Dataset Information

Nature representation in South American protected areas: country contrasts and conservation priorities.

ABSTRACT:

Background

South America faces strong environmental pressures as a result of agriculture and infrastructure expansion and also of demographic growth, demanding immediate action to preserve natural assets by establishing protected areas. Currently, 7.1% of the (sub)continent is under strict conservation categories (I to IV, IUCN), but the spatial distribution of these 1.3 × 10⁶ km² is poorly understood. We evaluated the representation of nature within the networks of protected areas, map conservation priorities and assess demographic, economic or geopolitical causes of existing protection patterns.

Methods

We characterized nature representation by looking at two components: the extent and the equality of protection. The first refers to the fraction of territory under protection, while the second refers to the homogeneity in the distribution along natural conditions of this protected fraction. We characterized natural conditions by either 113 biogeographical units (specifically, ecoregions) or a series of limited and significant climatic, topographic and edaphic traits. We analyzed representation every ten years since 1960 at national and continental levels. In the physical approach, histograms allowed us to map the degree of conservation priorities. Finally, we ranked the importance of different economic or geopolitical variables driving the observed distributions with a random forest technique.

Results

Nature representation varied across countries in spite of its priority in conservation agendas. In Brazil, Peru and Argentina there are still natural conditions with no formal protection, while in Bolivia and Venezuela, protected areas incorporate the natural diversity in a more balanced manner. As protected networks have increased their extent, so did their equality across and within countries over time. Our maps revealed as top continental priorities the southern temperate, subhumid and fertile lowland environments, and other country-specific areas. Protection extent was generally driven by a low population density and isolation, while other variables like distance to frontiers, were relevant only locally (e.g., in Argentina).

Discussion

Our description of the spatial distribution of protected areas can help societies and governments to improve the allocation of conservation efforts. We identified the main limitations that future conservation efforts will face, as protection was generally driven by the opportunities provided by low population density and isolation. From a methodological perspective, the physical approach reveals new properties of protection and provides tools to explore nature representation at different spatial, temporal and conceptual levels, complementing the traditional ones based on biodiversity or biogeographical attributes.

SUBMITTER: Baldi G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6611075 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Rapid climate change represents one of the top threats to biodiversity, causing declines and extinctions of many species. Range shifts are a key response, but in many cases are incompatible with the current extent of protected areas. In this study we used ensemble species distribution models to identify range changes for 21 reptile and 16 amphibian species in Romania for the 2020s and 2050s time horizons under three emission scenarios (A1B = integrated world, rapid economic growth, A2A = divided world, rapid economic growth [realistic scenario], B2A = regional development, environmentally-friendly scenario) and no- and limited-dispersal assumptions. We then used irreplaceability analysis to test the efficacy of the Natura 2000 network to meet conservation targets. Under all scenarios and time horizons, 90% of the species suffered range contractions (greatest loses under scenarios B2A for 2020s, and A1B for 2050s), and four reptile species expanded their ranges. Two reptile and two amphibian species are predicted to completely lose climate space by 2050s. Currently, 35 species do not meet conservation targets (>40% representation in protected areas), but the target is predicted to be met for 4 - 14 species under future climate conditions, with higher representation under the limited-dispersal scenario. The Alpine and Steppic-Black Sea biogeographic regions have the highest irreplaceability value, and act as climate refugia for many reptiles and amphibians. The Natura 2000 network performs better for achieving herpetofauna conservation goals in the future, owing to the interaction between drastic range contractions, and range shifts towards existing protected areas. Thus, conservation actions for herpetofauna in Romania need to focus on: (1) building institutional capacity of protected areas in the Alpine and Steppic-Black Sea biogeographic regions, and (2) facilitating natural range shifts by improving the conservation status of herpetofauna outside protected areas, specifically in traditionally-managed landscapes and abandoned cropland.

Project description:AimProtected areas are key conservation tools intended to increase biodiversity and reduce extinction risks of species and populations. However, the degree to which protected areas achieve their conservation goals is generally unknown for many protected areas worldwide. We assess the effect of protected areas on the abundance of 196 common, resident bird species. If protected areas were beneficial to avian biodiversity, we expect landscapes with a higher proportion of protected areas will have higher densities of species compared to landscapes with no protection.LocationGreater Gauteng region, South Africa.MethodsWe analysed bird survey data collected over regular grid cells across the study area. We estimated bird abundance in relation to the proportion of a grid cell that was protected with the Royle-Nichols model and fitted the model once for each of the species. We examined variation in estimated abundance as a function of avian guild (defined by the type of food a species preferentially ate and its foraging mode) with a regression tree analysis.ResultsAbundance was significantly positively related to the proportion of protected areas in grid cells for 26% of the species, significantly negatively related in 15%, and not significantly related in 59% species. We found three distinct guild groups which differed in their average abundance, after accounting for associated variance. Group 1 consisted of guilds frugivores, ground-feeders, hawkers, predators, and vegivores and average abundance was strongly positively related to the proportion of protected areas. Group 2 included granivores, and average abundance was strongly negatively related to proportion of protected areas. Group 3 included gleaners only, and average abundance was not related to proportion of protected areas.Main conclusionWe conclude that the network of protected areas within the greater Gauteng region sustained relatively higher abundances of common birds and thus perform an important conservation role.