More Like this

1. Areas of global importance for conserving terrestrial biodiversity, carbon and water

   https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01528-7  

   Jung, Martin ; Arnell, Andy ; de Lamo, Xavier ; García-Rangel, Shaenandhoa ; Lewis, Matthew ; Mark, Jennifer ; Merow, Cory ; Miles, Lera ; Ondo, Ian ; Pironon, Samuel ; et al ( January 2021 , Nature Ecology & Evolution)

   null (Ed.)

   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
2. Mapping the planet’s critical natural assets

   https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-022-01934-5  

   Chaplin-Kramer, Rebecca ; Neugarten, Rachel A. ; Sharp, Richard P. ; Collins, Pamela M. ; Polasky, Stephen ; Hole, David ; Schuster, Richard ; Strimas-Mackey, Matthew ; Mulligan, Mark ; Brandon, Carter ; et al ( January 2023 , Nature Ecology & Evolution)

   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
3. Conservation value of small reserves

   https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13308  

   Volenec, Zoe M. ; Dobson, Andrew P. ( March 2019 , Conservation Biology)

   The importance of large reserves has been long maintained in the scientific literature, often leading to dismissal of the conservation potential of small reserves. However, over half the global protected‐area inventory is composed of protected areas that are <100 ha, and the median size of added protected area is decreasing. Studies of the conservation value of small reserves and fragments of natural area are relatively uncommon in the literature. We reviewed SCOPUS and WOK for studies on small reserve and fragment contributions to biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services, and fifty‐eight taxon‐specific studies were included in the review. Small reserves harbored substantial portions (upward of 50%) of regional species diversity for many taxa (birds, plants, amphibians, and small mammals) and even some endemic, specialist bird species. Unfortunately, small reserves and fragments almost always harbored more generalist and exotic species than large reserves. Community composition depended on habitat quality, surrounding land use (agricultural vs. urban), and reserve and fragment size, which presents opportunities for management and improvement. Small reserves also provided ecosystem services, such as pollination and biological pest control, and cultural services, such as recreation and improved human health. Limitations associated with small reserves, such as extinction debt and support of area‐sensitive species, necessitate a complement of larger reserves. However, we argue that small reserves can make viable and significant contributions to conservation goals directly as habitat and indirectly by increasing landscape connectivity and quality to the benefit of large reserves. To effectively conserve biodiversity for future generations in landscapes fragmented by human development, small reserves and fragments must be included in conservation planning.

    

   more » « less
4. Selecting among land sparing, sharing and Triad in a temperate rainforest depends on biodiversity and timber production targets

   https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.14385  

   Harris, Scott H. ; Betts, Matthew G. ( March 2023 , Journal of Applied Ecology)

   As demand for wood products increases in step with global population growth, balancing the potentially competing values of biodiversity conservation, carbon storage and timber production is a major challenge. Land sparing involves conserving forest while growing timber in intensively managed areas. On the other hand, land sharing utilizes ecological forestry approaches, but with a larger management footprint due to lower yields. While the sparing‐sharing framework has been widely tested and debated in agricultural settings to balance competing values, such land‐allocation strategies have been rarely studied in forestry.

   We examined whether a sparing, sharing or Triad strategy best achieves multiple forest objectives simultaneously. In Triad, management units (stands) in forest landscapes are allocated to one of three treatments: reserve (where conservation is the sole objective), intensive (timber production is the sole objective) and ecological (both objectives are combined). To our knowledge, ours is the first Triad study from the temperate zone to quantify direct measures of biodiversity (e.g. species' abundance).

   Using a commonly utilized forest planning tool parameterized with empirical data, we modelled the capacity of a temperate rainforest to provide multiple ecosystem services (biodiversity, carbon storage, timber production and old‐growth forest structure) over 125 years based on 43 different allocation scenarios. We then quantified trade‐offs between scenarios, taking into account the landscape structure, and determined which strategies most consistently balanced ecosystem services.

   Sparing strategies were best when the services provided by both old‐growth and early seral (young) forests were prioritized, but at a cost to species associated with mid‐seral stages, which benefitted most from Triad and sharing strategies. Therefore, sparing provides the greatest net benefit, particularly given that old‐growth‐associated species and ecosystem services are currently of the greatest conservation concern.

   Synthesis and applications. We found that maximizing multiple elements of biodiversity and ecosystem services simultaneously with a single management strategy was elusive. The strategy that maximized each service and species varied greatly by both the service and the level of timber production. Fortunately, a diversity of management options can produce the same wood supply, providing ample decision space for establishing priorities and evaluating trade‐offs.

    

   more » « less
5. Distinct ecosystem types respond differentially to grazing exclosure

   https://doi.org/10.1111/aec.12870  

   Gallego, Federico ; Paruelo, José M. ; Baeza, Santiago ; Altesor, Alice ( February 2020 , Austral Ecology)

   Here, we evaluate the ecosystem functioning and the ecosystems services supply of different vegetation types (grasslands, shrublands and woodlands) under contrasting management regimes by comparing a protected area with the surrounding landscape, which has been subjected to human disturbance in the Eastern Hills of Uruguay. We propose, based on functional attributes and vegetation physiognomy, a State and Transition Model for the dynamics of the grassland–woodland mosaic. We used remote sensing techniques to: (i) develop a land‐cover map of the study area based on supervised Landsat imagery classification, and (ii) compare attributes of the ecosystem functioning (productivity and seasonality) and service supply derived from the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) images provided by the moderate resolution imaging spectroradiometer (MODIS) sensor. The land‐cover map showed that grasslands and shrublands were the most extensive land covers in the study area. These vegetation types presented higher productivity, seasonality and ecosystem service supply, outside the protected area than inside it. On the other hand, woodlands showed higher productivity, ecosystem service supply and lower seasonality inside the protected area than outside of it. Two axes represented the grassland–woodland mosaic dynamic: (i) the mean annual and (ii) the intra‐annual coefficient of variation of the NDVI. Our results highlight that conservation of grasslands, shrublands and woodlands require different management strategies based on particular disturbance regimes like moderate grazing and controlled burns. Moderate disturbances may help to preserve ecosystem services provisioning in grasslands and shrublands. On the contrary, woodland conservation requires a more rigorous regime of protection against disturbances.

    

   more » « less