2020
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-18230-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effectiveness of protected areas in conserving tropical forest birds

Abstract: Protected areas (PAs) are the cornerstones of global biodiversity conservation efforts, but to fulfil this role they must be effective at conserving the ecosystems and species that occur within their boundaries. Adequate monitoring datasets that allow comparing biodiversity between protected and unprotected sites are lacking in tropical regions. Here we use the largest citizen science biodiversity dataset – eBird – to quantify the extent to which protected areas in eight tropical forest biodiversity hotspots a… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
53
1

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 108 publications
(67 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
2
53
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Our results reiterate that the number of species living inside versus outside protected areas is a poor indicator of management effectiveness because the identity and composition of species they host can be markedly different while species richness remains similar [ 37 , 38 ]. This contrasts with some studies showing that species richness is 10.6% higher inside protected areas compared to the outside [ 8 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 65%
“…Our results reiterate that the number of species living inside versus outside protected areas is a poor indicator of management effectiveness because the identity and composition of species they host can be markedly different while species richness remains similar [ 37 , 38 ]. This contrasts with some studies showing that species richness is 10.6% higher inside protected areas compared to the outside [ 8 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 65%
“…In addition, we calculated an individual observer calibration index, which we included as control variable in all subsequent analyses of eBird data. This index (closely related to the one calculated in Cazalis et al, (2020), following Kelling et al, (2015) and Johnston et al, (2018)), uses a mixed model with random effect of observer to estimate the log-scaled number of species each observer is expected to report in an average sampling event (see details in Supplementary Methods 2).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These maps are an updated and more complete version of the index derived by Venter et al (2016b), generated from the combination of eight human pressure variables (built environments, population density, night-time lights, crop lands, pasture lands, accessibility via roads, railways and navigable waterways) and ranging from 0 (perfect intactness) to 50 (extremely high pressure). Human footprint data have previously been used to analyse species’ responses to human pressures (Di Marco et al, 2018; Barnagaud et al, 2019; Cazalis et al, 2020).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Protected areas are core elements of global efforts to conserve biodiversity, ecosystem services, and associated cultural values (Masourian et al 2008;Scherl and Emerton 2008;Gray et al 2016;Cazalis et al 2020). They are a cornerstone of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets (especially Target 11) and have a vital role in achieving the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), especially SDG 14 (Life Below Water) and SDG 15 (Life on Land).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%