Map of the proportion of threatened endemic species per country in relation with environmental and socioeconomic drivers

Abstract

This dataset is a shapefile representing the proportion of threatened endemic species (both plants and animals) in 247 countries along with associated environmental and socioeconomic drivers. The geographic coordinate system is World Geodetic System 1984 (EPSG: 4326). Information on a total of 65,125 endemic species including 27,294 globally threatened endemic species (55% threatened plant species, 45% threatened animal species) was extracted from the IUCN Red List. The categories of threatened species used in the analyses included vulnerable (VU), endangered (EN), critically endangered (CR), extinct in the wild (EW) and globally extinct (EX). We calculated the proportion of globally threatened endemic species among the total number of assessed endemic species per country (Chamberlain et al., 2020). Associated environmental socioeconomic regional correlates included: 1) Cropland: The proportion of each country covered by crops (including food, fibre and fodder crops and pasture grasses) was determined based on a FAO global map with a resolution of 5 arc-minutes (von Velthuizen et al., 2007); 2) HANPP: The proportion of net primary production appropriated by humans (HANPP) by harvesting or burning biomass and by converting natural ecosystems to managed lands with lower productivity was derived for the year 2010 from Krausmann et al. (2013); 3) Delta HANPP: We also computed the increase in HANPP over the period 1962-2010 (Krausmann et al., 2013); 4) per area GDP: The per area gross domestic product (GDP, in international $) was obtained by calculating the median value over each country of all 5 arcmin cells of a recently gridded GDP dataset (Kummu et al., 2018); 5) Human Footprint (HFP): The global terrestrial human footprint (HFP) is an index integrating the influence of built environments, population density, electric infrastructure, croplands, pasture lands, roads, railways, and navigable waterways on the environment based on remotely-sensed and bottom-up survey information (Venter et al., 2016). We extracted from a 1 km resolution HFP map the median value over each country in 2009; 6) Delta HFP: We also calculated the increase in median HFP over the period 1993-2009 (Venter et al., 2016); 7) Invasive alien plants: The richness of invasive alien vascular plant species recorded in each country was compiled by Essl et al. (2019); 8) Invasive alien animals: The richness of invasive alien animal species was derived from the Global Register of Introduced and Invasive Species database (http://griis.org/ accessed on 27-6-2018); 9) Delta temperature: Based on decadal climate maps produced by the IPCC over the last century with a 0.5° resolution, we calculated the median of the change in annual mean temperature (in °C) between 1901-1910 and 1981-1990 (Mitchell & Jones, 2005); 10) Delta rainfall: The same for annual precipitation (in mm); 11) Velocity temperature: We also calculated the median velocity of climate change based on the formula from Hamann et al. (2015) to evaluate the distance (in °) over which a species must migrate over the surface of the earth to maintain constant temperature conditions; 12) Velocity rainfall: The same for precipitation; 13) Roadless areas: The median area of a roadless fragment (in km²) was calculated from the global map of roadless areas published by Ibisch et al. (2016); 14) Wilderness areas: The proportion of wildlands (categories ‘wild woodlands’ and ‘wild treeless and barren lands’) was calculated from the anthropogenic biome map of Ellis et al. (2010); 15) Protected areas: The proportion of protected areas was estimated from the IUCN’s shapefile of World Database on Protected Areas (https://www.iucn.org/theme/protected-areas/our-work/world-database-protected-areas); 16) Conservation spending: The mean annual conservation spending of each country (in international $) was taken from Waldron et al. (2017) to quantify investment to mitigate biodiversity loss; 17) Completeness of biodiversity information: We used data on the estimated percentage completeness of species records in GBIF, as assessed through comparison with independent estimates of native richness. Inventory effort indices available for vertebrates (Meyer et al., 2015) and vascular plants (Meyer et al., 2016) were merged into a single metric based upon an average weighted by estimated native species richness.