Global priorities for conservation across multiple dimensions of mammalian diversity

Abstract

Conservation priorities that are based on species distribution, endemism, and vulnerability may underrepresent biologically unique species as well as their functional roles and evolutionary histories. To ensure that priorities are biologically comprehensive, multiple dimensions of diversity must be considered. Further, understanding how the different dimensions relate to one another spatially is important for conservation prioritization, but the relationship remains poorly understood. Here, we use spatial conservation planning to (i) identify and compare priority regions for global mammal conservation across three key dimensions of biodiversity-taxonomic, phylogenetic, and traits-and (ii) determine the overlap of these regions with the locations of threatened species and existing protected areas. We show that priority areas for mammal conservation exhibit low overlap across the three dimensions, highlighting the need for an integrative approach for biodiversity conservation. Additionally, currently protected areas poorly represent the three dimensions of mammalian biodiversity. We identify areas of high conservation priority among and across the dimensions that should receive special attention for expanding the global protected area network. These highpriority areas, combined with areas of high priority for other taxonomic groups and with social, economic, and political considerations, provide a biological foundation for future conservation planning efforts. complementarity | phylogenetic dimension | spatial conservation prioritization | taxonomic dimension | trait dimension

Spatial overlaps between the global protected areas network and terrestrial hotspots of evolutionary diversity

“…Areas such as the Andes and Amazon in South America, and Madagascar, often emerge as high‐priority conservation areas for vertebrates (e.g., Brum et al, ; Pollock et al, ; Rosauer & Jetz, ). However, high‐priority areas for the conservation of other taxonomic groups may differ.…”

“…These approaches do not capture important facets of biological diversity, such as phylogenetic diversity or latent risk of extinction (see Daru, Bank, & Davies, ; Davies & Cadotte, ; Forest et al, ). Along these lines, studies have demonstrated that protected areas do not overlap with concentrations of avian or mammalian phylogenetic diversity (e.g., Brum et al, ; Pollock, Thuiller, & Jetz, ; Rosauer, Pollock, Linke, & Jetz, ). Given that some species have more distinctive evolutionary histories than others (Faith, ; Vane‐Wright, Humphries, & Williams, ), non‐random extinction of species can result in some clades losing a higher proportion of species than others (Davies & Yessoufou, ).…”

Contrasting diversity patterns of breeding Anatidae in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres

“…Many such studies focus on taxonomic diversity (TD), which is often measured as species richness, that is, the total number of species in a community. However, the biodiversity concept includes many other aspects of biological variation, including genetic, functional, phenotypic, and phylogenetic variability, and the overlap of the priority regions across these diversity dimensions can be limited (Brum et al, 2017) Therefore, prioritizing conservation of hotspots of species richness can lead to loss of other facets of biodiversity (Veach, Minin, Pouzols, & Moilanen, 2017) in part because knowledge of species richness is insufficient to understand processes of species coexistence, community structure, and ecological function (Cadotte, Carscadden, & Mirotchnick, 2011;Pollock, Thuiller, & Jetz, 2017). However, the biodiversity concept includes many other aspects of biological variation, including genetic, functional, phenotypic, and phylogenetic variability, and the overlap of the priority regions across these diversity dimensions can be limited (Brum et al, 2017) Therefore, prioritizing conservation of hotspots of species richness can lead to loss of other facets of biodiversity (Veach, Minin, Pouzols, & Moilanen, 2017) in part because knowledge of species richness is insufficient to understand processes of species coexistence, community structure, and ecological function (Cadotte, Carscadden, & Mirotchnick, 2011;Pollock, Thuiller, & Jetz, 2017).…”

“…Historically, species richness has been used as a major criterion for determining conservation priorities (Van Jaarsveld et al, 1998). This has led to the advocacy of accounting for multiple dimensions of biodiversity including phylogenetic diversity (PD) and functional diversity (FD), in making conservation decisions (e.g., Brum et al, 2017). This has led to the advocacy of accounting for multiple dimensions of biodiversity including phylogenetic diversity (PD) and functional diversity (FD), in making conservation decisions (e.g., Brum et al, 2017).…”

“…Distribution patterns of TD, FD, and PD may not be spatially consistent (Brum et al, 2017;Devictor et al, 2010;Voskamp, Baker, Stephens, Valdes, & Willis, 2017), and their environmental determinants can differ as well (Chapman, Tobias, Edwards, & Davies, 2018).…”