The benefits of protected areas (PAs) for biodiversity have been questioned in the context of climate change because PAs are static, whereas the distributions of species are dynamic. Current PAs may, however, continue to be important if they provide suitable locations for species to colonize at their leading-edge range boundaries, thereby enabling spread into new regions. Here, we present an empirical assessment of the role of PAs as targets for colonization during recent range expansions. Records from intensive surveys revealed that seven bird and butterfly species have colonized PAs 4.2 (median) times more frequently than expected from the availability of PAs in the landscapes colonized. Records of an additional 256 invertebrate species with less-intensive surveys supported these findings and showed that 98% of species are disproportionately associated with PAs in newly colonized parts of their ranges. Although colonizing species favor PAs in general, species vary greatly in their reliance on PAs, reflecting differences in the dependence of individual species on particular habitats and other conditions that are available only in PAs. These findings highlight the importance of current PAs for facilitating range expansions and show that a small subset of the landscape receives a high proportion of colonizations by range-expanding species.conservation | climate change adaptation | nature reserves M ore than 10% of the Earth's land surface has already been designated as protected area (PA) (1, 2), and there are calls to expand protection to 17% of the land (3, 4). However, the importance of a PA approach to conservation is open to question in the context of anthropogenic climate change and other environmental drivers that are causing species to shift their distributions. Terrestrial species' distributions are shifting to higher latitudes and elevations (5-7), many species are at increased risk of extinction (8,9), and the composition of biological communities is changing (10, 11). These observations, combined with predicted future changes to the composition of biological communities inside PAs (12-16), call into question (i) the long-term protection provided to species by PAs, because species may shift out of the sites where they were previously considered to be protected, and (ii) the legislative basis for protection in situations where legal PA designation stems from the occurrences of particular species or biological communities (17, 18) that may not remain within the PAs in the future. PAs have, on occasion, been downgraded or dedesignated in the face of competing demands (19), and there are suggestions that a PA approach could be outmoded (20) or that underperforming PAs should be replaced (21).However, the overall risk to a species from climate change (and other large-scale drivers of distribution change) depends on the balance between losses of populations within the former range, on the one hand, and gains associated with the colonization of new regions where the climate or other conditions improve (8, 9)....

No abstract

A key question facing conservation biologists is whether declines in species' distributions are keeping pace with landscape change, or whether current distributions overestimate probabilities of future persistence. We use metapopulations of the marsh fritillary butterfly Euphydryas aurinia in the United Kingdom as a model system to test for extinction debt in a declining species. We derive parameters for a metapopulation model (incidence function model, IFM) using information from a 625-km2 landscape where habitat patch occupancy, colonization, and extinction rates for E. aurinia depend on patch connectivity, area, and quality. We then show that habitat networks in six extant metapopulations in 16-km2 squares were larger, had longer modeled persistence times (using IFM), and higher metapopulation capacity (lambdaM) than six extinct metapopulations. However, there was a > 99% chance that one or more of the six extant metapopulations would go extinct in 100 years in the absence of further habitat loss. For 11 out of 12 networks, minimum areas of habitat needed for 95% persistence of metapopulation simulations after 100 years ranged from 80 to 142 ha (approximately 5-9% of land area), depending on the spatial location of habitat. The area of habitat exceeded the estimated minimum viable metapopulation size (MVM) in only two of the six extant metapopulations, and even then by only 20%. The remaining four extant networks were expected to suffer extinction in 15-126 years. MVM was consistently estimated as approximately 5% of land area based on a sensitivity analysis of IFM parameters and was reduced only marginally (to approximately 4%) by modeling the potential impact of long-distance colonization over wider landscapes. The results suggest a widespread extinction debt among extant metapopulations of a declining species, necessitating conservation management or reserve designation even in apparent strongholds. For threatened species, metapopulation modeling is a potential means to identify landscapes near to extinction thresholds, to which conservation measures can be targeted for the best chance of success.

BackgroundControlling vertebrate predators is one of the most widespread forms of wildlife management and it continues to cause conflict between stakeholders worldwide. It is important for managers and policy-makers to make decisions on this issue that are based on the best available scientific evidence. Therefore, it is first important to understand if there is indeed an impact of vertebrate predators on prey, and then to quantify this impact.Methodology/Principal FindingsUsing the UK as a case study, we use a meta-analytical approach to review the available evidence to assess the effect of vertebrate predation on animal prey abundance. We find a significant effect of predators on prey abundance across our studies. On average, there is a 1.6 fold increase in prey abundance in the absence of predation. However, we show significant heterogeneity in effect sizes, and discuss how the method of predator control, whether the predator is native or non-native, and aspects of study design, may be potential causes.Conclusions/SignificanceOur results allow some cautious policy recommendations to be made regarding the management of predator and prey populations. Meta-analysis is an important tool for understanding general patterns in the effect of predators on prey abundance across studies. Such an approach is especially valuable where management decisions need to be made in the absence of site-specific information.

Aim The majority of studies concerning positive interspecific abundance–occupancy relationships have used broad‐scale and microcosm data to test the occurrence and correlates of the relationship to determine which of the proposed mechanisms give rise to it. It has been argued recently that studying the residual variation about abundance–occupancy relationships is a more logical analysis and may yield faster progress in identifying the relative roles of the mechanisms. However, to date this approach has been largely unsuccessful. Here we test if fundamental species traits such as the status (native and introduced), habitat and trophic group of mammal and bird species may explain any of the residual variation about their respective abundance–occupancy relationships. Location The study used British mammal and bird species. Methods We tested if species traits explained any of the variation about abundance–occupancy relationships using linear regression techniques both treating species as independent data points for analysis and controlling for phylogenetic association. Results None of the species traits could explain any residual variation about the positive interspecific abundance–occupancy relationships of British mammals and birds. This applied both when treating species as independent data points and after controlling for phylogenetic association. Conclusions Given the lack of explanatory power of the species traits here and in other studies using this approach it seems that the variation about positive interspecific abundance–occupancy relationships is not explicable in a simple fashion. Predicting the likely influence of traits that are independent of phylogeny is also problematic. Therefore, the general utility of this approach and its future role in understanding the mechanisms causing positive interspecific abundance–occupancy relationships is doubtful.