Changes in human footprint drive changes in species extinction risk

Marco, Moreno Di; Venter, Oscar; Possingham, Hugh P.; Watson, James

doi:10.1038/s41467-018-07049-5

Cited by 237 publications

(240 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

227

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The humanrelated factor was the only macroecological variable included in the best models for scavenger richness. All of these factors are known to affect vertebrates (e.g., Tucker et al, 2018), to predict extinction risk (Di Marco, Venter, Possingham, & Watson, 2018), and to negatively affect particular scavenger species, at least at the local scale (e.g., Bogoni et al, 2016;Lambertucci et al, 2009). HF combines information on human population density, harvest, livestock, land use, land change, and human accessibility.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scavenging in the Anthropocene: Human impact drives vertebrate scavenger species richness at a global scale

Sebastián‐González

Barbosa

Pérez‐García

et al. 2019

Global Change Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the distribution of biodiversity across the Earth is one of the most challenging questions in biology. Much research has been directed at explaining the species latitudinal pattern showing that communities are richer in tropical areas; however, despite decades of research, a general consensus has not yet emerged. In addition, global biodiversity patterns are being rapidly altered by human activities. Here, we aim to describe large‐scale patterns of species richness and diversity in terrestrial vertebrate scavenger (carrion‐consuming) assemblages, which provide key ecosystem functions and services. We used a worldwide dataset comprising 43 sites, where vertebrate scavenger assemblages were identified using 2,485 carcasses monitored between 1991 and 2018. First, we evaluated how scavenger richness (number of species) and diversity (Shannon diversity index) varied among seasons (cold vs. warm, wet vs. dry). Then, we studied the potential effects of human impact and a set of macroecological variables related to climatic conditions on the scavenger assemblages. Vertebrate scavenger richness ranged from species‐poor to species rich assemblages (4–30 species). Both scavenger richness and diversity also showed some seasonal variation. However, in general, climatic variables did not drive latitudinal patterns, as scavenger richness and diversity were not affected by temperature or rainfall. Rainfall seasonality slightly increased the number of species in the community, but its effect was weak. Instead, the human impact index included in our study was the main predictor of scavenger richness. Scavenger assemblages in highly human‐impacted areas sustained the smallest number of scavenger species, suggesting human activity may be overriding other macroecological processes in shaping scavenger communities. Our results highlight the effect of human impact at a global scale. As species‐rich assemblages tend to be more functional, we warn about possible reductions in ecosystem functions and the services provided by scavengers in human‐dominated landscapes in the Anthropocene.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scavenging in the Anthropocene: Human impact drives vertebrate scavenger species richness at a global scale

Sebastián‐González

Barbosa

Pérez‐García

et al. 2019

Global Change Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are several caveats to our analysis that should be considered when interpreting and applying the results. While we used an established threshold to define habitat degradation using the human footprint (Jones et al., ), which is in line with empirical demonstrations of human impact on terrestrial mammals globally (Di Marco, Venter, Possingham, & Watson, ), it can be still considered generic. The exact threshold for habitat degradation may vary across ecosystem types, yet the evidence base for these potential regional variations does not yet exist.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Restoration priorities to achieve the global protected area target

Mappin

Chauvenet

Adams

et al. 2019

CONSERVATION LETTERS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With much of Earth's surface already heavily impacted by humans, there is a need to understand where restoration is required to achieve global conservation goals. Here, we show that at least 1.9 million km2 of land, spanning 190 (27%) terrestrial ecoregions and 114 countries, needs restoration to achieve the current 17% global protected area target (Aichi Target 11). Restoration targeted on lightly modified land could recover up to two‐thirds of the shortfall, which would have an opportunity cost impact on agriculture of at least $205 million per annum (average of $159/km2). However, 64 (9%) ecoregions, located predominately in Southeast Asia, will require the challenging task of restoring areas that are already heavily modified. These results highlight the need for global conservation strategies to recognize the current level of anthropogenic degradation across many ecoregions and balance bigger protected area targets with more specific restoration goals.

show abstract

“…The highest species richness of the three classes investigated was found in areas of intermediate human pressure in Kenya and areas of highest human pressures across eastern Africa, similar to global patterns observed for vertebrates (Venter et al, 2016). Globally, the steepest biodiversity declines are within these areas (Di Marco et al, ), yet due to historical factors the wildlife conservation policy in Kenya (and other African countries) is focused on areas with the lowest human pressures and the highest densities of megafauna (Figures and a). Obviously, megafauna needs special protection as keystone and umbrella species (Dickman et al, ; Dirzo et al, ), and they include the first species to be lost under increasing human pressure (Smith, Smith, Lyons, & Payne, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The importance of Africa's PA network should not be undervalued, but it is evident that conservation practice and wildlife policy also need to incorporate LU options within the human realm (Sayer et al, 2013). Biodiversity within these human-dominated landscapes is under the greatest pressure (Di Marco, Venter, Possingham, & Watson, 2018), threatening ecosystem services and, therefore, human wellbeing (Donaldson, Wilson, & Maclean, 2017;Sayer et al, 2013). Widening the focus of conservation policy beyond PAs is essential for any country to reach global objectives such as the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and the Sustainable Development Goals (Kareiva & Marvier, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conservation beyond protected areas: Using vertebrate species ranges and biodiversity importance scores to inform policy for an east African country in transition

Tyrrell

Toit

Macdonald

2019

Conservat Sci and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conservation in eastern and southern Africa has historically centered on megafauna and protected areas (PAs), yet, in the face of rapid change, biodiversity outside of PAs is under threat. With policy changes underway in Kenya, we have performed an analysis that (a) quantifies how inclusive the current PA network is of the country's vertebrate diversity, and (b) identifies wildlife policy areas that need reform to achieve conservation targets. We found that species richness of mammals, birds, and amphibians is highest in areas of intermediate human pressures, whereas Kenya's current wildlife conservation policy focuses on land use (LU) types with the least human pressure. Percentage of range overlap for amphibians, mammals, and birds were all highest in rangelands followed by agricultural (cultivated) areas and then national PAs. Out of 1,535 terrestrial vertebrate species, 80 had no range overlap with national PAs. The current wildlife PA network adequately covers only 16% of amphibians, 45% of birds, and 41% of mammals. In addition, we used a biodiversity importance score which demonstrated the importance of rangelands and agricultural areas for biodiversity conservation. Finally, we observed that the distribution of current PAs, and the focus of Kenya's wildlife policy in general, is in areas of lowest human pressure, often with the highest large mammal densities. However, other biodiversity indicators ‐ such as bird and plant species richness ‐ show that areas under human‐dominated LU currently support substantial biodiversity. Overall, our analysis demonstrates that formal PAs and wildlife policy presently cover only a small fraction of national biodiversity, which resides mainly in human‐dominated landscapes that are undergoing rapid change. These findings echo global calls for a landscape‐based approach to conservation policy and practice that promotes the coexistence of people and wildlife within social‐ecological systems.

show abstract

Changes in human footprint drive changes in species extinction risk

Cited by 237 publications

References 43 publications

Scavenging in the Anthropocene: Human impact drives vertebrate scavenger species richness at a global scale

Scavenging in the Anthropocene: Human impact drives vertebrate scavenger species richness at a global scale

Restoration priorities to achieve the global protected area target

Conservation beyond protected areas: Using vertebrate species ranges and biodiversity importance scores to inform policy for an east African country in transition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About