Conservation opportunities across the world's anthromes

Abstract

Aim Biologists increasingly recognize the roles of humans in ecosystems. Subsequently, many have argued that biodiversity conservation must be extended to environments that humans have shaped directly. Yet popular biogeographical frameworks such as biomes do not incorporate human land use, limiting their relevance to future conservation planning. 'Anthromes' map global ecological patterns created by sustained direct human interactions with ecosystems. In this paper, we set to understand how current conservation efforts are distributed across anthromes.Location Global.Methods We analysed the global distribution of IUCN protected areas and biodiversity hotspots by anthrome. We related this information to density of native plant species and density of previous ecological studies. Potential conservation opportunities in anthromes were then identified through global analysis and two case studies.Results Protected areas and biodiversity hotspots are not distributed equally across anthromes. Less populated anthromes contain a greater proportion of protected areas. The fewest hotspots are found within densely settled anthromes and wildlands, which occur at the two extremes of human population density. Opportunities for representative protection, prioritization, study and inclusion of native species were not congruent.Main conclusions Researchers and practitioners can use the anthromes framework to analyse the distribution of conservation practices at the global and regional scale. Like biomes, anthromes could also be used to set future conservation priorities. Conservation goals in areas directly shaped by humans need not be less ambitious than those in 'natural areas'.

Ecology in an anthropogenic biosphere

“…To accomplish this, it is more necessary than ever to integrate sociocultural understanding into conservation (WaltnerToews et al 2003, Mooney et al 2013, Redpath et al 2013, Ives and Kendal 2014, Kueffer and KaiserBunbury 2014, Mace 2014, Palomo et al 2014, Poe et al 2014, and to consider flexible strategies enabling the sustained integration of nonhuman species into the novel habitats of anthromes as part of multifunctional landscape management approaches (Antrop 2006, Bennett et al 2006, Kleijn et al 2011, Tomich et al 2011, van Noordwijk et al 2012, Ellis 2013, Jantz et al 2014, Martin et al 2014, Marvier 2014, Quinn et al 2014.…”

“…To the extent that trade-offs among production, biodiversity, and ecosystem services are considered (Bergen et al 2001, DeFries et al 2004, Naidoo et al 2008) and the people and societies with a stake in the results are involved in codesigning and cooperating in these efforts (Berkes et al 2000, Olsson et al 2004, Antrop 2006, Reed 2008, multifunctional landscape approaches have the potential to sustain nonhuman nature in the face of unprecedented anthropogenic ecological change (Rosenzweig 2003, DeFries and Rosenzweig 2010, DeFries et al 2012, Ellis 2013, Martin et al 2014. Toward this end, ecologists will need to more actively embrace their role in informing and helping to shape the work of policymakers, planners, engineers, and designers, as these are the societal realms in which larger scales of human intentionality are engaged in the processes of sociocultural niche construction that generate ecological inheritance for nonhuman species.…”

Advances in restoration ecology: rising to the challenges of the coming decades

“…Successful resolution of these issues will likely require inclusive and participatory approaches, and the involvement of philosophers, economists, social scientists, landscape planners and the broader community. Frameworks such as anthromes may provide a means to aid decision making and prioritization at the global scale (Martin et al 2014). Opportunities also exist for using simulation models to analyze cost-effective prioritization of restoration at the landscape scale (e.g., Torrubia et al 2014).…”

Application of a coupled human natural system framework to organize and frame challenges and opportunities for biodiversity conservation on private lands.

“…Consequently, the region might be better described as a populated or residential woodland anthrome (Ellis and Ramankutty 2008). Like patterns of protection in forest biomes, woodland anthromes comprise 11% of terrestrial surface but hold only 2% of protected lands (Martin et al 2014). …”

“…Connections between human and natural systems are often implicitly discussed in regards to conceptualizations of conservation in human-modified ecosystems (reviewed in Martin et al 2014). Explicit discussions of conservation biology as a CHANS are more limited.…”