ArticlePDF Available

30% land conservation and climate action reduces tropical extinction risk by more than 50%

Authors:

Abstract

Limiting climate change to less than 2°C is the focus of international policy under the climate convention (UNFCCC), and is essential to preventing extinctions, a focus of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The post-2020 biodiversity framework drafted by the CBD proposes conserving 30% of both land and oceans by 2030. However, the combined impact on extinction risk of species from limiting climate change and increasing the extent of protected and conserved areas has not been assessed. Here we create conservation spatial plans to minimize extinction risk in the tropics using data on 289 219 species and modeling two future greenhouse gas concentration pathways (RCP2.6 and 8.5) while varying the extent of terrestrial protected land and conserved areas from <17% to 50%. We find that limiting climate change to 2°C and conserving 30% of terrestrial area could more than halve aggregate extinction risk compared with uncontrolled climate change and no increase in conserved area.
www.ecography.org
ECOGRAPHY
Ecography
943
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
© 2020 e Authors. Ecography published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Nordic Society Oikos
is is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Subject Editor and
Editor-in-Chief: Miguel Araújo
Accepted 21 February 2020
43: 943–953, 2020
doi: 10.1111/ecog.05166
43 943–953
Limiting climate change to less than 2°C is the focus of international policy under
the climate convention (UNFCCC), and is essential to preventing extinctions, a
focus of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). e post-2020 biodiversity
framework drafted by the CBD proposes conserving 30% of both land and oceans
by 2030. However, the combined impact on extinction risk of species from limiting
climate change and increasing the extent of protected and conserved areas has not been
assessed. Here we create conservation spatial plans to minimize extinction risk in the
tropics using data on 289 219 species and modeling two future greenhouse gas con-
centration pathways (RCP2.6 and 8.5) while varying the extent of terrestrial protected
land and conserved areas from <17% to 50%. We nd that limiting climate change to
2°C and conserving 30% of terrestrial area could more than halve aggregate extinction
risk compared with uncontrolled climate change and no increase in conserved area.
Keywords: area-based conservation, biodiversity, climate change, conservation
planning, extinction risk
30% land conservation and climate action reduces tropical
extinction risk by more than 50%
LeeHannah, Patrick R.Roehrdanz, Pablo A.Marquet, Brian J.Enquist, GuyMidgley,
WendyFoden, Jon C.Lovett, Richard T.Corlett, DerekCorcoran, Stuart H. M. Butchart,
BradBoyle, XiaoFeng, BrianMaitner, JavierFajardo, Brian J.McGill, CoryMerow,
NaiaMorueta-Holme, Erica A.Newman, Daniel S.Park, NielsRaes and Jens-ChristianSvenning
L. Hannah and P. R. Roehrdanz (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4047-5011) (proehrdanz@conservation.org), e Moore Center for Science, Conservation
International, 2011 Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA 22202, USA. – P. A. Marquet, D. Corcoran and J. Fajardo (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0990-9718),
Dept de Ecología, Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas, Ponticia Univ. Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile. PAM, DC and JF also at: Instituto de Ecología y
Biodiversidad (IEB), Santiago, Chile. – PAM and B. J. Enquist, e Santa Fe Institute, USA, Santa Fe, NM, USA. – BJE, B. Boyle, X. Feng, B. Maitner
and E. A. Newman (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6433-8594), Dept of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Univ. of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA. – G. Midgley,
Dept of Botany and Zoology, Stellenbosch Univ., Stellenbosch, South Africa. – W. Foden, Cape Research Centre, South African National Parks, Cape Town,
South Africa. – J. C. Lovett, School of Geography, e Univ. of Leeds, Leeds, UK, and: Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, UK. – R. T. Corlett,
Centre for Integrative Conservation, Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Menglun, Yunnan, China. – S. H.
M. Butchart, BirdLife International, David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, Cambridge, UK, and: Dept of Zoology, Univ. of Cambridge,
Cambridge, UK. – B. J. McGill, School of Biology and Ecology, and Senator George J. Mitchell Center of Sustainability Solutions, Univ. of Maine, Orono,
ME, USA. – C. Merow, Dept of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Univ. of Connecticut, CT, USA. – N. Morueta-Holme (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
0776-4092), Center for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate; GLOBE Institute; Univ. of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. – D. S. Park (https://orcid.
org/0000-0003-2783-530X), Dept of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard Univ., MA, USA. – N. Raes (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4329-
4892), Naturalis Biodiversity Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. – J.-C. Svenning (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3415-0862), Center for Biodiversity
Dynamics in a Changing World (BIOCHANGE), Dept of Biology, Aarhus Univ., Aarhus, Denmark.
Research
944
Introduction
Preventing human-driven extinctions of the species sharing the
planet with us is among the greatest environmental challenges
of our time (Ehrlich and Mooney 1983, Rockströmet al.
2009). e Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has
been agreed by 195 nations to require ‘…maintenance and
recovery of viable populations of species’ for the conserva-
tion of biodiversity (Convention on Biological Diversity
1992). In the rst draft of the post-2020 biodiversity frame-
work developed by the CBD, extinction risk reduction is a
goal for 2030 to achieve the longer-term 2050 vision of a
world of ‘living in harmony with nature’ (CBD Secretariat
2020). Global extinction rate is a benchmark for planetary
boundaries, dening both the sixth mass extinction event
and a possible boundary for the Anthropocene geological
epoch (Rockström et al. 2009, Dirzo et al. 2014,
Ceballosetal. 2015).
Conservation of natural areas and sustainable use of
nature are recognized as important instruments with which
extinctions and other loss of biodiversity may be avoided
(Convention on Biological Diversity 1992). A key target of
the draft post-2020 biodiversity framework is to conserve
sites of importance for biodiversity through protected and
conserved areas covering at least 30% of land and ocean
(CBD Secretariat 2020). On land, both conservation and
sustainable use are currently challenged by increasing large-
scale monoculture and industrial developments, (Austinetal.
2017) making some form of conservation or land-use man-
agement essential to realizing these aims in most regions.
Without such conservation, loss of species’ habitats will result
in increased extinction risk.
In addition to the local-to-global benet of reducing
extinctions and maintaining biodiversity, maintaining natural
systems provides a wealth of benets at all scales. A well-man-
aged system of conserved areas can provide vital ecosystem
services, such as water purication and retention, erosion
control, the reduction of ooding, maintaining river base
ows and opportunities for ecotourism as well as minimiz-
ing extinctions (Dudley and Stolton 2003, Mulongoy and
Gidda 2008). For example, protected areas containing forests
provide an important supply of drinking water to more than
a third of the world’s 100 largest cities (Dudley and Stolton
2003). e conservation and eective management of natu-
ral areas is currently recognized as an important nature-based
solution for climate change mitigation (Griscometal. 2017,
Dudleyetal. 2018, Marquetetal. 2019); these areas account
for approximately 20% of the CO2 sequestered by all terres-
trial ecosystems (Melilloetal. 2016).
Climate change is now altering ecological conditions
across the planet, both on land and in the oceans, and spe-
cies are shifting their distributions in response to these new
conditions (Bellardetal. 2012, Urban 2015, IPBES 2019).
Species’ distributions are determined by a combination of
climatic and other niche tolerances (including edaphic),
geographical barriers and competition, so shifting climatic
conditions result in changes in the areas occupied by species,
altering representation in conserved areas and changing or
reducing ecosystem benets (Fodenetal. 2007, Lenoiretal.
2008, Pecletal. 2017). Climate change is causing some spe-
cies to shift their distributions out of existing conserved areas
(Araújoetal. 2004, Heller and Zavaleta 2009, Johnstonetal.
2013, Urban 2015), while also enabling some species to colo-
nize new areas (Chenetal. 2011, Angelo and Daehler 2013).
Species’ climate niches are unique, meaning that species move
individualistically in response to climate change. Species
will be moving at dierent rates and in dierent directions,
resulting in altered combinations of species in any one
location over time.
e interaction between climate change and com-
plex landscapes makes knowing where to conserve species
more complicated. Conservation plans that minimize area
requirements based on species’ current locations and habi-
tat requirements will no longer be eective as those locations
and habitats change. Establishing protected and conserved
areas in the right places to facilitate species’ distributional
shifts through time can help avoid extinctions due to cli-
mate change (Williams et al. 2005, Hannah et al. 2007,
Phillipsetal. 2008, Alagadoretal. 2016, Bagchietal. 2018).
Until now it is unknown how much extinction risk reduction
is possible under dierent extents of conserved area consider-
ing the eects of both land use change and climate change
(though see Baillie and Zhang 2018).
To address these questions, we created conservation spa-
tial plans for 289 219 tropical plant and vertebrate species
that minimized both present and modeled future extinction
risk under two greenhouse gas concentration pathways –
RCP2.6 and 8.5 – across varying area of terrestrial conser-
vation, from current levels up to 50% conserved, including
30% conserved as suggested in the draft post-2020 frame-
work (CBD 2020). We used widely available vertebrate dis-
tribution and occurrence data as well as the most up-to-date
compilation of terrestrial plant data (Enquist et al. 2019).
Extinction risk results are expressed as the mean, maximum
and minimum of our 10-climate model ensemble. Extinction
risk can be assessed in multiple ways. e IUCN Red List
classies species into dierent categories of relative extinc-
tion risk, while multiple modeling approaches exist for esti-
mating probability of extinction including the species area
relationship (SAR). e Zonation conservation planning
software (Moilanenetal. 2014) incorporates SAR theory to
produce estimates of extinction risk for every species. We sum
these values across species to calculate an aggregate extinc-
tion risk (AER), ranging from 0 if no species are at risk to 1
if all species have gone extinct). We thensummarize this for
three major tropical biogeographic regions – the Neotropics,
Afrotropics, and Southeast Asian tropics for both climate sce-
narios and conservation from present to 50% of terrestrial
area. is allows us to assess, for the rst time, which natural
areas are required to minimize extinction risk of tropical spe-
cies in the face of climate change and how much extinction
risk we may avoid by conserving additional area.
16000587, 2020, 7, Downloaded from https://nsojournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ecog.05166, Wiley Online Library on [22/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
945
Material and methods
Overview
We modelled present and future geographic ranges of
94 337 plant species and 9722 vertebrate species across the
Neotropics, Afrotropics and Southeast Asian tropics. Our
methods are described in detail below, under the following:
1) climate models and RCPs – we used 10 GCM selected to
be consistent across the three regions and two RCP (2.6 and
8.5) to provide low and high brackets of future climate; 2)
spatial planning algorithm – we used Zonation conservation
planning software with settings customized to accommodate
range shifts under climate change; 3) extinction risk calcula-
tion – we used an AER index equal to the sum of individual
species’ extinction risks, based on SAR; 4) species distribu-
tion models – we used Maxent (Phillipsetal. 2006) to t
species distribution models at 30 arc-second (~1 km) resolu-
tion then project distributions into baseline climate all future
climate scenarios at 2.5 arc-minutes (~5 km) for analysis; 5)
environmental predictor variables – were taken from stan-
dard WorldClim variables plus a custom aridity index; 6) soils
data – global soilgrids variables; 7) land use and land cover
data – from global consensus landcover dataset; 8) plant data
– we used botanical occurrence data assembled and standard-
ized within the BIEN database; 9) vertebrate data – we used
publicly available occurrence records veried with IUCN
expert range polygons. Details are given below for each of
these methods.
Climate models and RCPs
We used 10 GCMs and two climate scenarios for the 2060–
2080 timeframe. e GCMs used to drive our biological
models include Access 1.0, BCC-CSM1.1, CNRM-cm5,
GFDL-cm3, MOHC-HADGEM2-es, NCAR-CCSM4,
LASG-FGOALS-g2, NCC-NORESM-m, MIROC-ESM
and MPI-ESM-lr. We used a low forcing scenario, RCP2.6,
to approximate climate change consistent with meeting the
Paris Agreement target of 2.0°C global mean temperature
change, and RCP8.5 to approximate business-as-usual, no
action on climate change.
Spatial planning algorithm
We used the Zonation Conservation Planning Software
(‘Zonation’), a tool that allows for simultaneous prioritization
of many thousands of conservation features (Moilanenetal.
2005, Moilanen 2007). We applied Zonation at a horizontal
spatial resolution of 2.5 arc-minutes (~5 km). Zonation can
be used for conservation prioritization under climate change.
is conguration of Zonation allows for simultaneous pri-
oritization of a species current range, its modelled future
range, and the connectivity between the two limited by a spe-
cies’ capacity to disperse. e protocol for running Zonation
under climate change projections is described in Kujalaetal.
(2013). Species current ranges were linked to projected future
ranges through an interaction layer (Kujalaetal. 2013). is
layer is transformed by a dispersal kernel with a parameter
to limit the interaction to the species total capacity to dis-
perse over the period of analysis. Total dispersal capacity was
assumed to be 100 km for vertebrates (roughly 1 km year1)
and 10 km for vascular plants (roughly 0.1 km year1) follow-
ing previously published studies (Warrenetal. 2013). Species
with too few occurrence records to produce a model were
included as point locations (Zonation term = ‘species of spe-
cial interest’ or SSI) where the range was dened as each grid
cell containing 1 occurrence record. Equal weighting was
used for all conservation features.
Extinction risk calculation
Zonation/climate seeks to maximize biodiversity represen-
tation – both present and future – and thereby minimize
extinction risk, at each area increment, based on a power-
law species area relationship (SAR) parameter that can be set
for each conservation feature. Here we used the default SAR
parameter (z = 0.25) for all areas in order to transform of the
proportion of species ranges conserved at each step of the
solution to the per species extinction risk where:
Extinctionrisk1 Proportionconserved 0.25=-
()
^
To summarize over all species at dierent time steps, we cal-
culated aggregate extinction risk (AER) at each step as the
sum of individual species’ remaining extinction risk across all
species normalized by the total number of species.
Species distribution models
Species distribution models were produced with Maxent
(Phillips et al. 2006) for species with >10 unique occur-
rence records (i.e. unique 1 km grid cells in the modelling
domain) (van Proosdijetal. 2016). Maxent settings followed
the recommendations of Merowetal. (2013, 2014) to pro-
duce relatively less complex models (e.g. limiting features to
linear, quadratic, and product functions) to minimize overt-
ting. Modelling domains were limited to a spatial buer of
within 500 km of any valid occurrence record. is likewise
limited the projected ranges to within 500 km of any veried
observation. Background sampling was a random sample of
10 000 points within the buered modelling domain. Five
model replicates were used in tting the model and an aver-
age of the ve replicates was used for the nal species model.
Parameters from the nal model were used to project spe-
cies suitability for both baseline and future climate scenarios.
Default values for regularization coecients were used and
30% of occurrence records were randomly reserved to assess
model performance.
16000587, 2020, 7, Downloaded from https://nsojournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ecog.05166, Wiley Online Library on [22/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
946
Environmental predictor variables
We chose the following bioclimatic variables from downscaled
20-year normals (Hijmansetal. 2005) baseline (1960–1990)
and future (2060–2080) climates based on pan-tropical cor-
relation analysis: mean annual temperature (BIO1), mean
diurnal temperature range (BIO2), seasonality of tempera-
ture (BIO4), minimum temperature of the coldest month
(BIO6), mean annual precipitation (BIO12), seasonality of
precipitation (BIO15). We also used an accumulated aridity
index that is the sum of the monthly aridity (annual precipi-
tation – PET) for the maximum run of consecutive months
where (PET > precipitation). Accumulated aridity index is
derived from global monthly extra-terrestrial solar radiation
data from Trabucco and Zomer (2019) and monthly maxi-
mum temperature, minimum temperature and precipitation
from Worldclim ver. 1.4 (Hijmansetal. 2005).
Soils data
Soils variables used in species distribution models were depth
to bedrock, pH, clay proportion, silt proportion and bulk
density. All soil-related variables were obtained from Soilgrids
ver. 1.0 (accessed February 2018) (Hengl et al. 2017).
Variables with multiple strata available are the mean of the
top 1 m (strata 1–4). Soils variables were included as it has
been shown that climate change analyses that do not incor-
porate soils variability can misrepresent edaphic specialists
(Corlett and Tomlinson 2020).
Land cover and land use data
Areas of existing built up land or intensive agriculture were
removed from the analysis and therefore those cells are not
part of the prioritization solution. Built up and agricultural
areas were dened as >50% of pixel coverage for ‘urban’ and
‘agriculture’ classes from the 1 km resolution global consen-
sus land cover dataset produced by Tuanmu and Jetz (2014)
that were aggregated to match the 2.5 arc-minute resolution
of analysis. Existing protected areas (IUCN and WCMC
2018) were solved rst using a hierarchical mask so that
the conservation priorities take the eects existing protec-
tion into account. e analysis domain was limited to the
Afrotropics, Neotropics and Indo-Malayan biogeographic
realms with the Indonesian plus Papua New Guinea portion
of the Australasian realm also included in the Asia domain
(Dinersteinetal. 2017).
Plant data
Vascular plant data was extracted from the BIEN ver. 4.1
database using the RBIEN package (Maitner et al. 2018).
Occurrence records with geographic information were
obtained for 275 372 species of which we modelled 94
337. e BIEN data mainly comprise herbarium collec-
tions, ecological plots and surveys (DeWalt et al. 1999,
Wiseretal. 2001, Enquist & Boyle 2012, Enquistetal. 2016,
Fegraus 2012, Peetetal. 2012, Forest Inventory and Analysis
National Program 2013, Anderson-Teixeiraetal. 2015). For
details of specimen data sources see Maitneret al. (2018).
A full listing of the herbaria data used are given in the
Acknowledgements section. e observations in the BIEN
database are the product of contributions by 1076 dierent
data contributors, including numerous individual herbaria,
and data indexers of herbarium or plot data. Of the her-
baria, 550+ are listed in Index Herbariorum. Additionally,
BIEN 4.1 includes data from RAINBIO, TEAM, e Royal
Botanical Garden of Sydney, Australia, and NeoTropTree.
Plot data within BIEN are from the CVS, NVS, SALVIAS,
VEGBANK, CTFS, FIA, MADIDI, and TEAM data net-
works and datasets (< http://bien.nceas.ucsb.edu/bien/
data-contributors/all/ >).
Vertebrate data
Point occurrences for tropical vertebrate species were compiled
from GBIF (GBIF download 2019; accessed through R pack-
age ‘rgbif’) and restricted range bird species records (Birdlife
International 2018) were combined for a total of 13 847 trop-
ical species, 9722 of which had sucient occurrence records
(>10) for modelling (van Proosdijetal. 2016). Occurrences
were ltered to include only those with specic georeferenc-
ing coordinates, observations more recent than 1950, and
human observations only (no fossil records or museum speci-
mens). Additionally, spatial outliers (more than 500 km from
IUCN range polygon or >98th percentile of latitude + longi-
tude) were removed prior to modelling. IUCN and Birdlife
International range map polygons for all available terrestrial
mammals, birds, reptiles were used to generate the species
list and as a means of occurrence record validation (Birdlife
International 2018, IUCN and UNEP WCMC 2018).
Results
Our results show that a large reduction in extinction risk can
be achieved by moving to a world in which 30% or 50% of
terrestrial area is conserved, corresponding to the proposed
action targets of the rst draft post-2020 CBD framework
(CBD 2020). Figure 1 illustrates the modeled reduction in
aggregate extinction risk with increasing area conserved, for
the Neotropics, Afrotropics and SE Asian tropics respectively.
e reduction in extinction risk of up to 82% (ensemble
mean) results from both reduced loss of habitat due to land
use change and better representation of changing habitats
for species moving in response to climate change. Outside of
fully natural landscapes, achieving these minimum extinction
results requires matching land uses to the habitat needs of
species at risk of extinction in a particular area. For instance,
shade coee may provide habitat for many bird species, but
not for understory tree species. Actual extinction risk may
be somewhat higher because multiple-use or sustainable use
landscapes may not provide suitable habitats for all species.
16000587, 2020, 7, Downloaded from https://nsojournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ecog.05166, Wiley Online Library on [22/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
947
e spatial distribution of natural areas needed to achieve
these reductions in extinction risk is illustrated for each of
the three major tropical regions in our study in Fig. 2A–C.
Many areas highlighted are recognized as global biodiver-
sity hotspots (Myersetal. 2000), indicating the continued
importance of conserving these regions of high endemism.
Many also correspond to areas recently identied as plant
rarity hotspots (Enquistetal. 2019). Mountain ranges and
other areas of high topographic diversity feature prominently,
likely due to existing high biodiversity, high endemism,
and comparatively high climate and microclimate diversity
(Rahbeketal. 2019a, b) coupled with the comparatively low
velocity of climate change in these areas (Loarieetal. 2009).
However, as the core area algorithm used (Moilanen 2007)
prioritizes representation of all species, and will try to link
niche-tracking to areas already conserved to the greatest
degree possible, spatial priorities capture many distinct eco-
systems and climate types including lowland habitats.
e areas our prioritization highlighted as important for
species on the move include many areas that are also high
conservation priority under current climate. is is because
conserving a species from present to future begins with con-
servation of the species’ current range, since this serves as
the starting point for any future dispersal. Restricted-range
species are concentrated in mountainous areas (Rahbeketal.
2019a, b), where species’ movements in response to climate
change will generally be upslope with warming temperatures
(Peters and Darling 1985, Halpin 1997) or into nearby areas
with suitable microclimates in complex terrain (Hannahetal.
2014, Rahbeketal. 2019b). Low velocity of climate change
in mountains (Loarieetal. 2009) and decreasing area with
elevation mean that species’ upslope movements will occur
over shorter distances in mountains (Serra-Diazetal. 2014),
further concentrating restricted-range species near current
montane centers of endemism (Enquistetal. 2019).
We observe a steep drop-o in modeled AER with
increasing conservation of (primarily montane) natural area
(Table 1). If conservation is limited to existing protected
areas, AER is projected to be high under both climate change
scenarios – ranging from 60 to 77% under both RCP 8.5 and
2.6. Moving to 30% land conservation combined with lower-
ing climate change (RCP2.6) results in reduction of modeled
AER by 52–68% (ensemble mean) across all regions when
compared with existing levels of conservation and higher
(RCP8.5) climate change. Unsurprisingly, the greatest extinc-
tion risk reduction could be achieved by conserving 50% of
terrestrial area with a low climate change scenario; this com-
bined action reduces modeled extinction risk by 72–82% in
the ensemble mean (Table 1). Conserving 30% or 50% of
land but with high climate change (RCP8.5), reduces mod-
eled extinction risk between 46–66% and 62–76% respec-
tively across the three regions under business-as-usual climate
change (RCP 8.5) in the ensemble mean. Reducing climate
change from business as usual (RCP 8.5) to the RCP 2.6
scenario which is more consistent with limiting mean global
temperature change to 2.0° could reduce extinction risk
5–6% more under 30% land conservation. In contrast, with
no increase in existing conservation area (<17% area), the
same climate policy is projected to result in roughly 2 to
12% additional decrease in ensemble mean extinction risk.
Figure1. Modeled extinction risk reduction with increasing land conservation. Ensemble mean Aggregate extinction risk (AER) versus %
terrestrial area conserved under RCP 2.6 (dashed lines) and RCP 8.5 (solid lines) for the Afrotropics (blue), Neotropics (red) and Asia
Tropics (green). Vertical lines show the aggregate extinction risk curve intersection with 17%, 30% and 50% terrestrial area conserved. AER
is the mean of individual species extinction risk at each increment of conserved natural land and is scaled from 0 to 1 (zero probability of
extinction to likely extinct).
16000587, 2020, 7, Downloaded from https://nsojournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ecog.05166, Wiley Online Library on [22/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
948
Figure2. (A–C) Spatial prioritizations for land conservation to minimize extinction risk. Zonation spatial solutions to minimize extinction
risk in the Afrotropics (A), SE Asia tropics (B) and Neotropics (C). AER values in Fig. 1 are derived from these spatial solutions. Areas of
darkest green are highest priority areas to minimize extinction risk at 17% land conservation. Successively lighter shades of green represent
areas that minimize extinction risk at 30% and 50% land conservation. Existing conserved areas registered in the World Database of
Protected Areas are shown in yellow. Priorities are selected to maximize representation of all species in both baseline (1960–1990) and future
ranges (RCP8.5 2060–2080).
16000587, 2020, 7, Downloaded from https://nsojournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ecog.05166, Wiley Online Library on [22/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
949
Discussion
Our analysis suggests that 30% land conservation combined
with climate change action could reduce extinction risk by
half or more across multiple conservation/climate combi-
nations in all three tropical regions. Models show that even
without lowered climate change (RCP8.5), 30% land con-
servation could reduce AER by at least half in the ensemble
mean, except in the Neotropics. e lower levels of modeled
reduction in the Neotropics are likely due to the high number
of rare species in the Andes, distributed over a relatively large
area that can not be completely captured with 30% land con-
servation. 30% land conservation could therefore pay major
benets to biodiversity conservation and is a strong target for
CBD post-2020 consideration.
e analysis also suggests that 50% land conservation
could lead to an even larger decrease in extinction risk, result-
ing in over 80% reduction in all regions when coupled with
lower climate change (RCP2.6). Roughly half of the world’s
ecoregions have already lost 50% or more of their original
natural habitat (Dinersteinetal. 2017) so this longer-term
vision of 50% land conservation would require restoration
in many areas. Careful targeting of this restoration can have
important long-term benets for biodiversity. Geographic
targeting at coarse scales can be accomplished by selecting
priority areas indicated in Fig. 2A–C. Finer-scale priorities
can be further elaborated by conducting local systematic
spatial planning for climate change using methods similar
to this study.
Natural areas can be conserved through a wide range of
mechanisms, from government-designated protected areas
to multiple-use land management such as community con-
servancies and other eective area-based conservation mea-
sures (OECM) (Dudleyetal. 2018, Dinersteinetal. 2019).
Which approach is the most appropriate will depend on the
local environmental and social context (Brownetal. 2003).
What is clear is that large-scale industrial land uses, particu-
larly monoculture and plantations, are becoming increasingly
prevalent, so achieving the results reported here will require
active policy or land use management intervention to main-
tain natural areas in high priority locations of highest value to
species’ present and future ranges.
e modeled reductions in extinction risk we report
depend on specic spatial congurations in our conserva-
tion solutions that in turn depend on GCM and species
model variants. e uncertainty associated with our GCM
Table 1. Aggregate extinction risk (AER) under varying land conservation areas and climate change. Ensemble mean, maximum and mini-
mum AER for high (RCP 8.5) and low (RCP 2.6) climate scenarios and three levels of land conservation (existing protected areas, 30% land
conservation and 50% land conservation) for Asia, Africa and the Neotropics. Values are summed extinction risk across all species, scaled
0 (zero extinction risk for all species) to 1 (100% extinction risk for all species). The ‘change’ columns represent the percent difference in
AER relative to the current protected areas under RCP 8.5. The extinction risk values in Table 1 are presented in continuous form in Fig. 1.
Ensemble mean
Mean ensemble
change Ensemble max
Max ensemble
change Ensemble min
Min ensemble
change
Neotropics
RCP8.5
Existing protected area* 0.686 0.765 0.631
30% land conservation#0.370 46.1 0.468 38.8 0.332 47.4
50% land conservation 0.259 62.2 0.368 51.9 0.219 65.3
RCP2.6
Existing protected area 0.693 2.6 0.735 3.4 0.675 0.8
30% land conservation 0.332 51.6 0.400 58.2 0.301 62.3
50% land conservation 0.192 72.0 0.269 74.9 0.159 74.8
Afrotropics
RCP8.5
Existing protected area 0.628 0.657 0.601
30% land conservation 0.234 62.7 0.267 60.2 0.195 67.6
50% land conservation 0.171 72.8 0.217 71.8 0.140 76.7
RCP2.6
Existing protected area 0.639 1.8 0.653 0.6 0.629 4.7
30% land conservation 0.197 68.6 0.220 66.5 0.178 70.4
50% land conservation 0.114 81.8 0.140 78.7 0.097 83.9
Asia Tropics
RCP8.5
Existing protected area 0.756 0.771 0.745
30% land conservation 0.261 65.5 0.300 61.1 0.227 69.5
50% land conservation 0.182 75.9 0.223 71.1 0.152 79.6
RCP2.6
Existing protected area 0.671 11.2 0.762 1.2 0.614 17.6
30% land conservation 0.314 58.5 0.360 69.2 0.231 69.0
50% land conservation 0.259 65.7 0.313 80.5 0.143 80.8
* IUCN categories I–VI.
# IUCN categories I–VI + OECM.
16000587, 2020, 7, Downloaded from https://nsojournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ecog.05166, Wiley Online Library on [22/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
950
variants is relatively low. Across 10 general circulation models
(GCM), the average ratio of ensemble mean to maximum is
0.85 and of ensemble mean to minimum is 1.17 for the 30%
conserved area target. Species modelling uncertainty is higher
than the uncertainty associated with climate models (Araújo
and Guisan 2006). Modeling a large number of species over
a broad spatial domain at relatively ne resolution requires
substantial compute resources, which is then multiplied
when several GCMs and climate pathways are considered. It
is an acknowledged limitation of this study that we report the
results of only one species distribution model method, as it
has been found that choice of modeling method is often the
largest source of variation in species range projections (Diniz-
Filhoetal. 2009, Garciaetal. 2012). Exploring solution space
with multiple species models is important and is a priority
for our research group and we recommend that the results
presented here be vetted against alternative species modeling
techniques. Use of ensemble species modeling methods and
the uncertainties they represent is a key recommendation of
recently agreed upon standards for biodiversity assessments
(Araújoetal. 2019) and is therefore an opportunity to rene
the results presented here. Indeed, the approach described in
Kujalaet al. (2013) which was followed this study oers a
template to incorporate species model uncertainty as well as
climate model uncertainty in the prioritization.
Despite this limitation, there are multiple reasons for us
to believe that these results, using only one species distribu-
tion model method (Maxent) are likely robust at the scale
of our analysis. First, our conservation planning algorithm,
Zonation, seeks solutions that minimize extinction risk,
which means minimizing range loss in rare species. Rare spe-
cies are concentrated in tropical and Mediterranean moun-
tains (Enquist et al. 2019, Rahbek et al. 2019a, b). ese
areas will emerge as high priority under current and future
climate, regardless of species model. Second, we include spe-
cies that have too few records to be modeled. ese species
are included in the conservation prioritizations with their
current occurrences set equal to their future occurrences.
Since most species are rare (Enquistetal. 2019), nearly one-
third of the species driving our priorities are these rare species
with too few occurrences to model. ese species and the
spatial priorities to conserve them are independent of species
models. ird, species will be predominantly moving upslope
in tropical mountains, so while exact locations of conserva-
tion importance for individual species may be dependent on
species models, general tropical montane locations, becom-
ing even more concentrated as climate changes, dominate our
general global results. Since rare plant species are common
and >90% of our modelled species are plants, including non-
modelled species reduces the biases associated with exclusive
reliance on the more widespread species with enough records
to model. Finally, Rare species are concentrated where past
climate change could be tracked with limited movement
(Sandeletal. 2011), likely reecting frequent limited disper-
sal ability in these species (Fodenetal. 2013) so at the spatial
resolution of our study, their future ranges are likely to be
within the same selection unit as their present range, reduc-
ing or eliminating the uncertainty that arises from lack of
ability to simulate their future range.
e AER and spatial results reported here show that on
coarse scales and across broad domains, we know where to
conserve to be most eective in meeting international con-
servation goals, even as climate changes. Conserving the areas
highlighted in our results can pay large dividends in carbon
sequestration to reduce climate change, as well as provid-
ing other ecosystem services while reducing extinction risk
and maintaining biodiversity. However, the converse is not
necessarily true – maximizing carbon sequestration may not
automatically conserve these critical biodiversity and cli-
mate priorities (Di Marco et al. 2015). Carbon sequestra-
tion, both above-ground and below-ground, may be higher
in lowland ecosystems. A strategy to maximize per unit area
carbon sequestration by pushing agriculture and other devel-
opment into more marginal uplands will require clearing
more habitat to meet production needs, in the very habitats
that are most important to conserve (Di Marcoetal. 2015,
Rahbek et al. 2019a, b). In some cases, a strategy of con-
serving more upland area (to sequester the same amount of
carbon) could meet the same carbon goal, provide substantial
ecosystem services such as watershed protection, while having
much greater biodiversity benet and potentially, as tradeo,
allowing some lowland areas with high agricultural potential
to be developed.
Achieving these multiple biodiversity and ecosystem ser-
vice benets in the real world requires continuous, iterative
planning. No set of priorities can be completely or instanta-
neously realized in a world of multiple competing develop-
ment interests that play out over time. Rather, in the real
world, conservation and development planning moves incre-
mentally and often imperfectly. So while the spatial priorities
presented here can greatly reduce extinction risk, real world
planning to reduce extinction risk will need to accept com-
promises and reorder priorities as choices (many times less
than optimal) are made. More important than a perfect set
of priorities is an ongoing planning process that considers
climate change eects on biodiversity and ecosystem services.
Such a process can ensure that at every decision point about
which areas are to remain natural or to be developed, the
highest priority areas for biodiversity under climate change
are identied. While the highest priority area may not always
be conserved, systematic bias towards the highest priority
remaining sites will progressively drive solutions towards
reduction of extinction risk. For this reason, it is important
to establish systematic conservation planning for biodiver-
sity and climate change as a key process within government
oces in charge of conservation and development planning,
as they should continuously update priorities for conserva-
tion as solutions are implemented, as well as when knowledge
of changes in species distributions and other eects of climate
change increases.
Ongoing systematic conservation planning allows for
assimilation of new data and improved climate models. For
16000587, 2020, 7, Downloaded from https://nsojournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ecog.05166, Wiley Online Library on [22/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
951
the conservation of biodiversity, uncertainties need not stand
in the way of action. By building systematic planning pro-
cesses that serve communities and nations for decades, pro-
gressive reduction in uncertainty will result in continually
improved conservation and development outcomes. e per-
fect should not be the enemy of the good; our land use plans
will never be perfect, but they can be good, they can incor-
porate consideration of conservation and species movements
due to climate change and they can continually improve.
Doing so can help ensure that all of the species that share this
planet with us will continue to thrive, and provide benets to
people, even as climate changes.
Data availability statement
Data are available from the Figshare Digital Repository: doi:
10.6084/m9.gshare.c.4868019 (Hannahetal. 2019).
Acknowledgements – is work is supported by the Global
Environment Facility grant GEF-5810 ‘Spatial Planning for
Area Conservation in Response to Climate Change (SPARC)’.
Additionally, this work was conducted as a part of the Botanical
Information and Ecology Network (BIEN) Working Group,
2008–2012. PIs BJE, RC, BB, SD and RKP were supported by
the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, a center
funded by NSF (grant no. EF-0553768), the Univ. of California,
Santa Barbara, and the State of California. Additional support
was provided for JCD, the NCEAS Research Associate in the
Group. e BIEN Working Group was also supported by the
iPlant Collaborative (NSF no. DBI-0735191). We thank all the
data contributors, numerous herbaria who have contributed their
data to various data compiling organizations for the invaluable
data and support provided to BIEN. We especially thank the New
York Botanical Garden, Missouri Botanical Garden, Biodiversity
Center, Leiden, the Netherlands, the UNC Herbarium as well
as GBIF, REMIB, and SpeciesLink. e sta at iPlant and the
Texas Advanced Computing Center at the University of Texas
provided critical computational assistance. We thank the more
than 50 scientists have participated in our various BIEN working
group and sub-group meetings since 2008 including B. Blonder,
K. Engemann, E. Fegraus, J. Cavender-Bares, B. Dobrin,
K. Gendler, R. Jorgensen, G. Lopez-Gonzalez, L. Zhenyuan, S. McKay,
O. Phillips, J. Pickering, N. Swenson, C. Vriesendorp, K. Woods,
who participated in a working group meeting and D. Ackerly,
E. Garnier, R. Guralnick, W. Jetz, J. Macklin, N. Matasci,
S. Ramteke and A. Zanne participated in sub-group meetings. We
thank John J. Wiens and Michael Sanderson for prior comments
and encouragement. We also acknowledge the critical support
of iPlant from R. Jorgensen, S. Go, N. Matasci and R. Walls.
Further, the long-term vision, encouragement, and support of
F. Davis, S. Hampton, M. Jones, and the ever-helpful sta at NCEAS
were critical for the completion of this rst stage of the BIEN
working group. NMH was supported by the European Union’s
Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie
Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 746334 and acknowledges
the Danish National Research Foundation for support to the Center
for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate (grant no. DNRF96).
CV was supported by a Marie Curie International Outgoing
Fellowship within the 7th European Community Framework
Program (DiversiTraits project, no. 221060) by the European
Research Council (ERC) Starting Grant Project (Grant ERC-
StG-2014-639706-CONSTRAINTS). JCS and BJE acknowledge
support from the Center for Informatics Research on Complexity
in Ecology (CIRCE), funded by the Aarhus University Research
Foundation under the AU Ideas program. XF and EAN were
supported by the University of Arizona Bridging Biodiversity and
Conservation Science program. CM acknowledges funding from
NSF Grant DBI-1913673. JCS considers this work a contribution
to his VILLUM Investigator project ‘Biodiversity Dynamics in a
Changing World’ funded by VILLUM FONDEN (grant 16549).
We acknowledge the herbaria that contributed data to this work:
HA, FCO, DUKE, MFU, UNEX, VDB, ASDM, AMD, BPI, BRI,
BRM, CLF, CNPO, L, LPB, AD, A, TAES, FEN, FHO, ANSM,
ASU, B, BCMEX, RAS, RB, TRH, AAH, ACOR, UI, AK, CAS,
ALCB, AKPM, EA, AAU, ALTA, ALU, AMES, AMNH, AMO,
CHAPA, GH, ANGU, ANSP, ARAN, AS, CICY, BAI, CIMI,
AUT, BA, BAA, BAB, CMMEX, BACP, BAF, BAJ, BAL, COCA,
CODAGEM, BARC, BAS, BBS, BC, BCN, BCRU, BEREA, BG,
BH, BIO, BISH, SEV, BLA, BM, BOCH, MJG, BOL, CVRD,
BOLV, BONN, DAV, BOUM, BR, DES, BREM, BRLU, BSB,
BUT, C, DS, CALI, CAN, CANB, CAY, EBUM, CBM, CEN,
CEPEC, CESJ, CHR, ENCB, CIIDIR, CINC, CLEMS, F, COA,
COAH, FCME, COFC, CP, COL, COLO, CONC, CORD, CPAP,
CPUN, CR, CRAI, FURB, CU, G, CRP, CS, CSU, CTES, CTESN,
CUZ, DAO, HB, DBN, DLF, DNA, DR, DUSS, E, HUA, EAC,
EIF, EIU, GES, GI, GLM, GMNHJ, K, GOET, GUA, EMMA,
HUAZ, ERA, ESA, FAA, FAU, FB, UVIC, FI, GZU, H, FLAS,
FLOR, HCIB, FR, FTG, FUEL, GB, HNT, GDA, HPL, GENT,
HUAA, HUJ, CGE, HAL, HAM, IAC, HAMAB, HAO, HAS, IB,
HASU, HBG, IBUG, HBR, HEID, IEB, HIP, IBGE, ICEL, ICN,
ILL, SF, HO, HRCB, HRP, HSS, HU, HUAL, HUEFS, HUEM,
HUFU, HUSA, HUT, IAA, HXBH, HYO, IAN, ILLS, HAC,
IPRN, IMSSM, FCQ, ABH, INEGI, INIF, BAFC, BBB, INPA,
IPA, NAS, INB, INM, MW, EAN, IZTA, ISKW, ISC, ISL, GAT,
JEPS, IBSC, UCSB, ISTC, ISU, IZAC, JACA, JBAG, JE, SD,
JUA, JYV, KIEL, ECON, KSC, TOYA, MPN, USF, TALL, RELC,
CATA, AQP, KMN, KMNH, KOELN, KOR, FRU, KPM, KSTC,
LAGU, TRTE, KSU, UESC, GRA, IBK, KTU, ACAD, MISSA,
KU, PSU, KYO, LA, LOMA, LW, SUU, UNITEC, TASH, NAC,
UBC, IEA, GMDRC, LD, M, LE, LEB, LIL, LINN, AV, HUCP,
QFA, LISE, MBML, NM, MT, FAUC, MACF, CATIE, LTB, LISI,
LISU, MEXU, LL, LOJA, LP, LPAG, MGC, LPD, LPS, IRVC,
MICH, JOTR, LSU, LBG, WOLL, LTR, MNHN, CDBI, LYJB,
MOL, DBG, AWH, NH, HSC, LMS, MELU, NZFRI, MA, UU,
MU, CSUSB, MAF, MAK, MB, KUN, MARY, MASS, MBK,
MBM, UCSC, UCS, JBGP, DSM, OBI, BESA, LSUM, FULD,
MCNS, ICESI, MEL, MEN, TUB, MERL, CGMS, MFA, FSU,
MG, HIB, MIL, DPU, TRT, BABY, ETH, YAMA, SCFS, SACT,
ER, JCT, JROH, SBBG, SAV, PDD, MIN, SJSU, MMMN,
PAMP, MNHM, OS, SDSU, BOTU, OXF, P, MOR, POM, MPU,
MPUC, MSB, MSC, CANU, SFV, RSA, CNS, WIN, MSUN,
CIB, MUR, MTMG, VIT, MUB, MVFA, SLPM, MVFQ, PGM,
MVJB, MVM, MY, PASA, N, UCMM, HGM, TAM, BOON,
UFS, MARS, CMM, NA, NU, UADY, UAMIZ, UC, NE, NHM,
NHMC, NHT, UFMA, NLH, UFRJ, UFRN, ULS, UMO, UNL,
UNM, US, NMB, NMNL, USP, NMR, NMSU, WIS, NSPM,
XAL, NSW, NT, ZMT, BRIT, MO, NCU, NY, TEX, U, UNCC,
NUM, O, CHSC, LINC, CHAS, ODU, CDA, OSA, OSC, OSH,
OULU, OWU, PACA, PAR, UPS, PE, PEL, SGO, PEUFR, PFC,
PH, PKDC, SI, PLAT, PMA, PORT, PR, QM, PRC, TRA, PRE,
PY, QCA, TROM, QCNE, QRS, UH, QUE, R, SAM, RBR, REG,
16000587, 2020, 7, Downloaded from https://nsojournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ecog.05166, Wiley Online Library on [22/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
952
RFA, RIOC, RM, RNG, RYU, S, SALA, SANT, SAPS, SASK, SBT,
SEL, SIU, SJRP, SMDB, SMF, SNM, SOM, SP, SRFA, SPF, SPSF,
SQF, STL, STU, SVG, TAI, TAIF, TAMU, TAN, TEF, TENN,
TEPB, TFC, TI, TKPM, TNS, TO, TU, UAM, UB, UCR, UEC,
UFG, UFMT, UFP, UGDA, UJAT, ULM, UME, UNA, UNB,
UNR, UNSL, UPCB, UPEI, UPNA, USAS, USJ, USM, USNC,
USZ, UT, UTC, UTEP, UWO, V, VAL, VALD, VEN, VMSL,
VT, W, WAG, WAT, WII, WELT, WFU, WMNH, WS, WTU,
WU, Z, ZSS, ZT, CUVC, LZ, AAS, AFS, BHCB, CHAM, FM,
PERTH, SAN.
References
Alagador, D.etal. 2016. Climate change, species range shifts and
dispersal corridors: an evaluation of spatial conservation mod-
els. – Methods Ecol. Evol. 7: 853–866.
Anderson-Teixeira, K. J.et al. 2015. CTFS-ForestGEO: a world-
wide network monitoring forests in an era of global change.
– Global Change Biol. 21: 528–549.
Angelo, C. L. and Daehler, C. C. 2013. Upward expansion of re-
adapted grasses along a warming tropical elevation gradient.
– Ecography 36: 551–559.
Araújo, M. B. and Guisan, A. 2006. Five (or so) challenges for
species distribution modelling. – J. Biogeogr. 33: 1677–1688.
Araújo, M. B.etal. 2004. Would climate change drive species out
of reserves? An assessment of existing reserve-selection methods.
– Global Change Biol. 10: 1618–1626.
Araújo, M. B. et al. 2019. Standards for distribution models in
biodiversity assessments. – Sci. Adv. 5: eaat4858.
Austin, K. G.etal. 2017. Trends in size of tropical deforestation
events signal increasing dominance of industrial-scale drivers.
– Environ. Res. Lett. 12: 054009.
Bagchi, R.etal. 2018. Forecasting potential routes for movement
of endemic birds among important sites for biodiversity in the
Albertine Rift under projected climate change. – Ecography 41:
401–413.
Baillie, J. and Zhang, Y.-P. 2018. Space for nature. – Science 361: 1051.
Bellard, C.etal. 2012. Impacts of climate change on the future of
biodiversity. – Ecol. Lett. 15: 365–377.
Birdlife International 2018. Endemic bird area spatial data. – Birld-
life International, Cambridge.
Brown, J. H.etal. 2003. Management of the semi-natural matrix.
– In: Marquet, P. A. and Bradshaw, G. A. (eds), How landscapes
change. Springer, pp. 327–343.
CBD Secretariat 2020. Zero draft of the post-2020 Global Biodi-
versity Framework, CBD/WG2020/2/3. Convention on Bio-
logical Diversity, Montreal, Canada.
Ceballos, G.et al. 2015. Accelerated modern human-induced species
losses: entering the sixth mass extinction. – Sci. Adv. 1: e1400253.
Chen, I.-C.etal. 2011. Rapid range shifts of species associated with
high levels of climate warming. – Science 333: 1024–1026.
Corlett, R. T. and Tomlinson, K. W. 2020. Climate change and
edaphic specialists: irresistible force meets immovable object?
– Trends Ecol. Evol. in press.
DeWalt, S. J.etal. 1999 Ethnobotany of the Tacana: quantitative
inventories of two permanent plots of northwestern Bolivia.
– Econ. Bot. 53: 237–260.
Di Marco, M. et al. 2015. Synergies and tradeos in achieving
global biodiversity targets. – Conserv. Biol. 30: 189–195.
Dinerstein, E.etal. 2017. An ecoregion-based approach to protect-
ing half the terrestrial realm. – BioScience 67: 534–545.
Dinerstein, E.et al. 2019. A global deal for nature: guiding prin-
ciples, milestones, and targets. – Sci. Adv. 5: eaaw2869.
Diniz-Filho, J. A. F.etal. 2009. Partitioning and mapping uncer-
tainties in ensembles of forecasts of species turnover under cli-
mate change. – Ecography 32: 897–906.
Dirzo, R.etal. 2014. Defaunation in the Anthropocene. – Science
345: 401–406.
Dudley, N. and Stolton, S. (eds) 2003. Running pure: the impor-
tance of forest protected areas to drinking water. – WWF and
the World Bank, Gland, Switzerland and Washington DC.
Dudley, N. etal. 2018. e essential role of other eective area-
based conservation measures in achieving big bold conservation
targets. – Global Ecol. Conserv. 15: e00424.
Ehrlich, P. R. and Mooney, H. A. 1983. Extinction, substitution,
and ecosystem services. – BioScience 33: 248–254.
Enquist, B. and Boyle, B. 2012. SALVIAS – the SALVIAS vegeta-
tion inventory database. – Biodivers. Ecol. 4: 288–288.
Enquist, B. J. et al. 2016. Cyberinfrastructure for an integrated
botanical information network to investigate the ecological
impacts of global climate change on plant biodiversity. – PeerJ
Preprints < https://peerj.com/preprints/2615.pdf>.
Enquist, B. J.etal. 2019. e commonness of rarity: global and
future distribution of rarity across land plants. – Sci. Adv. 5:
eaaz0414.
Fegraus, E. 2012. Tropical Ecology Assessment and Monitoring
Network (TEAM Network). – Biodivers. Ecol. 4: 287–287.
Foden, W. et al. 2007. A changing climate is eroding the geo-
graphical range of the Namib Desert tree Aloe through popula-
tion declines and dispersal lags. – Divers. Distrib. 13: 645–653.
Foden, W. B. et al. 2013. Identifying the world’s most climate
change vulnerable species: a systematic trait-based assessment
of all birds, amphibians and corals. – PLoS One 8: e65427.
Forest Inventory and Analysis National Program 2013. – <www.
a.fs.fed.us/>.
Garcia, R. A. et al. 2012. Exploring consensus in 21st century
projections of climatically suitable areas for African vertebrates.
– Global Change Biol. 18: 1253–1269.
Griscom, B. W.etal. 2017. Natural climate solutions. – Proc. Natl
Acad. Sci. USA 114: 11645–11650.
Halpin, P. N. 1997. Global climate change and natural-area protec-
tion: management responses and research directions. – Ecol.
Appl. 7: 828–843.
Hannah, L.etal. 2007. Protected area needs in a changing climate.
– Front. Ecol. Environ. 5: 131–138.
Hannah, L.etal. 2014. ‘Fine-grain modeling of species’ response
to climate change: holdouts, stepping-stones, and microrefu-
gia.’ – Trends Ecol. Evol. 29: 390–397.
Hannah, L. et al. 2019. Data from: 30% land conservation and
climate action reduces tropical extinction risk by more than
50%. – Figshare Digital Repository, doi: 10.6084/m9.
gshare.c.4868019.
Heller, N. E. and Zavaleta, E. S. 2009. Biodiversity management
in the face of climate change: a review of 22 years of recom-
mendations. – Biol. Conserv. 142: 14–32.
Hengl, T.etal. 2017. SoilGrids250m: global gridded soil informa-
tion based on machine learning. – PLoS One 12: e0169748.
Hijmans, R. J.etal. 2005. Very high resolution interpolated climate
surfaces for global land areas. – Int. J. Climatol. 25: 1965–1978.
IPBES 2019. Summary for policymakers of the global assessment
report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergov-
ernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosys-
tem Services.
16000587, 2020, 7, Downloaded from https://nsojournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ecog.05166, Wiley Online Library on [22/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
953
IUCN and UNEP-WCMC 2018. IUCN spatial data portal,
accessed June 2018. – UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK.
IUCN and UNEP-WCMC 2018. e world database on protected
areas (WDPA) [On-line]. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK.
<www.protectedplanet.net>, downloaded April 2018.
Johnston, A.etal. 2013. Observed and predicted eects of climate
change on species abundance in protected areas. – Nat. Clim.
Change 3: 1055–1061.
Kujala, H.et al. 2013. Conservation planning with uncertain cli-
mate change projections. – PLoS One 8: e53315.
Lenoir, J.et al. 2008. A signicant upward shift in plant species
optimum elevation during the 20th century. – Science 320:
1768–1771.
Loarie, S. R.etal. 2009. e velocity of climate change. – Nature
462: 1052–1055.
Maitner, B. S.etal. 2018. e bien r package: a tool to access the
Botanical Information and Ecology Network (BIEN) database.
– Methods Ecol. Evol. 9: 373–379.
Marquet, P. A.etal. 2019. Protected area management and climate
change. – In: Lovejoy, T. and Hannah, L. (eds), Climate change
and biodiversity. Yale Univ. Press, pp. 283–296.
Melillo, J. M.et al. 2016. Protected areas’ role in climate-change
mitigation. – Ambio 45: 133–145.
Merow, C.etal. 2013. A practical guide to MaxEnt for modeling
species’ distributions: what it does, and why inputs and settings
matter. – Ecography 36: 1058–1069.
Merow, C. etal. 2014. What do we gain from simplicity versus
complexity in species distribution models? – Ecography 37:
1267–1281.
Moilanen, A. 2007. Landscape zonation, benet functions and
target-based planning: unifying reserve selection strategies.
– Biol. Conserv. 134: 571–579.
Moilanen, A.et al. 2005. Prioritizing multiple-use landscapes for
conservation: methods for large multi-species planning prob-
lems. – Proc. R. Soc. B 272: 1885–1891.
Moilanen, A.et al. 2014. Zonation spatial conservation planning
methods and software v.4. User manual
Mulongoy, K. J. and Gidda, S. B. 2008. e value of nature: eco-
logical, economic, cultural and social benets of protected areas.
– Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Mon-
treal, Canada, 30 pages.
Myers, N. et al. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation
priorities. – Nature 403: 853–858.
Pecl, G. T.et al. 2017. Biodiversity redistribution under climate
change: Impacts on ecosystems and human well-being.
– Science 355: eaai9214.
Peet, R. K.etal. 2012. VegBank: a permanent, open-access archive
for vegetation plot data. – Biodivers. Ecol. 4: 233–241.
Peters, R. L. and Darling, J. D. S. 1985. e Greenhouse Eect
and Nature ReservesGlobal warming would diminish biological
diversity by causing extinctions among reserve species. – BioSci-
ence 35: 707–717.
Phillips, S. J.etal. 2006. Maximum entropy modeling of species
geographic distributions. – Ecol. Model. 190: 231–259.
Phillips, S. J.et al. 2008. Optimizing dispersal corridors for the cape
proteaceae using network ow. – Ecol. Appl. 18: 1200–1211.
Rahbek, C.etal. 2019a. Building mountain biodiversity: geological
and evolutionary processes. – Science 365: 1114–1119.
Rahbek, C.etal. 2019b. Humboldt’s enigma: what causes global
patterns of mountain biodiversity? – Science 365: 1108–1113.
Rockström, J.etal. 2009. Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe
operating space for humanity. – Ecol. Soc. 14.
Sandel, B. et al. 2011. e inuence of late quaternary climate-
change velocity on species endemism. – Science 334: 660–664.
Serra-Diaz, J. M.etal. 2014. Bioclimatic velocity: the pace of spe-
cies exposure to climate change. – Divers. Distrib. 20: 169–180.
Trabucco, A. and Zomer, R. 2019. Global aridity index and potential
evapotranspiration (ET0) climate database v2. gshare. Dataset.
<https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.gshare.7504448.v3>.
Tuanmu, M.-N. and Jetz, W. 2014. A global 1-km consensus land-
cover product for biodiversity and ecosystem modelling.
– Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 23: 1031–1045.
Urban, M. C. 2015. Accelerating extinction risk from climate
change. – Science 348: 571–573.
van Proosdij, A. S. J.et al. 2016. Minimum required number of
specimen records to develop accurate species distribution mod-
els. – Ecography 39: 542–552.
Warren, R. et al. 2013. Quantifying the benet of early climate
change mitigation in avoiding biodiversity loss. – Nat. Clim.
Change 3: 678–682.
Williams, P. et al. 2005. Planning for climate change: identifying
minimum-dispersal corridors for the cape Proteaceae.
– Conserv. Biol. 19: 1063–1074.
Wiser, S. K.etal. 2001. Managing biodiversity information: devel-
opment of New Zealand’s National Vegetation Survey data-
bank. – N. Z. J. Ecol. 25: 1–17.
16000587, 2020, 7, Downloaded from https://nsojournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ecog.05166, Wiley Online Library on [22/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
... The Global Forest Resources Assessment indicates that most countries are increasingly protecting their forests: 7.7% of global forests were protected in 1990, whereas 16.3% were protected in 2015 (Morales-Hidalgo et al. 2015). This should improve the fate of forest species (Hannah et al. 2020). However, forest species within reserves are also influenced by their surrounding landscape, because human-caused disturbances (e.g. ...
... Therefore, a baseline estimate is that the landscape should be large enough that the minimum amount of forest needed for persistence of the focal species represents 30% of the landscape area. A recent study modelling 289 219 species indicates that preserving 30% of terrestrial ecosystems can reduce extinction risk by more than 50% (Hannah et al. 2020). Yet, extinction risk decreases with increasing area conserved (Hannah et al. 2020). ...
... A recent study modelling 289 219 species indicates that preserving 30% of terrestrial ecosystems can reduce extinction risk by more than 50% (Hannah et al. 2020). Yet, extinction risk decreases with increasing area conserved (Hannah et al. 2020). Furthermore, density estimates and population viability analyses are inherently uncertain (Pe'er et al. 2014). ...
Article
Full-text available
Agriculture and development transform forest ecosystems to human-modified landscapes. Decades of research in ecology have generated myriad concepts for the appropriate management of these landscapes. Yet, these concepts are often contradictory and apply at different spatial scales, making the design of biodiversity-friendly landscapes challenging. Here, we combine concepts with empirical support to design optimal landscape scenarios for forest-dwelling species. The supported concepts indicate that appropriately sized landscapes should contain ≥40% forest cover, although higher percentages are likely needed in the tropics. Forest cover should be configured with ~10% in a very large forest patch, and the remaining 30% in many evenly-dispersed smaller patches and semi-natural treed elements (e.g. vegetation corridors). Importantly, the patches should be embedded in a high-quality matrix. The proposed landscape scenarios represent an optimal compromise between delivery of goods and services to humans and preserving most forest wildlife, and can therefore guide forest preservation and restoration strategies.
... However, comprehensive studies exploring the consequences of its invasion on native flora and fauna in Madagascar have been lacking. Evaluating the impacts of P. cattleianum on community structure, both in terms of species diversity and functional traits, is a critical step in elucidating invasion dynamics on the island, which harbors one of the most endemic and threatened floras in the world (Enquist et al. 2019;Hannah et al. 2020). ...
Article
Full-text available
Invasive species are a major threat to biodiversity and ecosystem function. Thus, understanding their spread and ecological impacts is critical for management and control. Strawberry guava (Psidium cattleianum Sabine) is an aggressive invader across the tropics and has been rapidly spreading throughout the eastern rainforests of Madagascar. However, both the mechanisms of its spread on the island and the consequences of its invasion on native floral and faunal communities remain largely unexplored. By surveying multiple sites across Madagascar’s eastern rainforests, we demonstrate that the introduction of P. cattleianum significantly correlates with changes in forest structure—namely tree/shrub size, taxonomic richness, and taxonomic diversity. Further, at a local scale, the presence of P. cattleianum was associated with an increase in frugivore species richness; its primary dispersers during our study period were lemurs. Moreover, we identified species-specific effects of lemur gut-passage on the germination of P. cattleianum seeds. Finally, microsatellite analysis of P. cattleianum from a variety of locations across Madagascar demonstrated three distinct, highly differentiated, genetic population clusters, each with high levels of intra-population diversity, suggesting multiple independent introductions of P. cattleianum into Madagascar followed by long-distance dispersal. Collectively, these findings illuminate the complex status of strawberry guava invasion in Madagascar, which poses a growing threat to the island’s unique flora and yet provides important forage for threatened and charismatic animal species.
Preprint
Full-text available
Climate change is an emerging threat for biodiversity conservation. It has already started impacting species assemblages and ecosystem dynamics. The greater one-horned rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis) is an iconic and globally threatened megaherbivore. Once widespread across the northern part of the Indian subcontinent, there were fewer than 500 rhinoceros during the early 1960s, confined to isolated patches of suitable habitats in the southern part of Nepal and northern foothills of India, including Brahmaputra floodplains. Following both governments’ successful conservation strategies, the species has been recovering, and its global population at present is over 3,500. However, the likely impacts of climate change has not been adequately incorporated into conservation plans for the species and may challenge this success. In this study, we developed a set of 21 vulnerability indicators and assessed the vulnerability of rhinoceros to climate change in Nepal through a review of literature, site observations of prime rhinoceros habitat, key informant interviews, a two-day stakeholders’ consultation workshop, and expert elucidation. Our findings suggest that rhinoceros in Nepal is likely to be ‘moderately vulnerable’ to the impacts of climate change, mainly due to (1) the likelihood of invasive plant species and severe floods in its prime habitat ‘Chitwan National Park’, and (2) fragmented habitat, small population size, droughts and forest fires in Bardia and Shuklaphanta National Parks. We further identified and recommended adaptation measures intended to enhance the resilience of rhinoceros to these likely threats.
Article
Full-text available
Vegetation in tropical Asia is highly diverse due to large environmental gradients and heterogeneity of landscapes. This biodiversity is threatened by intense land use and climate change. However, despite the rich biodiversity and the dense human population, tropical Asia is often underrepresented in global biodiversity assessments. Understanding how climate change influences the remaining areas of natural vegetation is therefore highly important for conservation planning. Here, we used a dynamic vegetation model, aDGVM2, to simulate climate change impacts on vegetation formations in tropical Asia for an ensemble of climate change scenarios. We used climate forcing from five different climate models for RCP4.5 and RCP8.5. We found that vegetation in tropical Asia will remain a carbon sink until 2099, and that vegetation biomass increases of up to 28% by 2099 are associated with transitions from small to tall woody vegetation and from deciduous to evergreen vegetation. Patterns of phenology were less responsive to climate change than biomes and biomass, indicating that the selection of variables and methods used to detect vegetation changes is crucial. Model simulations revealed substantial variation within the ensemble, both in biomass increases and in distributions of different biome types. Our results have important implications for management policy, because they suggest that large ensembles of climate models and scenarios are required to assess a wide range of potential future trajectories of vegetation change, and to develop robust management plans. Furthermore, our results highlight open ecosystems with low tree cover as most threatened by climate change, indicating potential conicts of interests between biodiversity conservation in open ecosystems and active afforestation to enhance carbon sequestration
Article
Full-text available
Context The role of protected areas as biodiversity repositories has become increasingly important in face of increased deforestation. By adding free-living exotic mammals, removing forest-dependent native ones, isolating forest patches from large protected areas and reducing landscape forest cover, human activities may drive mammal communities towards regional biotic homogenization. Objectives We assessed how landscape forest cover and proximity to the largest and best-preserved area of the Catimbau National Park –one of the largest protected areas of the Brazilian Caatinga– affect α- and β-diversity of medium- and large-sized mammals, considering native and exotic species. Methods Using camera traps (total effort of 2,340 cameras/day), we obtained 823 records of 15 species (8 natives and 7 exotics) in 18 landscapes of 1-km radius. We estimated diversity metrics within and among landscapes and used generalized linear models to assess the effect of forest loss and isolation on diversity metrics. Results As expected, forest loss decreased α-diversity of native species and increased the diversity and relative abundance of exotics. However, proximity to the preserved area showed weak effect on α-diversity, suggesting that this area does not work regionally as source for natives neither as ecological trap for exotics. Supporting the biotic homogenization hypothesis, β-diversity of natives decreased and β-diversity of exotics increased in more deforested landscapes. Yet, species composition was weakly related to forest cover and isolation. Conclusions Our findings demonstrate that deforestation jeopardizes native species, favors exotics, and drives mammal communities towards biotic homogenization. Protected areas should be properly implemented to safeguard mammal diversity.
Article
Full-text available
A key feature of life’s diversity is that some species are common but many more are rare. Nonetheless, at global scales, we do not know what fraction of biodiversity consists of rare species. Here, we present the largest compilation of global plant diversity to quantify the fraction of Earth’s plant biodiversity that are rare. A large fraction, ~36.5% of Earth’s ~435,000 plant species, are exceedingly rare. Sampling biases and prominent models, such as neutral theory and the k-niche model, cannot account for the observed prevalence of rarity. Our results indicate that (i) climatically more stable regions have harbored rare species and hence a large fraction of Earth’s plant species via reduced extinction risk but that (ii) climate change and human land use are now disproportionately impacting rare species. Estimates of global species abundance distributions have important implications for risk assessments and conservation planning in this era of rapid global change.
Article
Full-text available
Mountain regions are unusually biodiverse, with rich aggregations of small-ranged species that form centers of endemism. Mountains play an array of roles for Earth’s biodiversity and affect neighboring lowlands through biotic interchange, changes in regional climate, and nutrient runoff. The high biodiversity of certain mountains reflects the interplay of multiple evolutionary mechanisms: enhanced speciation rates with distinct opportunities for coexistence and persistence of lineages, shaped by long-term climatic changes interacting with topographically dynamic landscapes. High diversity in most tropical mountains is tightly linked to bedrock geology—notably, areas comprising mafic and ultramafic lithologies, rock types rich in magnesium and poor in phosphate that present special requirements for plant physiology. Mountain biodiversity bears the signature of deep-time evolutionary and ecological processes, a history well worth preserving.
Article
Full-text available
Mountains contribute disproportionately to the terrestrial biodiversity of Earth, especially in the tropics, where they host hotspots of extraordinary and puzzling richness. With about 25% of all land area, mountain regions are home to more than 85% of the world’s species of amphibians, birds, and mammals, many entirely restricted to mountains. Biodiversity varies markedly among these regions. Together with the extreme species richness of some tropical mountains, this variation has proven challenging to explain under traditional climatic hypotheses. However, the complex climatic characteristics of rugged mountain regions differ fundamentally from those of lowland regions, likely playing a key role in generating and maintaining diversity. With ongoing global changes in climate and land use, the role of mountains as refugia for biodiversity may well come under threat.
Article
Full-text available
The Global Deal for Nature (GDN) is a time-bound, science-driven plan to save the diversity and abundance of life on Earth. Pairing the GDN and the Paris Climate Agreement would avoid catastrophic climate change, conserve species, and secure essential ecosystem services. New findings give urgency to this union: Less than half of the terrestrial realm is intact, yet conserving all native ecosystems—coupled with energy transition measures—will be required to remain below a 1.5°C rise in average global temperature. The GDN targets 30% of Earth to be formally protected and an additional 20% designated as climate stabilization areas, by 2030, to stay below 1.5°C. We highlight the 67% of terrestrial ecoregions that can meet 30% protection, thereby reducing extinction threats and carbon emissions from natural reservoirs. Freshwater and marine targets included here extend the GDN to all realms and provide a pathway to ensuring a more livable biosphere.
Article
Full-text available
Demand for models in biodiversity assessments is rising, but which models are adequate for the task? We propose a set of best-practice standards and detailed guidelines enabling scoring of studies based on species distribution models for use in biodiversity assessments. We reviewed and scored 400 modeling studies over the past 20 years using the proposed standards and guidelines. We detected low model adequacy overall, but with a marked tendency of improvement over time in model building and, to a lesser degree, in biological data and model evaluation. We argue that implementation of agreed-upon standards for models in biodiversity assessments would promote transparency and repeatability, eventually leading to higher quality of the models and the inferences used in assessments. We encourage broad community participation toward the expansion and ongoing development of the proposed standards and guidelines.
Article
Full-text available
Significance Most nations recently agreed to hold global average temperature rise to well below 2 °C. We examine how much climate mitigation nature can contribute to this goal with a comprehensive analysis of “natural climate solutions” (NCS): 20 conservation, restoration, and/or improved land management actions that increase carbon storage and/or avoid greenhouse gas emissions across global forests, wetlands, grasslands, and agricultural lands. We show that NCS can provide over one-third of the cost-effective climate mitigation needed between now and 2030 to stabilize warming to below 2 °C. Alongside aggressive fossil fuel emissions reductions, NCS offer a powerful set of options for nations to deliver on the Paris Climate Agreement while improving soil productivity, cleaning our air and water, and maintaining biodiversity.
Article
Full-text available
There is an urgent need for large‐scale botanical data to improve our understanding of community assembly, coexistence, biogeography, evolution, and many other fundamental biological processes. Understanding these processes is critical for predicting and handling human‐biodiversity interactions and global change dynamics such as food and energy security, ecosystem services, climate change, and species invasions. The Botanical Information and Ecology Network (BIEN) database comprises an unprecedented wealth of cleaned and standardised botanical data, containing roughly 81 million occurrence records from c . 375,000 species, c . 915,000 trait observations across 28 traits from c . 93,000 species, and co‐occurrence records from 110,000 ecological plots globally, as well as 100,000 range maps and 100 replicated phylogenies (each containing 81,274 species) for New World species. Here, we describe an r package that provides easy access to these data. The bien r package allows users to access the multiple types of data in the BIEN database. Functions in this package query the BIEN database by turning user inputs into optimised PostgreSQL functions. Function names follow a convention designed to make it easy to understand what each function does. We have also developed a protocol for providing customised citations and herbarium acknowledgements for data downloaded through the bien r package. The development of the BIEN database represents a significant achievement in biological data integration, cleaning and standardization. Likewise, the bien r package represents an important tool for open science that makes the BIEN database freely and easily accessible to everyone.
Article
Species exposed to anthropogenic climate change can acclimate, adapt, move, or be extirpated. It is often assumed that movement will be the dominant response, with populations tracking their climate envelopes in space, but the numerous species restricted to specialized substrates cannot easily move. In warmer regions of the world, such edaphic specialists appear to have accumulated in situ over millions of years, persisting despite climate change by local movements, plastic responses, and genetic adaptation. However, past climates were usually cooler than today and rates of warming slower, while edaphic islands are now exposed to multiple additional threats, including mining. Modeling studies that ignore edaphic constraints on climate change responses may therefore give misleading results for a significant proportion of all taxa.
Article
Continued biodiversity loss has prompted calls for half of the planet to be set aside for nature – including E. O Wilson's “Half-Earth” approach and the Wild Foundation's “Nature Needs Half” initiative. These efforts have provided a necessary wake-up call and drawn welcome global attention for the urgent need for increased action on conserving biodiversity and nature in general. Yet they have also sparked debate within the conservation community, particularly due to the huge practical and political obstacles to establishing or expanding protected areas on this scale. The new designation of “other effective area-based conservation measures” (OECMs) provides the opportunity for formal recognition of and support for areas delivering conservation outcomes outside the protected area estate. We argue that OECMs are essential to the achievement of big and bold conservation targets such as Half-Earth. But integration of OECMs into the conservation estate requires fundamental changes in protected area planning and how the conservation community deals with human rights and social safeguards issues; it therefore challenges our understanding of what constitutes “conservation”. It will only succeed if the key drivers of biodiversity and ecosystem service loss are addressed in the whole planet. A broad, multifaceted and innovative approach, coupled with ambitious targets, provides our best hope yet of addressing complex conservation challenges.