Global aridification is projected to intensify. Yet, our knowledge of its potential impacts on species ranges remains limited. Here, we investigate global aridity velocity and its overlap with three sectors (natural protected areas, agricultural areas, and urban areas) and terrestrial biodiversity in historical (1979 through 2016) and future periods (2050 through 2099), with and without considering vegetation physiological response to rising CO2. Both agricultural and urban areas showed a mean drying velocity in history, although the concurrent global aridity velocity was on average +0.05/+0.20 km/yr−1(no CO2effects/with CO2effects; “+” denoting wetting). Moreover, in drylands, the shifts of vegetation greenness isolines were found to be significantly coupled with the tracks of aridity velocity. In the future, the aridity velocity in natural protected areas is projected to change from wetting to drying across RCP (representative concentration pathway) 2.6, RCP6.0, and RCP8.5 scenarios. When accounting for spatial distribution of terrestrial taxa (including plants, mammals, birds, and amphibians), the global aridity velocity would be -0.15/-0.02 km/yr−1(“-” denoting drying; historical), -0.12/-0.15 km/yr−1(RCP2.6), -0.36/-0.10 km/yr−1(RCP6.0), and -0.75/-0.29 km/yr−1(RCP8.5), with amphibians particularly negatively impacted. Under all scenarios, aridity velocity shows much higher multidirectionality than temperature velocity, which is mainly poleward. These results suggest that aridification risks may significantly influence the distribution of terrestrial species besides warming impacts and further impact the effectiveness of current protected areas in future, especially under RCP8.5, which best matches historical CO2emissions [C. R. Schwalm
Dynamic priorities for conserving species
Protected areas serve to preserve the remaining biodiversity on our planet. However, today, only about 14% of terrestrial lands are protected, which will not be sufficient to support the planet’s fabric of life into the future ( 1 , 2 ). Humans continue to encroach on the habitats of many plants and animals. Simultaneously, the environmental conditions within protected areas are changing because of shifting climates, pollution, and invasive species, which all fundamentally alter ecosystems globally. To effectively conserve biodiversity, researchers and policy-makers must critically reexamine both the lands being preserved and the protection strategies being used in conservation. On pages 1094 and 1101 of this issue, Allan et al. ( 3 ) and Brennan et al. ( 4 ), respectively, evaluate the preservation capacity of today’s protected areas in different but complementary ways. Allan et al. estimate the minimum land area necessary to support today’s terrestrial biodiversity, whereas Brennan et al. identify the connectedness necessary to allow wildlife to successfully adapt to global change.
more »
« less
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10389176
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Science
- Volume:
- 376
- Issue:
- 6597
- ISSN:
- 0036-8075
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 1048 to 1049
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
more » « less
et al. ,Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 117, 19656–19657 (2020)]. -
null (Ed.)Archaeological and paleoecological evidence shows that by 10,000 BCE, all human societies employed varying degrees of ecologically transformative land use practices, including burning, hunting, species propagation, domestication, cultivation, and others that have left long-term legacies across the terrestrial biosphere. Yet, a lingering paradigm among natural scientists, conservationists, and policymakers is that human transformation of terrestrial nature is mostly recent and inherently destructive. Here, we use the most up-to-date, spatially explicit global reconstruction of historical human populations and land use to show that this paradigm is likely wrong. Even 12,000 y ago, nearly three quarters of Earth’s land was inhabited and therefore shaped by human societies, including more than 95% of temperate and 90% of tropical woodlands. Lands now characterized as “natural,” “intact,” and “wild” generally exhibit long histories of use, as do protected areas and Indigenous lands, and current global patterns of vertebrate species richness and key biodiversity areas are more strongly associated with past patterns of land use than with present ones in regional landscapes now characterized as natural. The current biodiversity crisis can seldom be explained by the loss of uninhabited wildlands, resulting instead from the appropriation, colonization, and intensifying use of the biodiverse cultural landscapes long shaped and sustained by prior societies. Recognizing this deep cultural connection with biodiversity will therefore be essential to resolve the crisis.more » « less
-
Translating information between the domains of systematics and conservation requires novel information management designs. Such designs should improve interactions across the trading zone between the domains, herein understood as the model according to which knowledge and uncertainty are productively translated in both directions (cf. Collins et al. 2019). Two commonly held attitudes stand in the way of designing a well-functioning systematics-to-conservation trading zone. On one side, there are calls to unify the knowledge signal produced by systematics, underpinned by the argument that such unification is a necessary precondition for conservation policy to be reliably expressed and enacted (e.g., Garnett et al. 2020). As a matter of legal scholarship, the argument for systematic unity by legislative necessity is principally false (Weiss 2003, MacNeil 2009, Chromá 2011), but perhaps effective enough as a strategy to win over audiences unsure about robust law-making practices in light of variable and uncertain knowledge. On the other side, there is an attitude that conservation cannot ever restrict the academic freedom of systematics as a scientific discipline (e.g., Raposo et al. 2017). This otherwise sound argument misses the mark in the context of designing a productive trading zone with conservation. The central interactional challenge is not whether the systematic knowledge can vary at a given time and/or evolve over time, but whether these signal dynamics are tractable in ways that actors can translate into robust maxims for conservation. Redesigning the trading zone should rest on the (historically validated) projection that systematics will continue to attract generations of inspired, productive researchers and broad-based societal support, frequently leading to protracted conflicts and dramatic shifts in how practioners in the field organize and identify organismal lineages subject to conservation. This confident outlook for systematics' future, in turn, should refocus the challenge of designing the trading zone as one of building better information services to model the concurrent conflicts and longer-term evolution of systematic knowledge. It would seem unreasonable to expect the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List Index to develop better data science models for the dynamics of systematic knowledge (cf. Hoffmann et al. 2011) than are operational in the most reputable information systems designed and used by domain experts (Burgin et al. 2018). The reasonable challenge from conservation to systematics is not to stop being a science but to be a better data science. In this paper, we will review advances in biodiversity data science in relation to representing and reasoning over changes in systematic knowledge with computational logic, i.e., modeling systematic intelligence (Franz et al. 2016). We stress-test this approach with a use case where rapid systematic signal change and high stakes for conservation action intersect, i.e., the Malagasy mouse lemurs ( Microcebus É. Geoffroy, 1834 sec. Schüßler et al. 2020), where the number of recognized species-level concepts has risen from 2 to 25 in the span of 38 years (1982–2020). As much as scientifically defensible, we extend our modeling approach to the level of individual published occurrence records, where the inability to do so sometimes reflects substandard practice but more importantly reveals systemic inadequacies in biodiversity data science or informational modeling. In the absence of shared, sound theoretical foundations to assess taxonomic congruence or incongruence across treatments, and in the absence of biodiversity data platforms capable of propagating logic-enabled, scalable occurrence-to-concept identification events to produce alternative and succeeding distribution maps, there is no robust way to provide a knowledge signal from systematics to conservation that is both consistent in its syntax and acccurate in its semantics, in the sense of accurately reflecting the variation and uncertainty that exists across multiple systematic perspectives. Translating this diagnosis into new designs for the trading zone is only one "half" of the solution, i.e., a technical advancement that then would need to be socially endorsed and incentivized by systematic and conservation communities motivated to elevate their collaborative interactions and trade robustly in inherently variable and uncertain information.more » « less
-
International collaboration between collections, aggregators, and researchers within the biodiversity community and beyond is becoming increasingly important in our efforts to support biodiversity, conservation and the life of the planet. The social, technical, logistical and financial aspects of an equitable biodiversity data landscape – from workforce training and mobilization of linked specimen data, to data integration, use and publication – must be considered globally and within the context of a growing biodiversity crisis. In recent years, several initiatives have outlined paths forward that describe how digital versions of natural history specimens can be extended and linked with associated data. In the United States, Webster (2017) presented the “extended specimen”, which was expanded upon by Lendemer et al. (2019) through the work of the Biodiversity Collections Network (BCoN). At the same time, a “digital specimen” concept was developed by DiSSCo in Europe (Hardisty 2020). Both the extended and digital specimen concepts depict a digital proxy of an analog natural history specimen, whose digital nature provides greater capabilities such as being machine-processable, linkages with associated data, globally accessible information-rich biodiversity data, improved tracking, attribution and annotation, additional opportunities for data use and cross-disciplinary collaborations forming the basis for FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reproducible) and equitable sharing of benefits worldwide, and innumerable other advantages, with slight variation in how an extended or digital specimen model would be executed. Recognizing the need to align the two closely-related concepts, and to provide a place for open discussion around various topics of the Digital Extended Specimen (DES; the current working name for the joined concepts), we initiated a virtual consultation on the discourse platform hosted by the Alliance for Biodiversity Knowledge through GBIF. This platform provided a forum for threaded discussions around topics related and relevant to the DES. The goals of the consultation align with the goals of the Alliance for Biodiversity Knowledge: expand participation in the process, build support for further collaboration, identify use cases, identify significant challenges and obstacles, and develop a comprehensive roadmap towards achieving the vision for a global specification for data integration. In early 2021, Phase 1 launched with five topics: Making FAIR data for specimens accessible; Extending, enriching and integrating data; Annotating specimens and other data; Data attribution; and Analyzing/mining specimen data for novel applications. This round of full discussion was productive and engaged dozens of contributors, with hundreds of posts and thousands of views. During Phase 1, several deeper, more technical, or additional topics of relevance were identified and formed the foundation for Phase 2 which began in May 2021 with the following topics: Robust access points and data infrastructure alignment; Persistent identifier (PID) scheme(s); Meeting legal/regulatory, ethical and sensitive data obligations; Workforce capacity development and inclusivity; Transactional mechanisms and provenance; and Partnerships to collaborate more effectively. In Phase 2 fruitful progress was made towards solutions to some of these complex functional and technical long-term goals. Simultaneously, our commitment to open participation was reinforced, through increased efforts to involve new voices from allied and complementary fields. Among a wealth of ideas expressed, the community highlighted the need for unambiguous persistent identifiers and a dedicated agent to assign them, support for a fully linked system that includes robust publishing mechanisms, strong support for social structures that build trustworthiness of the system, appropriate attribution of legacy and new work, a system that is inclusive, removed from colonial practices, and supportive of creative use of biodiversity data, building a truly global data infrastructure, balancing open access with legal obligations and ethical responsibilities, and the partnerships necessary for success. These two consultation periods, and the myriad activities surrounding the online discussion, produced a wide variety of perspectives, strategies, and approaches to converging the digital and extended specimen concepts, and progressing plans for the DES -- steps necessary to improve access to research-ready data to advance our understanding of the diversity and distribution of life. Discussions continue and we hope to include your contributions to the DES in future implementation plans.more » « less
-
more » « less
Abstract The outcome of the ongoing biodiversity crisis depends on the capacity of the Earth’s wildlife to persist in working landscapes. Yet, the species that occupy working landscapes are often distinct from those in protected areas, with a large group of “sensitive species” thought to rarely venture into human‐dominated landscapes. As governments have committed to restoring degraded lands world‐wide, determining whether and how working landscapes can be restored to benefit sensitive species remains a major challenge.
We surveyed Neotropical birds across Northwestern Costa Rica in protected areas, farms and forests embedded within working landscapes. We analysed community composition to understand how gradients of forest cover, fragmentation and regional precipitation determine how conserving (or restoring) tropical forests in working landscapes could safeguard entire communities, especially sensitive species with limited ranges.
We found agricultural sites maintained relatively high bird diversity but hosted very distinct communities from those found in protected areas. The average range size of species found in agricultural communities was double the size of species in protected areas. However, high forest cover sites in working landscapes housed bird communities with small range sizes that were equivalent to those in nearby protected areas, despite being twice as fragmented and significantly more disturbed.
The effect of local forest cover on bird composition was contingent on both landscape context and regional climate. When local forest cover increased in wetter regions and more forested landscapes, bird communities in working landscapes exhibited a stronger shift towards the assemblages found in protected areas. Specifically, we found that reforesting the wettest sites would increase similarity to protected areas fourfold compared to only a twofold increase in the driest sites.
Synthesis and applications. Despite experiencing much more fragmentation and degradation than protected areas, forests in Costa Rican working landscapes can maintain bird communities that strongly resemble those found in protected areas. This suggests that conserving or restoring forests in working landscapes, particularly within wetter regions and already forested landscapes, may safeguard bird communities when creating protected areas is infeasible.
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abq0788
