The impact of natural resource use on bird and reptile communities within multiple-use protected areas: evidence from sub-arid southern Madagascar

Multiple-use protected areas, in which sustainable levels of extractive livelihood activities are permitted, play an increasingly important role in the global protected area estate, and are expected to rise in prevalence. However, we know little about their effectiveness at conserving biodiversity. We surveyed bird and reptile communities in three areas across a forest disturbance gradient resulting from charcoal production and shifting cultivation within a multiple-use protected area in Madagascar’s sub-arid spiny forest. We scored individual species using a Conservation Value Index (CVI; a simple metric based on rarity, threat and distinctiveness), and estimated the total conservation value of each treatment by calculating the sum of frequency-weighted CVI scores across all present species. Bird and reptile community responses to forest disturbance were idiosyncratic. Bird richness was greatest in the moderate-disturbance treatment, but the low-disturbance treatment had the superior conservation value due to higher frequencies of locally-endemic species. Reptile richness was the same in low- and moderate-disturbance treatments, but the conservation value of the latter was greater. The high-disturbance areas had lowest richness and conservation value for both groups. For birds, increasing disturbance levels were accompanied by community turnover from high-value to low-value species, a pattern highlighted by CVI that is masked by assessing species richness alone. Although some endemic species appear to be resilient to degradation, multiple-use protected areas in Madagascar may lose biodiversity since most endemic species are forest-dependent. Stricter protected area models may be more appropriate in areas where much of the high-value biodiversity is sensitive to habitat degradation

Hotspots of biodiversity and conservation priorities: A methodological approach

This is a methodological paper aimed at comparing methods to assess regional biodiversity. In more detail we compared the effectiveness of hotspots of species richness, of rarity and complementarity in evaluating local animal diversity. Species distributions were sampled over a 10 x 10 km UTM grid across the Italian territory. We considered 471 species of zygaenids, butterflies, carabines, amphibians and reptiles. Hotspots were analysed at national and regional levels and considered taxa either all together, or separately. To test the predictive value of complementarity analysis, we initially excluded zygaenids. At national level, of 3218 10 x 10 km UTM quadrats sampled, 161 (5% of total) had highest species richness. Islands included only 1 hotspot (Sicily). Sixty-eight species (14.4%) were not represented. They were mainly endemic (65%), insular (73.5%), or rare (25%). Working taxon by taxon, hotspots numbered 433. Only 85 (19.6%) were hotspots contemporaneously for two taxa and only 9 were hotspots for 3 taxa. Missing species were fundamentally insular species. The regional-level approach generated 467 hotspots. Eleven species were not represented (2.3%). They had marginal distributions, or were insular endemites. Hotspots of rarity numbered 235 and 10 species were not included. Results demonstrated that hotspots are poor predictors of overall biodiversity. The complementarity method identified 67 quadrats. By definition, these quadrats accounted for all species investigated. They failed, however, to predict the occurrence of three zygaenids. As expected, complementarity provided better results than hotspots analysis. Combining the two methods assures that areas having the highest biodiversity are identified, even working with incomplete databases. Regional or rarity hotspots should generally be preferred to hotspots of species richness