Global conservation strategies commonly assume that different taxonomic groups show congruent geographical patterns of diversity, and that the distribution of extinction-prone species in one group can therefore act as a surrogate for vulnerable species in other groups when conservation decisions are being made. The validity of these assumptions remains unclear, however, because previous tests have been limited in both geographical and taxonomic extent. Here we use a database on the global distribution of 19,349 living bird, mammal and amphibian species to show that, although the distribution of overall species richness is very similar among these groups, congruence in the distribution of rare and threatened species is markedly lower. Congruence is especially low among the very rarest species. Cross-taxon congruence is also highly scale dependent, being particularly low at the finer spatial resolutions relevant to real protected areas. 'Hotspots' of rarity and threat are therefore largely non-overlapping across groups, as are areas chosen to maximize species complementarity. Overall, our results indicate that 'silver-bullet' conservation strategies alone will not deliver efficient conservation solutions. Instead, priority areas for biodiversity conservation must be based on high-resolution data from multiple taxa.

Protected areas are a cornerstone of local, regional, and global strategies for the conservation of biodiversity. However, the ecological performance of these areas, both in terms of the representation and the maintenance of key biodiversity features, remains poorly understood. A large and rapidly expanding literature bears on these issues, but it is highly fragmented, principally comprises particular case studies, and employs a diverse array of approaches. Here we provide a synthetic review of this work, discriminating between issues of performance of inventory and condition at the scale of individual protected areas, portfolios, and networks of protected areas. We emphasize the insights that follow and the links between the different issues, as well as highlight the major problems that remain unresolved.

No abstract

The hope among policy-makers and scientists alike is that conservation strategies designed to protect biodiversity also provide direct benefits to people by protecting other vital ecosystem services. The few studies that have examined the delivery of ecosystem services by existing conservation efforts have concentrated on large, 'wilderness'-style biodiversity reserves. However, such reserves are not realistic options for densely populated regions. Here, we provide the first analyses that compare representation of biodiversity and three other ecosystem services across several contrasting conservation strategies in a human-dominated landscape (England). We show that small protected areas and protected landscapes (restrictive zoning) deliver high carbon storage and biodiversity, while existing incentive payment (agri-environment) schemes target areas that offer little advantage over other parts of England in terms of biodiversity, carbon storage and agricultural production. A fourth ecosystem service-recreation-is under-represented by all three strategies. Our findings are encouraging as they illustrate that restrictive zoning can play a major role in protecting natural capital assets in densely populated regions. However, trade-offs exist even among the four ecosystem services we considered, suggesting that a portfolio of conservation and sustainability investments will be needed to deliver both biodiversity and the other ecosystem services demanded by society.

Systematic conservation planning provides a structured, target-driven approach to ensuring the long-term maintenance of biodiversity. However, reviews of how well the steps of such a planning process are applied in different regions are scant; some steps may be implemented although there is no formal systematic conservation planning process taking place. Here we conduct such a review for Europe. Taking in turn the six recognized steps of systematic conservation planning, for this region: (i) The availability of data on biodiversity remains a significant constraint on conservation planning because, although species occurrences have often been better mapped in Europe than elsewhere, there is a continuing mismatch between the spatial resolution at which data coverage is adequate and that of habitat fragmentation. (ii) Although there are important legal frameworks for conservation planning, explicit quantitative goals for the representation and persistence of biodiversity are largely lacking. (iii) Assessment of the effectiveness of existing protected area systems is patchy and rather ill developed, with a substantial gulf between the work being conducted in more academic and policy-oriented arenas. (iv) Nonetheless, particularly through the Natura 2000 process, there has been an extraordinary program to select additional protected areas. (v) Although it has taken longer than originally envisaged, this program is resulting in a substantial expansion of the protected area system. (vi) There are significant concerns over the extent to which existing protected area systems can maintain their biodiversity values, particularly given the small size of many of these areas and likely impacts of climate change.