No abstract

No abstract

The responsiveness of South African fauna to climate change events is poorly documented and not routinely incorporated into regional conservation planning. We model the likely range alterations of a representative suite of 179 animal species to climate change brought about by the doubling of CO2 concentrations. This scenario is expected to cause a mean temperature increase of 2 °C. We applied a multivariate climate envelope approach and evaluated model performance using the most comprehensive bird data set. The results were encouraging, although model performance was inconsistent in the eastern coastal area of the country. The levels of climate change induced impacts on species ranges varied from little impact to local extinction. Some 17% of species expanded their ranges, 78% displayed range contraction (4–98%), 3% showed no response and 2% became locally extinct. The majority of range shifts (41%) were in an easterly direction, reflecting the east–west aridity gradient across the country. Species losses were highest in the west. Substantially smaller westward shifts were present in some eastern species. This may reflect a response to the strong altitudinal gradient in this region, or may be a model artifact. Species range change (composite measure reflecting range contraction and displacement) identified selected species that could act as climate change indicator taxa. Red‐data and vulnerable species showed similar responses but were more likely to display range change (58% vs. 43% for all species). Predictions suggest that the flagship, Kruger National Park conservation area may loose up to 66% of the species included in this analysis. This highlights the extent of the predicted range shifts, and indicates why conflicts between conservation and other land uses are likely to escalate under conditions of climate change.

Abstract. The maintenance of biodiversity rests on understanding and resolving conflict between patterns of species occurrence and human activity. Recent debate has centered on the relationship between species richness and human population density. However, conclusions have been limited by the lack of investigations of these relationships for individual countries, at which level most practical conservation actions are determined, and for a spatial resolution at which practical conservation planning takes place. Here, we report the results of the first such analysis, for birds in South Africa. Species richness and human density are positively correlated, apparently because both respond positively to increasing levels of primary productivity. High species richness is maintained by currently designated reserves, but the areas surrounding these have higher human population densities than expected by chance, placing the reserves under increasing external pressure. Not all species lie within protected areas, but the options are limited for building on the present network to generate a more comprehensive one, which protects all species and significantly reduces the conflict with human activities by designating new reserves in areas with lower human populations. Ultimately, the only solution to the conflict between biodiversity and people is likely to be individual-based regulation of human population size.

A call has been made for conservation planners to include ecosystem services into their assessments of conservation priority areas. The need to develop an integrated approach to meeting different conservation objectives and a shift in focus towards human wellbeing are some of the motivations behind this call. There is currently no widely accepted approach to planning for ecosystem services. This study contributes towards the development of this approach through a review of conservation assessments and the extent to which they include ecosystem services. Of the 476 conservation assessments identified by a set of search terms on the Web of Science, 100 were randomly selected for this review. Of these only seven had included ecosystem services, while another 13 had referred to ecosystem services as a rationale for conservation without including them in the assessment. The majority of assessments were based on biodiversity pattern data while 19 used data on ecological processes. A total of 11 of these 19 assessments used processes, which could be linked to services. Ecosystem services have witnessed an increase in attention received in conservation assessments since the year 2000, however trends were not apparent beyond this date. In order to assess which types of ecosystem services and how they have been accounted for in conservation assessments, we extended our review to include an additional nine conservation assessments which included ecosystem services. The majority included cultural ecosystem services, followed by regulatory, provisioning and supporting services respectively. We conclude with an analysis of the constraints and opportunities for the integration of ecosystem services into conservation assessments and highlight the urgent need for an appropriate framework for planning for ecosystem services.

The efficient representation of all species in conservation planning is problematic. Often, species distribution is assessed by dividing the land into a grid; complementary sets of grids, in which each taxon is represented at least once, are then sought. To determine if this approach provides useful surrogate information, species and higher taxon data for South African plants and animals were analyzed. Complementary species sets did not coincide and overlapped little with higher taxon sets. Survey extent and taxonomic knowledge did not affect this overlap. Thus, the assumptions of surrogacy, on which so much conservation planning is based, are not supported.

Sir-Myers et al. 1 , in their new analysis of global biodiversity hotspots, recommend areas where conservation actions should be focused to minimize losses in the imminent extinction crisis. We strongly support initiatives to produce clear, efficient and practical goals for conservation to guide biodiversity planners and decision-makers in governments, agencies, conventions and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). However, as things stand there is only limited consensus on global conservation priorities at international level. We believe that the time is now right for scientists and practitioners to work together to develop a commonly adopted blueprint for action. A key first step would be a structured debate to identify common goals; to pool data sets; and to agree on the contributions that non-equivalent measures of priority, such as diversity, endemism, threat, viability and ecological function should make. All this should lead to a powerful and cost-effective product. Most important, however, is correspondence

No abstract