Towards a taxonomically unbiased European Union biodiversity strategy for 2030

Mammola, Stefano; Riccardi, Nicoletta; Prié, Vincent; Correia, Ricardo A.; Cardoso, Pedro; Lopes‐Lima, Manuel; Sousa, Ronaldo

doi:10.1098/rspb.2020.2166

Cited by 92 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…D'Amen, et al 35 found that 87% of the studied saproxylic beetles were not represented in the Italian PA network, Martín-Piera 36 reported that 5 endemic dung beetle species were underrepresented in Spain, and a previous study with dung beetles showed conservation gaps in Costa Rica 23 . In terms of funding, a recent study has shown that European Union conservation funds are strongly biased to charismatic species, with birds and mammals alone accounting for 72% of species and 75% of the total budget, and that even the two species receiving the most money (brown bear and grey wolf) are not threatened according to the IUCN 34 . This lack of representativeness coverage by existing PA networks also exists for other taxa, but not as severely as for unseen diversity groups.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As the notion of conservation planning with the aim of representing the elements of biodiversity is relatively new, and acknowledging that it has not been considered during the de nition of many existing PA, we extend this concept of intrinsic representativeness to a vaguer notion that includes elements of biodiversity commonly represented in conservation planning, typically terrestrial vertebrates and charismatic or umbrella species. In fact, these represent the lion's share of the funds dedicated to biodiversity conservation 34 . The question is whether the so generated PA also maximize the representativeness of other elements such as the unseen diversity, typically not considered in the design process.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Protected Area Networks Do Not Represent Unseen Diversity

Delso

Muñoz

Fajardo

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most existing protected area networks are usually biased to protect charismatic species or showy landscapes. We hypothesized that conservation networks designed including unseen diversity –groups usually species-rich but consisting of inconspicuous taxa, or affected by knowledge gaps– would be more efficient than networks ignoring those groups. To test this hypothesis, we created species distribution models for 3,006 species of arthropods and determined which were represented in three networks of different size and biogeographic origin. We assessed the efficiency of each network using spatial prioritization to measure its completeness –increment needed to achieve conservation targets– and specificity –how much overlap the priority areas based on unseen diversity with existing networks. We find that representativeness of unseen diversity in existing protected areas –extrinsic representativeness– was low, as ~40% of unseen diversity species were unprotected. We also find that existing networks should be expanded by an additional ~26-46% of their current area to complete targets, and that specificity can be as low as 8.8%, meaning that existing networks are not efficient to conserve unseen diversity. We conclude that information on unseen diversity must be included in systematic conservation planning approaches to design more efficient and ecologically representative protected areas.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Protected Area Networks Do Not Represent Unseen Diversity

Delso

Muñoz

Fajardo

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A second criticism may concern the number of modelled species we are focusing on in this study. Mainly, this occurs because, when compared to other biological groups, insect species are generally less charismatic and the species charisma is an important driver in conservation (Mammola et al 2020). Consequently, they are more strongly affected by the several data-related shortfalls that usually affect data for biological groups (Cardoso et al 2011;Hortal et al 2015).…”

Section: Species Occurrence Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Predicting climate effects on aquatic true bugs in a tropical biodiversity hotspot

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate change is a matter of worldwide concern with severe predicted impacts on biodiversity. Here, we analysed the potential impacts of current and future climates on aquatic true bugs (Heteroptera) in relation to their distribution patterns and ecological preferences (based on a database generated from existing literature references and eld collections). We considered the traits as 'species thermal range' and 'emergence period' to evaluate the future climate change impacts on the distributions of aquatic true bugs in the riverine regions of a tropical biodiversity hotspot, the Western Ghats of India. We used Species Distribution Models (SDMs) to evaluate the potential impacts of climate change on the distributions of aquatic true bugs. We modelled the distributions of twenty-six species of aquatic true bugs using different modelling tools through a carefully examined set of occurrence records to generate potential present distributions and to project these distributions into future scenarios of climate change. We observed increasing/decreasing range sizes of the species in the current and future scenarios. We found losses and increases of species' ranges in some regions, but not much variation in species richness. Similarly, no signi cant effect was observed in the distribution ranges for species with different duration of emergence period and thermal range in current and future climatic scenarios. Losses and gains in species richness would be concentrated in the mountainous area of the Western Ghats, whereas loss of species and the bigger difference between current and future richness will occur in the adjacent lowlands and towards central regions, including the network of protected areas of the Western Ghats. These areas are critical to buffer regional species loss in the future.

show abstract

“…For instance, in Europe, funding for conservation between 1992 and 2018 through LIFE projects was limited to €150 million for invertebrates, while for vertebrates, the number was ca. 6.5×higher, amounting to €970 million [9]. Notably, funding appeared somewhat independent of species extinction risk provided that 26.3% of invertebrates are classified as critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable, in contrast to 13.3% of vertebrates [10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Insect Cultural Services: How Insects Have Changed Our Lives and How Can We Do Better for Them

Duffus

Christie

Morimoto

2021

Insects

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Societies have benefited directly and indirectly from ecosystem services provided by insects for centuries (e.g., pollination by bees and waste recycling by beetles). The relationship between people and insect ecosystem services has evolved and influenced how societies perceive and relate to nature and with each other, for example, by shaping cultural values (‘cultural ecosystem services’). Thus, better understanding the significance of insect cultural services can change societies’ motivations underpinning conservation efforts. To date, however, we still overlook the significance of many insect cultural services in shaping our societies, which in turn likely contributes to the generalised misconceptions and misrepresentations of insects in the media such as television and the internet. To address this gap, we have reviewed an identified list of insect cultural services that influence our societies on a daily basis, including cultural services related to art, recreation, and the development of traditional belief systems. This list allowed us to formulate a multi-level framework which aims to serve as a compass to guide societies to better appreciate and potentially change the perception of insect cultural services from individual to global levels. This framework can become an important tool for gaining public support for conservation interventions targeting insects and the services that they provide. More broadly, this framework highlights the importance of considering cultural ecosystems services—for which values can be difficult to quantify in traditional terms—in shaping the relationship between people and nature.

show abstract

Towards a taxonomically unbiased European Union biodiversity strategy for 2030

Cited by 92 publications

References 49 publications

Protected Area Networks Do Not Represent Unseen Diversity

Protected Area Networks Do Not Represent Unseen Diversity

Predicting climate effects on aquatic true bugs in a tropical biodiversity hotspot

Insect Cultural Services: How Insects Have Changed Our Lives and How Can We Do Better for Them

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About