Spatial associations of ecosystem services and biodiversity as a baseline for systematic conservation planning

Abstract

Aim Protected areas are frequently defined on the basis of biological importance. Ecosystem services are expected to be under protection when biodiversity is preserved; however, new approaches are needed to confirm this statement. We evaluated how spatial associations between ecosystem services and plant biodiversity on a large spatial scale influence their representativeness in current protected areas. Location Brazilian seasonally tropical dry forest (Caatinga). Methods We produced woody plant biodiversity maps (species richness, narrow‐range species richness and beta diversity) using species distribution modelling. We estimated regulating services (water purification, carbon storage and erosion control), provisioning services (water supply, fodder and agriculture) and supporting services (water balance, net primary productivity and soil fertility) using primary data and a proxy‐based approach. We performed spatial correlation analyses between biodiversity and ecosystem services using Pearson's correlation test. After estimating the percentage of hotspot areas of biodiversity and ecosystem services presented in two types of protected areas (strict protection and sustainable use), we compared it to expected distribution by null model. Results Mostly weak and intermediary positive correlations arose among biodiversity and ecosystem services (beta diversity with water balance and species richness with water purification and carbon storage). Negative correlations occurred among water balance with both species richness and narrow‐range species richness. Strict protection areas were well represented in terms of carbon storage and underrepresented for fodder and agriculture. Sustainable use protected areas were important for water balance. Plant biodiversity variables were not represented in current protected areas. Main conclusions Positive correlations between biodiversity and ecosystem services do not assure the protection of these targets in protected areas. Surrogates choice based only on spatial correlations might not effectively protect biodiversity and ecosystem services. Selection of priority areas must include biodiversity and ecosystem services as distinct conservation targets.

The positive carbon stocks–biodiversity relationship in forests: co‐occurrence and drivers across five subclimates

“…), as well as at the regional level in tropical (Manhães et al. ), Mediterranean (Vilà et al. ), temperate, and boreal forests (Paquette and Messier ).…”

Important Plant Areas: revised selection criteria for a global approach to plant conservation

“…Some evidence suggests that conservation planning focusing on biodiversity alone does not guarantee the protection of the full range of provisioning and regulatory ecosystem services, hence these must be factored into SCP approaches (Manhaes et al 2016). IPAs, as a national-based system, may not be sufficiently fine-scale to encompass the undisputed need to conserve plants at all spatial scales and the more local ecosystem services they provide such as pollinator food sources.…”

The Positive Carbon Stocks–Biodiversity Relationship in Forests: Co‐Occurrence and Drivers Across Five SubClimates

“…Previous studies have suggested a positive relationship between forest productivity and biodiversity at global scales (Liang et al 2016), as well as at the regional level in tropical (Manhães et al 2016), Mediterranean (Vil a et al 2013), temperate, and boreal forests (Paquette and Messier 2011). However, other studies have found weak (Armenteras et al 2015) or even negative relationships (Naidoo et al 2008, Murray et al 2015.…”