Rates and patterns of habitat loss across South Africa’s vegetation biomes

Abstract

The loss of natural habitat resulting from human activities is the principal driver of biodiversity loss in terrestrial ecosystems globally. Metrics of habitat loss are monitored at national and global scales using various remote sensing based land-cover change products. The metrics go on to inform reporting processes, biodiversity assessments, land-use decision-making and strategic planning in the environmental and conservation sector. We present key metrics of habitat loss across South Africa at national and biome levels for the first time. We discuss the spatial patterns and trends, and the implications and limitations of the metrics. Approximately 22% of the natural habitat of South Africa has been lost since the arrival of European settlers. The extent and the rate of habitat loss are not uniform across South Africa. The relatively mesic Grassland, Fynbos and Indian Ocean Coastal Belt biomes have lost the most habitat, while the arid Nama-Karoo, Succulent Karoo and Desert have lost the least. Rates of loss increased across all biomes in recent years (2014–2018), indicating that the historical drivers of change (i.e. expansion of croplands, human settlements, plantation forestry and mining) are intensifying overall. We should caution that the losses we report are conservative, because the land-cover change products do not capture degradation within natural ecosystems. Preventing widespread biodiversity losses and securing the benefits we derive from biodiversity requires slowing and preventing further habitat degradation and loss by using existing land-use planning and regulatory tools to their full potential.

Assessing the threat of landscape transformation and habitat fragmentation in a global biodiversity hotspot

“…2019a; Skowno et al . 2021). According to criterion A, habitat loss has been prominent in the low‐lying ecosystems and nearly absent in upland ecosystems.…”

“…We assumed a proportional rate of habitat decline, due to the considerable urban sprawl of the early 1990s (Skowno et al . 2021). The proportional rate of decline between 1990 and 2014 was used to estimate the 2064 habitat extent (sub‐criterion A2b).…”

“…2019a; Skowno et al . 2021). Habitat loss has driven many species locally extinct and habitat fragmentation impacts have degraded many ecosystems (von Hase et al .…”

Scientific foundations for an ecosystem goal, milestones and indicators for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework

“…As with the RLIE, it is derived from RLE data, currently available for a subset of countries/regions 21,95 . However, the index can incorporate data from a range of sources, including national datasets 97 , and other ecosystem area metrics such as those for specific ecosystem types, e.g., for forests 95,98 . Recent advances in global-scale ecosystem mapping are reducing the still significant limitations in accuracy, bias and data gaps [99][100][101] .…”

“…Few of the indicators we reviewed can do this; instead most countries use their own indicators 121 , presenting a mismatch in reporting that wastes effort, degrades consistency of reporting and reduces overall understanding. Defining and mapping ecosystems at national and global scales will be a vital first step to providing consistent underlying data for all ecosystem-based indicators, and a baseline for area and integrity; much progress has been made 11,21,97 , but there is substantial work ahead. Progress can be strengthened through investment in biodiversity assessment, such as Red List of Ecosystems assessments, and ecosystem accounting at national and global levels 23,122 .…”