Abstract
International targets have committed governments to expanding the global protected area (PA) network to 17% of the terrestrial surface by 2020. Optimising PA placement in the landscape is challenging due to a poor knowledge of biodiversity distribution and multiple definitions of conservation value. We explore these two issues using a case study of a highly threatened bird Order in a region of conservation concern where PA network effectiveness for biodiversity has not been formally explored previously. To determine if the existing PA network protects the most important areas for 24 species of Himalayan Galliformes, we use a novel method to compare the current network placement to results produced from Zonation prioritisation software and modelled species distributions. Specifically, we identify areas of high species richness and then weight maps by three different species specific conservation values. The current PA network captures ranges poorly. We found statistically significantly poorer fits between the optimal and the existing placement of the Himalayan PA network for Zonation results that were: (i) unweighted; (ii) weighted by Red List score; and (iii) weighted by endemism to the Himalaya. Across these and two other Zonation results, the placement of the optimal PA network covered 58% more of Galliformes distributions than the existing network. We advocate some refinements to the existing PA network to maximise Galliformes coverage and suggest that our method could be used to model the optimal PA network for a wide range of species and/or regions, something which will support the assessment and attainment of CBD targets.
Highlights
The uneven spatial distribution of both anthropogenic threats (Cincotta et al, 2000) and biodiversity (Gaston, 2000) makes site specific prioritisation of scarce conservation resources a necessity
While every species may occur in a PA network, not all species may be represented in terms of optimal habitat quality and/or suitability (Rondinini et al, 2005, 2006) or represent coverage of sustainable populations, leaving important external populations vulnerable to threats (Pressey et al, 2004; Witting and Loeschcke, 1995). Further investigation of these two issues is needed because, so far, PA expansion has been found to have been inadequately targeted (Butchart et al, 2012, 2015) and a greater understanding of how to optimally place and expand PAs to capture different facets of biodiversity and conservation value while accounting for uncertainties in species' distributions could help rectify this, making it easier to understand how to achieve Aichi Target 11, enhancing the role of PAs in conserving biodiversity. We undertake such an investigation using a case study: we look at a bird Order (Galliformes) with 25% of its species listed as threatened with global extinction (IUCN, 2015) in a region that is of both increasing conservation concern (Hoffmann et al, 2010; Pandit et al, 2006) and is a target for protected area expansion (Venter et al, 2014)
We found that there were some differences in the location of important conservation areas identified based on different ways of valuing biodiversity, and that for three of the five different ways of prioritising biodiversity conservation, the configuration of the existing PA network was significantly worse than the optimal Zonation result
Summary
The uneven spatial distribution of both anthropogenic threats (Cincotta et al, 2000) and biodiversity (Gaston, 2000) makes site specific prioritisation of scarce conservation resources a necessity. This is manifested most commonly in the form of protected areas (PAs) that aim to either halt or manage such threats (Bruner et al, 2001). ☆ Statement of authorship: JCD, MJW and PJKM wrote the first draft of the manuscript. JCD conducted all data preparation and other analyses. PJKM and MJW devised, conceived and oversaw the project
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
