Combined Use of Systematic Conservation Planning, Species Distribution Modelling, and Connectivity Analysis Reveals Severe Conservation Gaps in a Megadiverse Country (Peru)

Abstract

Conservation planning is crucial for megadiverse countries where biodiversity is coupled with incomplete reserve systems and limited resources to invest in conservation. Using Peru as an example of a megadiverse country, we asked whether the national system of protected areas satisfies biodiversity conservation needs. Further, to complement the existing reserve system, we identified and prioritized potential conservation areas using a combination of species distribution modeling, conservation planning and connectivity analysis. Based on a set of 2,869 species, including mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, butterflies, and plants, we used species distribution models to represent species' geographic ranges to reduce the effect of biased sampling and partial knowledge about species' distributions. A site-selection algorithm then searched for efficient and complementary proposals, based on the above distributions, for a more representative system of protection. Finally, we incorporated connectivity among areas in an innovative post-hoc analysis to prioritize those areas maximizing connectivity within the system. Our results highlight severe conservation gaps in the Coastal and Andean regions, and we propose several areas, which are not currently covered by the existing network of protected areas. Our approach helps to find areas that contribute to creating a more representative, connected and efficient network.

Proposed biodiversity conservation areas: gap analysis and spatial prioritization on the inadequately studied Qinghai Plateau, China

“…Outputs from MAXENT models were reclassified to presence/absence predictions using the ''Maximum Training Sensitivity Plus Specificity'' threshold, which has proven to generally produce more accurate results than other thresholds (Fajardo et al 2014;Liu et al 2005). …”

“…We defined conservation targets for each species according to the current conservation status, spatial distribution range and endemic status (Fajardo et al 2014). The target for each species was calculated as the sum of the following three indices: conservation status index, distribution size index, and conservation endemic index.…”

“…Conservation status index: Like in Fajardo et al (2014), we assigned goals to species identified as threatened by the IUCN following a decreasing scale: Critically Endangered (CR), 25%; Endangered (EN), 17.5%; Vulnerable (VU), 10%; Near Threatened (NT), 5%; Least Concern (LC), Not Evaluated (NE), and Data Deficient (DD), 0%.…”

“…Systematic conservation-planning approaches help support the judicious use of conservation resources by identifying potential areas that efficiently meet specified conservation targets for the least cost (Margules and Pressey 2000;Carwardine et al 2008;Linke et al 2012). In general, systematic conservation approaches also aim to identify priority areas or refugees for ensuring the representation and longterm persistence of biodiversity (Margules et al 2002;Leslie et al 2003;Wu et al 2011;Hermoso and Kennard 2012), and usually include multistep procedures, (1) choosing a set of conservation features (species, ecosystems, or ecosystem services) as surrogates of biodiversity in a region, (2) defining the targets for each of these conservation features, and identifying the conservation gap, (3) assigning a conservation cost to each planning unit in a region, and (4) using conservation planning software to identify priority areas for biodiversity based on meeting the defined conservation goals, increasing landscape connection, and minimizing conservation cost (Fajardo et al 2014).…”

Public Environmental Expenditure Review in Peru 2008-2013

“…The ecoregions with less coverage are the wet uplands surrounding Lake Titicaca (0.01 percent), the dry forests of Marañón (0.10 percent), and the dry forests of the central Inter-Andean valleys (0.57 percent) (see Table 20). Fajardo et al (2014) estimate that approximately 30 percent of country's species are not properly protected by SINANPE. …”