The wilder the better in biodiversity conservation? Comparison of three biodiversity prioritization...
-
Upload
zoltan-kun -
Category
Education
-
view
491 -
download
2
description
Transcript of The wilder the better in biodiversity conservation? Comparison of three biodiversity prioritization...
The wilder the better in biodiversity
conservation? Comparison of three
biodiversity prioritization approaches
in Peneda-Gerês National Park,
Portugal Silvia Ceaușu
Inês Gomes
Henrique Miguel Pereira
Centro de Biologia Ambiental, Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa
1/9/20123rd European Congress of Conservation Biology
Glasgow 2012
Need for prioritizing
Biodiversity loss
1/9/20123rd European Congress of Conservation Biology
Glasgow 2012
(Butchart 2010)
Proactive vs Reactive approaches
Irre
pla
ce
ab
ility
Vulnerability
High-
biodiversity
wilderness
areas
Last of the
wild
Biodiversity
hotspots
Crisis
ecoregions
Proactive Reactive
Approaches prioritizing high vulnerability
Approaches prioritizing low vulnerability
1/9/20123rd European Congress of Conservation Biology
Glasgow 2012
(after Brooks et al. 2006)
Scope and study area
Peneda-Gerês National Park (PNPG) -
~67000 ha
~9000 inhabitants
High rate of farmland abandonment
N
¡ rea do PNPG
Concelhos da · rea do PNPG
LEGENDA
MelgaÁo
Arcos de Valdevez
Ponte da Barca
Terras de BouroMontalegre
0 10Km
1/9/20123rd European Congress of Conservation Biology
Glasgow 2012
Species, wilderness and ecosystem services (ES) implications of
different prioritization approaches at local scale
Prioritizing parametersHotspots
Species richness
Rarity = 1/no of grid cells
Vulnerability score – Red Book of the Vertebrates of Portugal
Planning units = 233 grid cells
(2kmx2km)
Conservation features = 177 species
LEGENDA
N
0 10KmCaminhos
Rede vi· ria
Albufeiras
Rede elÈctrica
Aglomerados Urbanos
Complementarity - Marxan
Wilderness
Human settlements: 1
Power grid: ¼
Dams: ¼
Roads: 1
Trails: ¼
1/9/20123rd European Congress of Conservation Biology
Glasgow 2012
Assessment
Overall species coverage (144 birds+20 amphibians+13
reptiles)
Coverage of mega-fauna (wolves+wild goats+birds of prey)
Wilderness coverage
Ecosystem services (ES)
1/9/20123rd European Congress of Conservation Biology
Glasgow 2012
Prioritization maps
Hotspots Complementarity Wildernessρ=0.79
p<2.2e-16ρ=-0.19p<0.005
ρ=-0.13
p<0.051/9/2012
3rd European Congress of Conservation Biology
Glasgow 2012
Species coverage
Complementarity – 27%
Hotspots – 44%
Wilderness – 72%
1/9/20123rd European Congress of Conservation Biology
Glasgow 2012
Birds+Amphibians+Reptiles
0 20 40 60 80 100
05
01
00
15
0
Total number of species
Percentage of area
Nu
mb
er
of sp
ecie
s
Proactive - Wilderness
Reactive - Hotspots
Reactive - Complementarity
Species coverage - mega-fauna
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Coverage of important areas for megafauna
Percentage of area
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f are
a im
port
ant
for
meg
afa
una
Proactive - Wilderness
Reactive - Hotspots
Reactive - Complementarity
1/9/20123rd European Congress of Conservation Biology
Glasgow 2012
Wolves+Wild goats+Birds of prey
Wilderness coverage
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Total wilderness score
Percentage of area
Wild
ern
ess s
core
perc
enta
ge
Proactive - Wilderness
Reactive - Hotspots
Reactive - Complementarity
Wilderness score
1/9/20123rd European Congress of Conservation Biology
Glasgow 2012
ES – Landslide protection
Hotspots Complementarity Wilderness
26.52% 33.34% 38.72%
1/9/20123rd European Congress of Conservation Biology
Glasgow 2012
Areas important for landslide protection (slope>30°)
ES-Water spring protection
37.7% 33.63% 51.34%
1/9/20123rd European Congress of Conservation Biology
Glasgow 2012
Hotspots Complementarity Wilderness
Areas important water spring protection
ES-Soil infiltration
64.35% 50.31% 39.95%
1/9/20123rd European Congress of Conservation Biology
Glasgow 2012
Hotspots Complementarity Wilderness
Areas important for soil infiltration
Discussion
1/9/20123rd European Congress of Conservation Biology
Glasgow 2012
Species richness and irreplaceability show high positive correlation which contrasts with the results found at regional level (Rey Benayas and de la Montana 2003, Diniz-Filho et al., 2006)
Complementarity has highest overall species coverage performance (Kati et al. 2004).
Wilderness covers better the important areas for megafauna (Navarro and Pereira, 2012)
Wilderness insures protection of higher altitude areas and the ES produced here.
Consequences of conservation at the level of ecosystem services (Chan et al. 2006).
In the wilderness approach we have a direct relation between management actions and the indicator of what we want to protect
Thank you!
1/9/20123rd European Congress of Conservation Biology
Glasgow 2012
Questions?
Brooks, T. M, R. A Mittermeier, G. A.B da Fonseca, J. Gerlach, M. Hoffmann, J. F. Lamoreux, C. G Mittermeier, J. D Pilgrim, and A. S.L
Rodrigues. “Global Biodiversity Conservation Priorities.” Science 313, no. 5783 (2006): 58.
Butchart, S. H.M, M. Walpole, B. Collen, A. Van Strien, J. P.W Scharlemann, R. E.A Almond, J. E.M Baillie, et al. “Global Biodiversity: Indicators
of Recent Declines.” Science 328, no. 5982 (2010): 1164.
Chan, K. M.A, M. R Shaw, D. R Cameron, E. C Underwood, and G. C Daily. “Conservation Planning for Ecosystem Services.” PLoS Biology 4,
no. 11 (2006): e379.
Diniz-Filho, J. A. F., L. M. Bini, M. P. Pinto, T. F. L. V. Chan, K. M.A, M. R Shaw, D. R Cameron, E. C Underwood, and G. C Daily. “Conservation
Planning for Ecosystem Services.” PLoS Biology 4, no. 11 (2006): e379.
B. Rangel, P. Carvalho, and R. P. Bastos. “Anuran Species Richness, Complementarity and Conservation Conflicts in Brazilian Cerrado.”
Acta Oecologica 29, no. 1 (2006): 9–15.
Kati, V., P. Devillers, M. Dufrene, A. Legakis, D. Vokou, and P. Lebrun. “Hotspots, Complementarity or Representativeness? Designing Optimal
Small-scale Reserves for Biodiversity Conservation.” Biological Conservation 120, no. 4 (2004): 471–480.
Navarro, Laetitia, and Henrique Pereira. “Rewilding Abandoned Landscapes in Europe.” Ecosystems 15, no. 6 (2012): 900–912.
Rey Benayas, J. M, and E. de la Montana. “Identifying Areas of High-value Vertebrate Diversity for Strengthening Conservation.” Biological
Conservation 114, no. 3 (2003): 357–370.
Acknowledgments:MoBiA project (PTDC/AAC-AMB/114522/2009)AbaFoBio project (PTDC/AMB/73901/2006)
Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia