The scope and extent of literature that maps threats to species globally: a systematic map

Abstract

Background Human activities are driving accelerating rates of species extinctions that continue to threaten nature’s contribution to people. Yet, the full scope of where and how human activities threaten wild species worldwide remains unclear. Furthermore, the large diversity of approaches and terminology surrounding threats and threat mapping presents a barrier to understanding the state of knowledge and uptake into decision-making. Here, we define ‘threats’ as human activities and direct human-initiated processes, specifically where they co-occur with, and impact the survival of, wild species. Our objectives were to systematically consolidate the threat mapping literature, describe the distribution of available evidence, and produce a publicly available and searchable database of articles for easy uptake of evidence into future decision-making. Methods Four bibliographic databases, one web-based search engine, and thirteen organisational websites were searched for peer-reviewed and grey-literature published in English 2000–2020. A three-stage screening process (title, abstract, and full-text) and coding was undertaken by two reviewers, with consistency tested on 20% of articles at each stage. Articles were coded according to 22 attributes that captured dimensions of the population, threat, and geographic location studied in addition to methodological attributes. The threats studied were classified according to the IUCN Red List threat classification scheme. A range of graphical formats were used to visualise the distribution of evidence according to these attributes and complement the searchable database of articles. Review findings A total of 1069 relevant threat mapping studies were found and included in the systematic map, most conducted at a sub-national or local scale. Evidence was distributed unevenly among taxonomic groups, ecological realms, and geographies. Although articles were found for the full scope of threat categories used, most articles mapped a single threat. The most heavily mapped threats were alien invasive species, aquatic or terrestrial animal exploitation, roads and railways, residential development, and non-timber crop and livestock agriculture. Limitations regarding the English-only search and imperfect ability of the search to identify grey literature could have influenced the findings. Conclusions This systematic map represents a catalogue of threat mapping evidence at any spatial scale available for immediate use in threat reduction activities and policy decisions. The distribution of evidence has implications for devising actions to combat the threats specifically targeted in the post-2020 UN Biodiversity Framework, and for identifying other threats that may benefit from representation in global policy. It also highlights key gaps for further research to aid national and local-scale threat reduction. More knowledge would be particularly beneficial in the areas of managing multiple threats, land-based threats to marine systems, and threats to plant species and threats within the freshwater realm.

Cumulative impacts of invasive plant species in British Columbia’s riparian ecosystems: a systematic map protocol

“…We will provide the geographic distribution of studies, visualize publication trends over time, and illustrate differences in species and impacts research effort. We will use co-occurrence matrices to identify research effort biases (64).…”

Collating existing evidence on cumulative impacts of invasive plant species in riparian ecosystems of British Columbia, Canada: a systematic map protocol

“…We will provide the geographic distribution of studies, visualize publication trends over time, and illustrate differences in species and impacts research effort. We will use co-occurrence matrices to identify research effort biases [63]. Lastly, we will provide a narrative synthesis of results for both main and secondary questions.…”

Global mismatches between threat mapping research effort and the potential of threat abatement actions to reduce extinction risk

“…Threat maps have intuitive potential to inform threat abatement action planning. We used Ridley et al.’s (2022) definition of a threat map as a visual representation of the geographic areas where human activities or direct human‐initiated process (i.e., pressures) co‐occur with and affect individuals or populations of wild species. The utility of maps to assist conservation planning and implementation has been demonstrated at a variety of scales to prioritize physical and financial resources (e.g., CEPF, 2020; Myers et al., 2000; Tulloch et al., 2020), to generate public and policy awareness (e.g., Brooks et al., 2006; Carwardine et al., 2012; Chaplin‐Kramer et al., 2022), and to inform systematic conservation plans (e.g., Auerbach et al., 2014; Margules & Pressey, 2000; Tulloch et al., 2015).…”

“…Further, results of most studies do not show a relationship between species studied and extinction risk (Brooke et al., 2014; Seddon et al., 2005; Tensen, 2018). The distribution of research effort varies across drivers of biodiversity loss (Ridley et al., 2022) and often does not reflect policy priorities (Mazor et al., 2018).…”

“…For example, Ridley et al. (2022) highlight large differences in the distribution of threat mapping research effort among different threats. However, without data on conservation need, it cannot be determined whether any observed lack of research represents a true bias or simply a proportionate allocation of resources.…”