Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity

Rodrigues, Ana S. L.; Andelman, Sandy J.; Bakarr, Mohamed I.; Boitani, Luigi; Brooks, Thomas M.; Cowling, Richard M.; Fishpool, Lincoln; Fonseca, Gustavo; Gaston, Kevin J.; Hoffmann, Michael; Long, Janice; Marquet, Pablo A.; Pilgrim, John D.; Pressey, Robert L.; Schipper, Jan; Sechrest, Wes; Stuart, Simon N.; Underhill, Les G.; Waller, Robert W.; Watts, Matthew; Yan, Xie

doi:10.1038/nature02422

Cited by 1,239 publications

(956 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

891

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Using ecoregions as classification units at the global scale (Dinerstein et al 1995;Olson & Dinerstein 2002), zones of high biodiversity and endemism have been identified globally (Myers et al 2000;Mittermeier et al 2004;Kier et al 2005;Lamoreaux et al 2006), and their protected status evaluated (Hoekstra et al 2005). Several studies have applied representativeness assessment for setting conservation priorities at global (Chape et al 2003(Chape et al , 2005Rodrigues et al 2004a, Jenkins & Joppa 2009) and country or regional scales (Powell et al 2000;Sierra et al 2002;Arango et al 2003;Armenteras et al 2003;Oldfield et al 2004;Dietz & Czech 2005;López & Zambrana-Torrelio 2006;Soutullo & Gudynas 2006;Maiorano et al 2007;Schulman et al 2007;Brugiere & Kormos 2009;Wiersma & Nudds 2009). Representativeness has also been used as a fundamental criterion for prioritizing areas for systematic conservation planning (Davey 1998;Margules & Pressey 2000;Groves 2003;Molnar et al 2004;Pressey 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Representativeness of terrestrial ecosystems in Chile's protected area system

Pliscoff

Fuentes‐Castillo

2011

Envir. Conserv.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYBecause protected areas are a major means of conservation, the extent to which ecosystems are represented under different protection regimes needs to be ascertained. A gap analysis approach was used to assess the representativeness of Chile's terrestrial ecosystems in differing kinds of protected areas. Terrestrial ecosystems were described in terms of potential vegetation, employing three protection scenarios. Scenario 1 was based exclusively on the Chilean National System of Protected Wild Areas (SNASPE). Scenario 2 included all types of public protected areas, namely SNASPE, nature sanctuaries and Ministry of National Heritage lands. Scenario 3 included all items in Scenario 2, but also included private protected areas and biodiversity priority sites. There is insufficient protection of terrestrial ecosystems under the Scenario 2. In addition to the low level of ecosystem protection provided by state protected areas (only 42 of the 127 terrestrial ecosystems had >10% of their area protected), 23 terrestrial ecosystems were identified as having no protection at the national level. Gaps in protection were concentrated in the North (both coastal and inland desertic scrub), Central (thorny scrub, thorny forests, sclerophyllous forests and deciduous coastal forests) and Austral (steppe ecosystems) regions of Chile. These gaps include ecosystems that are of global conservation importance.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Representativeness of terrestrial ecosystems in Chile's protected area system

Pliscoff

Fuentes‐Castillo

2011

Envir. Conserv.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Conservation has traditionally responded to potential loses of biota by establishing legally protected areas (Pressey 1994; Rodrigues et al 2004). Wittemyer et al (2008) have shown that average human population growth rates on the borders of protected areas in Africa and Latin America were nearly double the average rural growth, suggesting that protected areas attracted human settlement.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the protection of wildlife in parks: the case of African buffalo in Serengeti

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human population growth rates on the borders of protected areas in Africa are nearly double the average rural growth, suggesting that protected areas attract human settlement. Increasing human populations could be a threat to biodiversity through increases in illegal hunting. In the Serengeti ecosystem, Tanzania, there have been marked declines in black rhino (Diceros bicornis), elephant (Loxodonta africana) and African buffalo (Syncerus caffer) inside the protected area during a period when there was a reduction of protection through anti-poaching effort . Subsequently, protection effort has increased and has remained stable. During both periods there were major differences in population decline and recovery in different areas. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the possible causes of the spatial differences. We used a spatially structured population model to analyze the impacts of three factors-(i) hunting, (ii) food shortage and (iii) natural predation. Population changes were best explained by illegal hunting but model fit improved with the addition of predation mortality and the effect of food supply in areas where hunting was least. We used a GIS analysis to determine variation in human settlement rates and related those rates to intrinsic population changes in buffalo. Buffalo populations in close proximity to areas with higher rates of human settlement had low or 123Biodivers Conserv (2010) 19:3431-3444 DOI 10.1007/s10531-010-9904-z negative rates of increase and were slowest to recover or failed to recover at all. The increase in human populations along the western boundary of the Serengeti ecosystem has led to negative consequences for wildlife populations, pointing to the need for enforcement of wildlife laws to mitigate these effects.

show abstract

“…Recognition of this bias in distribution has resulted in efforts to develop a more representative 'conservation portfolio' based on biogeographical patterns (e.g. Rodrigues et al, 2004). Thus, a similar analysis under the anthrome framework will provide additional information to assure that conservation opportunities are not being missed or undervalued in coupled human-natural systems.…”

Section: Proposalmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Others have used biogeographical frameworks to identify 'gaps' in the coverage of protected areas (e.g. Rodrigues et al, 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conservation opportunities across the world's anthromes

Martin

Quinn

Ellis

et al. 2014

Diversity and Distributions

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim Biologists increasingly recognize the roles of humans in ecosystems. Subsequently, many have argued that biodiversity conservation must be extended to environments that humans have shaped directly. Yet popular biogeographical frameworks such as biomes do not incorporate human land use, limiting their relevance to future conservation planning. 'Anthromes' map global ecological patterns created by sustained direct human interactions with ecosystems. In this paper, we set to understand how current conservation efforts are distributed across anthromes.Location Global.Methods We analysed the global distribution of IUCN protected areas and biodiversity hotspots by anthrome. We related this information to density of native plant species and density of previous ecological studies. Potential conservation opportunities in anthromes were then identified through global analysis and two case studies.Results Protected areas and biodiversity hotspots are not distributed equally across anthromes. Less populated anthromes contain a greater proportion of protected areas. The fewest hotspots are found within densely settled anthromes and wildlands, which occur at the two extremes of human population density. Opportunities for representative protection, prioritization, study and inclusion of native species were not congruent.Main conclusions Researchers and practitioners can use the anthromes framework to analyse the distribution of conservation practices at the global and regional scale. Like biomes, anthromes could also be used to set future conservation priorities. Conservation goals in areas directly shaped by humans need not be less ambitious than those in 'natural areas'.

show abstract

Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity

Cited by 1,239 publications

References 20 publications

Representativeness of terrestrial ecosystems in Chile's protected area system

Representativeness of terrestrial ecosystems in Chile's protected area system

Evaluating the protection of wildlife in parks: the case of African buffalo in Serengeti

Conservation opportunities across the world's anthromes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About