Minding the protection gap: estimates of species' range sizes and holes in the Protected Area network

Beresford, Alison E.; Buchanan, Graeme M.; Donald, Paul F.; Butchart, Stuart H. M.; Fishpool, Lincoln; Rondinini, Carlo

doi:10.1111/j.1469-1795.2011.00453.x

Cited by 18 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although there was a significant difference in this reduction between species with high (n = 2609) and medium (n = 3468) forest dependency (χ 2 1 = 52.5, P<0.001), the effect size equated to just a 5.3±0.7% difference in EOO reduction. We assessed whether ESH maps reduced the number of omission and commission errors compared to EOO maps [13] , [39] , using data on the occurrence of globally threatened species at IBAs and the location of these IBAs. Compared to EOO, ESH estimates reduced errors of commission by 19.7% for all species (20.8% and 18.3% for the 317 high and 173 medium forest dependent globally threatened species respectively), while omissions only decreased by 9.5% (9.0% and 10.6% for high and medium dependency respectively).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying Priority Areas for Conservation: A Global Assessment for Forest-Dependent Birds

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Limited resources are available to address the world's growing environmental problems, requiring conservationists to identify priority sites for action. Using new distribution maps for all of the world's forest-dependent birds (60.6% of all bird species), we quantify the contribution of remaining forest to conserving global avian biodiversity. For each of the world's partly or wholly forested 5-km cells, we estimated an impact score of its contribution to the distribution of all the forest bird species estimated to occur within it, and so is proportional to the impact on the conservation status of the world's forest-dependent birds were the forest it contains lost. The distribution of scores was highly skewed, a very small proportion of cells having scores several orders of magnitude above the global mean. Ecoregions containing the highest values of this score included relatively species-poor islands such as Hawaii and Palau, the relatively species-rich islands of Indonesia and the Philippines, and the megadiverse Atlantic Forests and northern Andes of South America. Ecoregions with high impact scores and high deforestation rates (2000–2005) included montane forests in Cameroon and the Eastern Arc of Tanzania, although deforestation data were not available for all ecoregions. Ecoregions with high impact scores, high rates of recent deforestation and low coverage by the protected area network included Indonesia's Seram rain forests and the moist forests of Trinidad and Tobago. Key sites in these ecoregions represent some of the most urgent priorities for expansion of the global protected areas network to meet Convention on Biological Diversity targets to increase the proportion of land formally protected to 17% by 2020. Areas with high impact scores, rapid deforestation, low protection and high carbon storage values may represent significant opportunities for both biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation, for example through Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) initiatives.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying Priority Areas for Conservation: A Global Assessment for Forest-Dependent Birds

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The KBA Standard (IUCN, 2016) defines ESH as: "The area of potentially suitable ecological conditions, such as vegetation or substrate types within the altitudinal or depth, and temperature and moisture preferences, for a given species (Beresford et al, 2011). "…”

Section: Extent Of Suitable Habitat (Esh Criteria A1 B1-3)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…ESH maps have been developed for birds (Beresford et al, 2011), mammals (Rondinini et al, 2011), and amphibians (Ficetola et al, 2015). Specifically, ESH maps have been developed by classifying topographical and environmental data layers (e.g., altitude, bathymetry, land cover and benthic habitats, distance to water bodies), using information on altitudinal limits and major or suitable habitats in IUCN Red List accounts (see IUCN Red List Habitat Classification Scheme) derived from published and unpublished literature and expert knowledge.…”

Section: Mapping Suitable Habitat Based On Published Data and Expert mentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidelines for using a global standard for the identification of Key Biodiversity Areas : version 1.0

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The designation of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN or other participating organisations.

show abstract

“…The use of these models in large-scale conservation plans has been advocated in the past [47] to overcome at least partially the limitations of data, and at a small fraction of the cost of collecting further data. While applications of these models have been at times criticized [48], there are indications of their usefulness in a variety of conservation analyses, including the identification of gap species and priority conservation areas [49][50][51]. These support cautious optimism about their use, provided that they are robustly validated with field data.…”

Section: Knowledge and Actionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconciling global mammal prioritization schemes into a strategy

Rondinini

Boitani

Rodrigues

et al. 2011

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The huge conservation interest that mammals attract and the large datasets that have been collected on them have propelled a diversity of global mammal prioritization schemes, but no comprehensive global mammal conservation strategy. We highlight some of the potential discrepancies between the schemes presented in this theme issue, including: conservation of species or areas, reactive and proactive conservation approaches, conservation knowledge and action, levels of aggregation of indicators of trend and scale issues. We propose that recently collected global mammal data and many of the mammal prioritization schemes now available could be incorporated into a comprehensive global strategy for the conservation of mammals. The task of developing such a strategy should be coordinated by a super-partes, authoritative institution (e.g. the International Union for Conservation of Nature, IUCN). The strategy would facilitate funding agencies, conservation organizations and national institutions to rapidly identify a number of short-term and long-term global conservation priorities, and act complementarily to achieve them.

show abstract

Minding the protection gap: estimates of species' range sizes and holes in the Protected Area network

Cited by 18 publications

References 11 publications

Identifying Priority Areas for Conservation: A Global Assessment for Forest-Dependent Birds

Identifying Priority Areas for Conservation: A Global Assessment for Forest-Dependent Birds

Guidelines for using a global standard for the identification of Key Biodiversity Areas : version 1.0

Reconciling global mammal prioritization schemes into a strategy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About