An official website of the United States government
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.
more »
« less
Areas of global importance for conserving terrestrial biodiversity, carbon and water
To meet the ambitious objectives of biodiversity and climate conventions, the international community requires clarity on how these objectives can be operationalized spatially and how multiple targets can be pursued concurrently. To support goal setting and the implementation of international strategies and action plans, spatial guidance is needed to identify which land areas have the potential to generate the greatest synergies between conserving biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people. Here we present results from a joint optimization that minimizes the number of threatened species, maximizes carbon retention and water quality regulation, and ranks terrestrial conservation priorities globally. We found that selecting the top-ranked 30% and 50% of terrestrial land area would conserve respectively 60.7% and 85.3% of the estimated total carbon stock and 66% and 89.8% of all clean water, in addition to meeting conservation targets for 57.9% and 79% of all species considered. Our data and prioritization further suggest that adequately conserving all species considered (vertebrates and plants) would require giving conservation attention to ~70% of the terrestrial land surface. If priority was given to biodiversity only, managing 30% of optimally located land area for conservation may be sufficient to meet conservation targets for 81.3% of the terrestrial plant and vertebrate species considered. Our results provide a global assessment of where land could be optimally managed for conservation. We discuss how such a spatial prioritization framework can support the implementation of the biodiversity and climate conventions.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1934790
- 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
-
-
Abstract Expanding the global protected area network is critical for addressing biodiversity declines and the climate crisis. However, how climate change will affect ecosystem representation within the protected area network remains unclear. Here we use spatial climate analogs to examine potential climate-driven shifts in terrestrial ecoregions and biomes under a +2 °C warming scenario and associated implications for achieving 30% area-based protection targets. We find that roughly half of land area will experience climate conditions that correspond with different ecoregions and nearly a quarter will experience climates from a different biome. Of the area projected to remain climatically stable, 46% is currently intact (low human modification). The area required to achieve protection targets in 87% of ecoregions exceeds the area that is intact, not protected, and projected to remain climatically stable within those ecoregions. Therefore, we propose that prioritization schemes will need to explicitly consider climate-driven changes in patterns of biodiversity.more » « less
-
Abstract Sustaining the organisms, ecosystems and processes that underpin human wellbeing is necessary to achieve sustainable development. Here we define critical natural assets as the natural and semi-natural ecosystems that provide 90% of the total current magnitude of 14 types of nature’s contributions to people (NCP), and we map the global locations of these critical natural assets at 2 km resolution. Critical natural assets for maintaining local-scale NCP (12 of the 14 NCP) account for 30% of total global land area and 24% of national territorial waters, while 44% of land area is required to also maintain two global-scale NCP (carbon storage and moisture recycling). These areas overlap substantially with cultural diversity (areas containing 96% of global languages) and biodiversity (covering area requirements for 73% of birds and 66% of mammals). At least 87% of the world’s population live in the areas benefitting from critical natural assets for local-scale NCP, while only 16% live on the lands containing these assets. Many of the NCP mapped here are left out of international agreements focused on conserving species or mitigating climate change, yet this analysis shows that explicitly prioritizing critical natural assets and the NCP they provide could simultaneously advance development, climate and conservation goals.more » « less
-
Protected areas are a critical tool for managing and ensuring the persistence of species biodiversity and land conservation. Their spatial extents are used to measure progress towards land protections by several international targets. However, governance type, management, and enforcement of these protected areas vary sub-nationally, and can influence the efficacy of the designation. Simultaneously, climatic conditions are coupled with species resilience, and changes in climate can be associated with shifts, expansions, and contractions of viable areas for habitat maintenance. Climate change is expected to change baseline climatic conditions globally and is likely to limit the benefits of terrestrial protected areas. Improved understanding of the relationship between governance, regional climate change, and protected areas can further enhance tracking of land cover change and inform protection strategies implemented across spatial scales. To aid in informed decision making at sub-national scales, we combine information on terrestrial sites in the World Database on Protected Areas, historic and future climate projections from CMIP6, and remotely sensed data on vegetation cover (NDVI). We leverage categorical differences in protected area management, as well as climate anomalies through time to explore their relationship to land cover change, and create additional tools for risk assessment that may be used in conjunction with local governance processesmore » « less
-
Abstract Recent international agreements have strengthened and expanded commitments to protect and restore native habitats for biodiversity protection (“area‐based biodiversity conservation”). Nevertheless, biodiversity conservation is hindered because how such commitments should be implemented has been strongly debated, which can lead to suboptimal habitat protection decisions. We argue that, despite the debates, there are three essential principles for area‐based biodiversity conservation. These principles are related to habitat geographic coverage, amount, and connectivity. They emerge from evidence that, while large areas of nature are important and must be protected, conservation or restoration of multiple small habitat patches is also critical for global conservation, particularly in regions with high land use. We contend that the many area‐based conservation initiatives expected in the coming decades should follow the principles we identify, regardless of ongoing debates. Considering the importance of biodiversity for maintenance of ecosystem services, we suggest that this would bring widespread societal benefits.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01528-7
