity, evolutionary history will preserve greater ecosystem functioning, capture more of the natural variety that humans prefer, and allow the maintenance of future benefits to humans. A surrogate relationship between evolutionary history and phenotypic diversity appears reasonable given theoretical and empirical results, but the strength of this relationship varies greatly. To the extent that evolutionary history captures unmeasured phenotypic diversity, maximizing the representation of evolutionary history should capture variation in species characteristics that are otherwise unknown, supporting some of the existing arguments. However, there is great variation in the strength and availability of evidence for benefits associated with protecting phenotypic diversity. There are many studies finding positive biodiversity–ecosystem functioning relationships, but little work exists on the maintenance of future benefits or the degree to which humans prefer sets of species with high phenotypic diversity or evolutionary history. Although several arguments link the protection of evolutionary history directly with the reduction of extinction rates, and with the production of relatively greater future biodiversity
via increased adaptation or diversification, there are few direct tests. Several of these putative benefits have mismatches between the relevant spatial scales for conservation actions and the spatial scales at which benefits to humans are realized. It will be important for future work to fill in some of these gaps through direct tests of the arguments we define here. -
Alaska is globally significant for its large tracts of intact habitats, which support complete wildlife assemblages and many of the world’s healthiest wild fisheries, while also storing significant amounts of carbon. Alaska has 1/3 of United States federal lands, the bulk of the United States’ intact and wild lands, and over half of the country’s total terrestrial ecosystem carbon on federal lands. Managing Alaska’s public lands for climate and biodiversity conservation purposes over the next 30–50 years would provide meaningful and irreplaceable climate benefits for the United States and globe. Doing so via a co-management approach with Alaska’s 229 federally recognized tribes is likely not only to be more effective but also more socially just. This paper lays out the scientific case for managing Alaska’s public lands for climate stabilization and resilience and addresses three primary questions: Why is Alaska globally meaningful for biodiversity and climate stabilization? Why should Alaska be considered as a key element of a climate stabilization and biodiversity conservation strategy for the United States? What do we need to know to better understand the role of Alaska given future scenarios? We summarize evidence for the role Alaska’s lands play in climate stabilization, as well as what is known about the role of land management in influencing carbon storage and sequestration. Finally, we summarize priority research that is needed to improve understanding of how policy and management prescriptions are likely to influence the role Alaska plays in global climate stabilization and adaptation.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01528-7
