118 research outputs found
Global conservation of species’ niches
Get PDFEnvironmental change is rapidly accelerating, and many species will need to adapt to survive1. Ensuring that protected areas cover populations across a broad range of environmental conditions could safeguard the processes that lead to such adaptations1–3. However, international conservation policies have largely neglected these considerations when setting targets for the expansion of protected areas4. Here we show that—of 19,937 vertebrate species globally5–8—the representation of environmental conditions across their habitats in protected areas (hereafter, niche representation) is inadequate for 4,836 (93.1%) amphibian, 8,653 (89.5%) bird and 4,608 (90.9%) terrestrial mammal species. Expanding existing protected areas to cover these gaps would encompass 33.8% of the total land surface—exceeding the current target of 17% that has been adopted by governments. Priority locations for expanding the system of protected areas to improve niche representation occur in global biodiversity hotspots9, including Colombia, Papua New Guinea, South Africa and southwest China, as well as across most of the major land masses of the Earth. Conversely, we also show that planning for the expansion of protected areas without explicitly considering environmental conditions would marginally reduce the land area required to 30.7%, but that this would lead to inadequate niche representation for 7,798 (39.1%) species. As the governments of the world prepare to renegotiate global conservation targets, policymakers have the opportunity to help to maintain the adaptive potential of species by considering niche representation within protected areas1,2
Data for: Ecological specialization and population trends in European breeding birds
No full textDataset with information about avian species population trends (calculated on data provided in Stephens et al. 2016) and level of specialization for each species in several axes of ecological specialization (calculated following the procedure indicated in Morelli et al. 2019).
Fields: Species; Max.trend; Min.trend; Mean.trend; SDTrend; no.countries; Trend_categories; Diet.specialization; Foraging.behav.specialization; Foraging.subst.specialization; Habitat.specialization; Nesting.site.specialization; Mean.specialization.
References:
Morelli, F., Benedetti, Y., Møller, A.P., Fuller, R.A., 2019. Measuring avian specialization. Ecol. Evol. 9, 8378–8386. doi:10.1002/ece3.5419
Stephens, P.A., Mason, L.R., Green, R.E., Gregory, R.D., Sauer, J.R., Alison, J., Aunins, A., Brotons, L., Butchart, S.H.M., Campedelli, T., Chodkiewicz, T., Chylarecki, P., Crowe, O., Elts, J., Escandell, V., Foppen, R.P.B., Heldbjerg, H., Herrando, S., Husby, M., Jiguet, F., Lehikoinen, A., Lindström, Å., Noble, D.G., Paquet, J.-Y., Reif, J., Sattler, T., Szép, T., Teufelbauer, N., Trautmann, S., van Strien, A.J., van Turnhout, C.A.M., Vorisek, P., Willis, S.G., 2016. Consistent response of bird populations to climate change on two continents. Science 352, 84–87. doi:10.1126/science.aac485
Footprints on the Sands of Time: Retracing Harvey Butchart's Exploration of the Grand Canyon through His Annotated Matthes-Evans Maps – Video Recording
No full textabstract: John Harvey Butchart was a mathematics professor at Northern Arizona University from 1945 to 1973. From 1945 to 1987, he spent considerable time in the Grand Canyon, hiking established trails, exploring obscure routes, and discovering new routes. In all, Dr. Butchart spent over 1,000 days in the Grand Canyon and traveled over 12,000 miles in the Canyon. Dr. Butchart kept journals on his explorations and complemented those notes with a heavily annotated copy of the 1927 Francois Matthes and Richard Evans East Half, West Half topographic maps of the Grand Canyon. Embedded in Butchart’s annotated Matthes-Evans maps are compelling stories of adventure, discovery, triumph, and heartbreak. This presentation will highlight selections of those stories and the impact this map has had on subsequent hiking exploration in the Canyon
Trends and patterns in the extinction risk of Australia's birds over three decades
No full textAustralia recently committed through the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) to halt human-induced extinction of known threatened species and to reduce extinction risk of threatened species significantly by 2030. We review recent trends in extinction risk of Australian birds to provide context for current and future conservation efforts. We calculate the Red List Index (RLI) for all Australian birds as well as subsets based on geography, habitat and taxonomy. Over the period 2010 to 2020, the number of taxa reassigned to lower categories of extinction risk (n = 20; 1.5% of all taxa included) was greatly outweighed by the number moved to higher categories owing to deteriorating status (n = 93; 7%). This resulted in the steepest decadal decline in the RLI since data were first compiled in 1990. It was chiefly driven by rapid population declines in migratory shorebirds, loss of suitable habitat for species affected by wildfire in 2019–2020 and, to a lesser extent, declines in the abundance of upland rainforest birds. To a small extent, these losses were counterbalanced by improvements in status of some bird species resulting from local eradication of invasive mammals, primarily from Macquarie Island. For Australia to meet the commitments recently adopted through the GBF, conservation interventions (and hence funding) will need to be scaled up substantially. The RLI is well placed for monitoring progress towards the GBF targets and for communicating trends in the extinction risk to national avifaunas.Alex J. Berryman, Stuart H. M. Butchart, Micha V. Jackson, Sarah M. Legge, George Olah, Janelle Thomas, John C. Z. Woinarski and Stephen T. Garnet
Data for: Ecological specialization and population trends in European breeding birds
No full textDataset with information about avian species population trends (calculated on data provided in Stephens et al. 2016) and level of specialization for each species in several axes of ecological specialization (calculated following the procedure indicated in Morelli et al. 2019).Fields: Species; Max.trend; Min.trend; Mean.trend; SDTrend; no.countries; Trend_categories; Diet.specialization; Foraging.behav.specialization; Foraging.subst.specialization; Habitat.specialization; Nesting.site.specialization; Mean.specialization.References:Morelli, F., Benedetti, Y., Møller, A.P., Fuller, R.A., 2019. Measuring avian specialization. Ecol. Evol. 9, 8378–8386. doi:10.1002/ece3.5419Stephens, P.A., Mason, L.R., Green, R.E., Gregory, R.D., Sauer, J.R., Alison, J., Aunins, A., Brotons, L., Butchart, S.H.M., Campedelli, T., Chodkiewicz, T., Chylarecki, P., Crowe, O., Elts, J., Escandell, V., Foppen, R.P.B., Heldbjerg, H., Herrando, S., Husby, M., Jiguet, F., Lehikoinen, A., Lindström, Å., Noble, D.G., Paquet, J.-Y., Reif, J., Sattler, T., Szép, T., Teufelbauer, N., Trautmann, S., van Strien, A.J., van Turnhout, C.A.M., Vorisek, P., Willis, S.G., 2016. Consistent response of bird populations to climate change on two continents. Science 352, 84–87. doi:10.1126/science.aac485
Toward quantification of the impact of 21st-century deforestation on the extinction risk of terrestrial vertebrates
Get PDFConservation actions need to be prioritized, often taking into account species' extinction risk. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List provides an accepted, objective framework for the assessment of extinction risk. Assessments based on data collected in the field are the best option, but the field data to base these on are often limited. Information collected through remote sensing can be used in place of field data to inform assessments. Forests are perhaps the best-studied land-cover type for use of remote-sensing data. Using an open-access 30-m resolution map of tree cover and its change between 2000 and 2012, we assessed the extent of forest cover and loss within the distributions of 11,186 forest-dependent amphibians, birds, and mammals worldwide. For 16 species, forest loss resulted in an elevated extinction risk under red-list criterion A, owing to inferred rapid population declines. This number increased to 23 when data-deficient species (i.e., those with insufficient information for evaluation) were included. Under red-list criterion B2, 484 species (855 when data-deficient species were included) were considered at elevated extinction risk, owing to restricted areas of occupancy resulting from little forest cover remaining within their ranges. The proportion of species of conservation concern would increase by 32.8% for amphibians, 15.1% for birds, and 24.7% for mammals if our suggested uplistings are accepted. Central America, the Northern Andes, Madagascar, the Eastern Arc forests in Africa, and the islands of Southeast Asia are hotspots for these species. Our results illustrate the utility of satellite imagery for global extinction-risk assessment and measurement of progress toward international environmental agreement targets
Effectiveness of Key Biodiversity Areas in representing global avian diversity
Get PDFKey Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) are the largest and most complete network of significant sites for the global persistence of biodiversity. Although important sites for birds worldwide have been relatively well assessed, a key question is how effectively the global KBA network represents avian diversity. We identified bird species, orders, habitats, and geographic regions that are underrepresented by KBAs. Area of Habitat (AOH) maps for 10,517 terrestrial bird species were cropped and masked by the extent of each KBA. Almost all species had at least one part of their seasonal distribution in one or more KBAs. Twenty-nine species had no habitat overlap with KBAs, and 1900 species had <8% of their AOH overlapping KBAs. Species with KBAs identified for them (5219 trigger species) had on average 2.6% greater representation of their AOH in KBAs than species that did not. The extent of species’ AOH represented by KBAs varied with region, habitat, and taxonomic group. Northern North America had the most underrepresented terrestrial bird species (up to 178 underrepresented species per 100 km2). Terrestrial bird species of tropical forests were 12.8% better represented in KBAs than expected by chance, whereas boreal and temperate forest species were less well represented than expected by chance (74.4% and 25.1%, respectively). Among avian orders, Anseriformes and Charadriiformes were underrepresented in KBAs (29.0% and 17.9%, respectively), whereas Trogoniformes and Psittaciformes were better represented (16.2% and 6.9%, respectively) than expected by chance. Bird species for potential KBA identification include marsh antwren (Formicivora paludicola) and Tabar pitta (Erythropitta splendida). These are mainly due to recent changes in species’ taxonomy or their International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List category. Identifying poorly represented species and where they occur highlights shortfalls where expansion of the network could bring conservation benefits
A host-race of the cuckoo Cuculus canorus with nestlings attuned to the parental alarm calls of the host species
No full text- …
