Assessing conservation priorities of endemic freshwater fishes in the Tropical Andes region

Abstract

Assessing the effectiveness of protected areas for sustaining species and identifying priority sites for their conservation is vital for decision making, particularly for freshwater fishes in South America, the global centre of freshwater fish diversity. Several conservation planning studies have used threatened freshwater fishes or species that are vulnerable to climate change as conservation targets, but none has included both in priority‐setting analysis. The objectives of this study were to identify gaps in the coverage of the existing protected areas in representing the endemic freshwater fishes of the Tropical Andes region, and to identify conservation priority areas that adequately cover threatened species and species vulnerable to climate change. Data on 648 freshwater fishes from the Tropical Andes were used to identify gaps in the protected area coverage, and to identify conservation priority sites under three scenarios: (i) prioritize threatened species; (ii) prioritize species that are vulnerable to climate change; and (iii) prioritize both threatened species and species vulnerable to climate change. A total of 571 species (88% of all species) were not covered by any protected areas; most of them are restricted to ≤10 catchments. To represent both threatened species and species vulnerable to climate change in the third scenario, 635 catchments were identified as priority areas, representing 26.5% of the study area. The number of irreplaceable catchments for this scenario is 475, corresponding to 22.5% of the total area. The results of this study could be crucial for designing strategies for the effective protection of native fish populations in the Tropical Andes, and for planning proactive climate adaptation. It is hoped that the identification of priority areas, particularly irreplaceable catchments, will help to guide conservation and management decisions in the Andean region.

Theory and practice to conserve freshwater biodiversity in the Anthropocene

“…The 12 articles presented here cover a varied range of geographies and contexts from North America to South America crossing the ocean to Africa and Europe and further west to Asia and Australia. Biodiversity conservation that is linked to livelihoods of local communities is explored in large provinces such as the Andes (Tognelli et al, ), the Amazon (Reis et al, ) and Lake Victoria (van Soesbergen, Sassen, Kimsey & Hill, ). Water planning that includes life‐history needs of specific species is described in the Columbia River Basin of the USA (coho salmon; Flitcroft et al, ) and in discrete systems such as the Hunter Valley in Australia (Linke, Turak, Gulbrandsen Asmyhr, & Hose, ), Greek lakes (Stefanidis, Sarika, & Papastergiadou, ) and Lake Ontario (North America) (Zolderdo et al, ).…”

“…Hence, tools designed to protect freshwater ecosystems, or to promote sustainable use, must be able to assimilate terrestrial condition and trajectory if they are to fairly and realistically capture the present or future state of fresh waters. Fortunately, significant expansion of existing tools and databases such as the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN, ; and discussed by Tognelli et al, ) and HydroATLAS (http://wp.geog.mcgill.ca/hydrolab/hydroatlas/) is being complemented by a wave of new assessment methods for freshwater ecosystems and biodiversity. These include the Freshwater Health Index (Vollmer et al, ) and the Connectivity Status Index for the world's rivers (Grill et al, ).…”

“…Sayer, Carr, and Darwall () used Marxan to identify networks of sites within the Lake Victoria basin, centred on the existing distribution of Key Biodiversity Areas and protected areas. Tognelli et al () also develop a spatially focused, systematic conservation planning approach for the freshwater ecosystems in the tropical Andes (see below). There are numerous other emerging tools and technologies that can further assist in assessing and responding to emerging threats to freshwater biodiversity (Jackson et al, ; Reid et al, ).…”

“…Their study indicates that there are often many more freshwater areas that need to be protected than are manageable; nevertheless, it is important to identify priority areas for conservation action that provide networks of freshwater conservation with connection between them. Tognelli et al () and Zolderdo et al () highlight how these protected areas can act as refugia for species, which may then move out to populate areas nearby and so provide regional benefits. Both Tognelli et al () and Linke, Hermoso, and Januchowski‐Hartley () found that expanding the species of interest increased the area that needed to be considered for conservation, but there was significant overlap in prioritized locations.…”

“…Tognelli et al () and Zolderdo et al () highlight how these protected areas can act as refugia for species, which may then move out to populate areas nearby and so provide regional benefits. Both Tognelli et al () and Linke, Hermoso, and Januchowski‐Hartley () found that expanding the species of interest increased the area that needed to be considered for conservation, but there was significant overlap in prioritized locations. By planning for all scenarios, Tognelli et al () were able to develop a more robust protection plan that incorporated current conservation concerns and future climate considerations.…”