No abstract

No abstract

Effectively conserving ecosystem services in order to maintain human wellbeing is a global need that requires an understanding of where ecosystem services are produced by ecosystems and where people benefit from these services. However, approaches to effectively identify key locations that have the capacity to supply ecosystem services and actually contribute to meeting human demand for those services are lacking at broad spatial scales. We developed new methods that integrate measures of the capacity of ecosystems to provide services with indicators of human demand and ability to access these services. We then identified important areas for three ecosystem services currently central to protected area management in Canada—carbon storage, freshwater, and nature-based recreation—and evaluated how these hotspots align with Canada’s current protected areas and resource development tenures. We find that locations of ecosystem service capacity overlap only weakly (27–36%) with actual service providing areas (incorporating human access and demand). Overlapping hotspots of provision for multiple ecosystem services are also extremely limited across Canada; only 1.2% (∼56 000 km2) of the total ecosystem service hotspot area in Canada consists of overlap between all three ecosystem services. Canada’s current protected area network also targets service capacity to a greater degree than provision. Finally, one-half to two-thirds of current ecosystem service hotspots (54–66%) overlap with current and planned resource extraction activities. Our analysis demonstrates how to identify areas where conservation and ecosystem service management actions should be focused to more effectively target ecosystem services to ensure that critical areas for ecosystem services that directly benefit people are conserved. Further development of these methods at national scales to assess ecosystem service capacity and demand and integrate this with conventional biodiversity and conservation planning information will help ensure that both biodiversity and ecosystem services are effectively safeguarded.

Biodiversity is intrinsically linked to the health of our planet-and its people. Yet, increasingly, human activities are causing the extinction of species, degrading ecosystems, and reducing nature's resilience to climate change and other threats. As a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Canada has a legal responsibility to protect 17% of land and freshwater by 2020. Currently, Canada has protected ∼10% of its terrestrial lands, requiring a marked increase in the pace and focus of protection over the next three years.Given the distribution, extent, and geography of Canada's current protected areas, systematic conservation planning would provide decision-makers with a ranking of the potential for new protected area sites to stem biodiversity loss and preserve functioning ecosystems. Here, we identify five key principles for identifying lands that are likely to make the greatest contribution to reversing biodiversity declines and ensuring biodiversity persistence into the future. We identify current gaps and integrate principles of protecting (i) species at risk, (ii) representative ecosystems, (iii) intact OPEN ACCESS

While overall numbers of African elephant have declined dramatically in recent times, some populations are now confined to protected areas and are locally overabundant-an undesirable situation for both biodiversity conservation and elephants. In forested protected areas, options to manage elephants are limited because it is difficult to safely approach animals, yet it is vital that these populations are managed because browsing by elephants can dramatically alter forest ecosystems. Using data collected over 50 yr in Kibale National Park, Uganda, we examine the prediction that increasing elephant numbers and associated changes in their foraging behavior have caused a shift in tree community composition. Although the relative abundance of elephants increased significantly between 1996 and 2010, the population structure of their preferred tree food species did not change, nor did tree community composition change in favor of species able to re-sprout after elephant damage. Furthermore, over the last 50 yr Kibale elephants have not become more selective foragers, as would be expected if more nutritious tree species were declining. However, elephants are more abundant in disturbed areas dominated by shrubs and grasses and appear to have arrested forest succession in these areas. At their current abundance, elephants have not selectively altered the composition of intact old growth forest, but they do inhibit the regeneration of disturbed areas.Abstract in Spanish is available in the online version of this article.