Abstract
AbstractAimTo quantify and compare species coverage in priority areas for conservation identified using species richness as opposed to approaches that use individual species range maps.LocationGlobal.MethodsWe compare the coverage of species when global priority areas for conservation are identified based on (1) twelve species richness maps of all and small‐range amphibians, birds and mammals and all and small‐range threatened (i.e., vulnerable, endangered and critically endangered) species; (2) weighted range size rarity, a richness measure corrected for range size; and (3) a complementarity‐based analysis including species range maps for 21,075 terrestrial vertebrate species listed by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. We also assessed whether any combination of small‐range and/or threatened species richness could be a suitable surrogate for a complementarity‐based analysis by assessing species coverage in priority areas located using (1) richness of small‐range species only; (2) richness of all threatened species only; and (3) richness of small‐range and threatened species.ResultsOur results show clear differences in the spatial pattern of priority areas for conservation among the prioritizations based on species richness, weighted range size rarity and species range maps, with the species richness‐based priority areas being highly aggregated in the tropics and the species range map priority areas being more evenly spread among the global terrestrial area. We also find that identifying priority areas for conservation using species richness produces a lower coverage of species than priority areas based on complementarity methods and identified using species range maps, where just one species was left without any protection.Main ConclusionsAs methods and software currently exist for processing large numbers of individual species distribution maps in spatial prioritization, the use of species richness appears to be an unnecessary simplification of biodiversity pattern.
Highlights
Protected areas are the primary mechanism to protect species from extinction (Margules & Pressey, 2000)
Our results confirm that identifying priority areas for conservation action using species range maps increases average species coverage as compared to priority areas identified using any form of species richness
The results show that priority areas based on species richness are more aggregated and protect fewer species than those identified using individual species range maps
Summary
Protected areas are the primary mechanism to protect species from extinction (Margules & Pressey, 2000). Much of the work to understand broad scale biodiversity patterns has used species richness of all, small-range and threatened species to map ‘hot spots’ of species richness (Brooks et al, 2004; Ceballos & Ehrlich, 2006; Grenyer et al, 2006; Jenkins, Pimm, & Joppa, 2013; Jenkins, Van Houtan, Pimm, & Sexton, 2015; Orme et al, 2005; Pimm et al, 2014). We currently lack evidence showing the differences in species coverage when priority areas are identified using species richness rather than individual species range maps
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.
