Taxonomic status of the Liberian Greenbul Phyllastrephus leucolepis and the conservation importance of the Cavalla Forest, Liberia

We thank Jochen Martens for his long-lasting patience in dealing with the specimen of leucolepis, and Brian Hillcoat for comments and advice. It is hardly possible to thank by name all those who have supported WG over the past 30 years and more since 1981 in the fields of forest ecology and ornithology in eastern Liberia. In particular, we express gratitude to Alex Peal and Theo Freeman, both Heads of Wildlife and National Parks, for their many years of cooperation, and the Silviculture Officers Wynn Bryant, Momo Kromah and Steve Miapeh. The knowledge of the tree experts Joe Keper and Daniel Dorbor helped us to gain insights into the ecological complexities of the relationship between man, birds and trees. William Toe worked for three years as bird trapper and assistant in bird banding. WG’s attachment to the University of Liberia and to the students who so often accompanied him was made possible by Ben Karmorh from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and University of Liberia. NABU, the German Conservation Society, has supported the Liberian projects for almost 30 years now. We also thank Nigel Collar, Françoise Dowsett-Lemaire and Hannah Rowland for comments and advice. We thank the African Bird Club and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds for helping to fund the 2013 expedition to the Cavalla Forest, in particular Alice Ward-Francis, Robert Sheldon, Alan Williams and Keith Betton. We also are extremely grateful to Michael Garbo and staff of the Society for the Conservation of Nature in Liberia for all manner of help with the expedition, to Harrison Karnwea and colleagues at the Forest Development Authority of Liberia for permissions and other support, as well as to Emmanuel Loqueh, Trokon Grimes, Flomo Molubah and Amos ‘Dweh’ Dorbor for being such excellent companions in the field. YL performed the genetic work as part of her M.Sc. (Genetics) at the University of Aberdeen, whose support is acknowledged.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Assessing the cost of global biodiversity and conservation knowledge

Knowledge products comprise assessments of authoritative information supported by stan-dards, governance, quality control, data, tools, and capacity building mechanisms. Considerable resources are dedicated to developing and maintaining knowledge productsfor biodiversity conservation, and they are widely used to inform policy and advise decisionmakers and practitioners. However, the financial cost of delivering this information is largelyundocumented. We evaluated the costs and funding sources for developing and maintain-ing four global biodiversity and conservation knowledge products: The IUCN Red List ofThreatened Species, the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems, Protected Planet, and the WorldDatabase of Key Biodiversity Areas. These are secondary data sets, built on primary datacollected by extensive networks of expert contributors worldwide. We estimate that US$160million (range: US$116–204 million), plus 293 person-years of volunteer time (range: 278–308 person-years) valued at US$14 million (range US$12–16 million), were invested inthese four knowledge products between 1979 and 2013. More than half of this financingwas provided through philanthropy, and nearly three-quarters was spent on personnelcosts. The estimated annual cost of maintaining data and platforms for three of these knowl-edge products (excluding the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems for which annual costs were notpossible to estimate for 2013) is US$6.5 million in total (range: US$6.2–6.7 million). We esti-mated that an additional US$114 million will be needed to reach pre-defined baselines ofdata coverage for all the four knowledge products, and that once achieved, annual mainte-nance costs will be approximately US$12 million. These costs are much lower than those tomaintain many other, similarly important, global knowledge products. Ensuring that biodi-versity and conservation knowledge products are sufficiently up to date, comprehensiveand accurate is fundamental to inform decision-making for biodiversity conservation andsustainable development. Thus, the development and implementation of plans for sustain-able long-term financing for them is critical

The discovery, biodiversity and conservation of Mabu forest—the largest medium-altitude rainforest in southern Africa

The montane inselbergs of northern Mozambique have been comparatively little-studied, yet recent surveys have shown they have a rich biodiversity with numerous endemic species. Here we present the main findings from a series of scientific expeditions to one of these inselbergs, Mt Mabu, and discuss the conservation implications. Comprehensive species lists of plants, birds, mammals and butterflies are presented. The most significant result was the discovery of a c. 7,880 ha block of undisturbed rainforest, most of it at medium altitude (900-1,400 m), a forest type that is not well represented elsewhere. It is possibly the largest continuous block of this forest type in southern Africa. To date, 10 new species (plants, mammals, reptiles and butterflies) have been confirmed from Mt Mabu, even though sampling effort for most taxonomic groups has been low. The species assemblages indicate a relatively long period of isolation and many species found are at the southern limit of their range. Conservationists are now faced with the challenge of how best to protect Mt Mabu and similar mountains in northern Mozambique, and various ways that this could be done are discusse

Protecting Important Sites for Biodiversity Contributes to Meeting Global Conservation Targets

Protected areas (PAs) are a cornerstone of conservation efforts and now cover nearly 13% of the world's land surface, with the world's governments committed to expand this to 17%. However, as biodiversity continues to decline, the effectiveness of PAs in reducing the extinction risk of species remains largely untested. We analyzed PA coverage and trends in species' extinction risk at globally significant sites for conserving birds (10,993 Important Bird Areas, IBAs) and highly threatened vertebrates and conifers (588 Alliance for Zero Extinction sites, AZEs) (referred to collectively hereafter as ‘important sites’). Species occurring in important sites with greater PA coverage experienced smaller increases in extinction risk over recent decades: the increase was half as large for bird species with>50% of the IBAs at which they occur completely covered by PAs, and a third lower for birds, mammals and amphibians restricted to protected AZEs (compared with unprotected or partially protected sites). Globally, half of the important sites for biodiversity conservation remain unprotected (49% of IBAs, 51% of AZEs). While PA coverage of important sites has increased over time, the proportion of PA area covering important sites, as opposed to less important land, has declined (by 0.45–1.14% annually since 1950 for IBAs and 0.79–1.49% annually for AZEs). Thus, while appropriately located PAs may slow the rate at which species are driven towards extinction, recent PA network expansion has under-represented important sites. We conclude that better targeted expansion of PA networks would help to improve biodiversity trends

A biogeographical appraisal of the threatened South East Africa Montane Archipelago ecoregion

Recent biological surveys of ancient inselbergs in southern Malawi and northern Mozambique have led to the discovery and description of many species new to science, and overlapping centres of endemism across multiple taxa. Combining these endemic taxa with data on geology and climate, we propose the ‘South East Africa Montane Archipelago’ (SEAMA) as a distinct ecoregion of global biological importance. The ecoregion encompasses 30 granitic inselbergs reaching > 1000 m above sea level, hosting the largest (Mt Mabu) and smallest (Mt Lico) mid-elevation rainforests in southern Africa, as well as biologically unique montane grasslands. Endemic taxa include 127 plants, 45 vertebrates (amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals) and 45 invertebrate species (butterflies, freshwater crabs), and two endemic genera of plants and reptiles. Existing dated phylogenies of endemic animal lineages suggests this endemism arose from divergence events coinciding with repeated isolation of these mountains from the pan-African forests, together with the mountains’ great age and relative climatic stability. Since 2000, the SEAMA has lost 18% of its primary humid forest cover (up to 43% in some sites)—one of the highest deforestation rates in Africa. Urgently rectifying this situation, while addressing the resource needs of local communities, is a global priority for biodiversity conservation

Synergies between the key biodiversity area and systematic conservation planning approaches

Systematic conservation planning and Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) are the two most widely used approaches for identifying important sites for biodiversity. However, there is limited advice for conservation policy makers and practitioners on when and how they should be combined. Here we provide such guidance, using insights from the recently developed Global Standard for the Identification of KBAs and the language of decision science to review and clarify their similarities and differences. We argue the two approaches are broadly similar, with both setting transparent environmental objectives and specifying actions. There is however greater contrast in the data used and actions involved, as the KBA approach uses biodiversity data alone and identifies sites for monitoring and vigilance actions at a minimum, whereas systematic conservation planning combines biodiversity and implementation‐relevant data to guide management actions. This difference means there is much scope for combining approaches, so conservation planners should use KBA data in their analyses, setting context‐specific targets for each KBA type, and planners and donors should use systematic conservation planning techniques when prioritizing between KBAs for management action. In doing so, they will benefit conservation policy, practice and research by building on the collaborations formed through the KBA Standard's development

The taxonomy and nomenclature of Grey-headed Bristlebill Bleda canicapillus (Hartlaub)

Volume: 134Start Page: 155End Page: 15

A review of the Acridinae s. str. (Orthoptera: Acridoidea: Acrididae) of eastern Africa with taxonomic changes and description of new taxa

The Acridinae of eastern Africa are reviewed and recognized as comprising 42 core genera, belonging to five different tribes, together with Xerophlaeoba and Dorsthippus, which are unclassified but appear to be related to some extra-limital genera. Keys are given to tribes and genus groups as well as to genera and, where necessary, species within each genus. The following new taxa are described: Anacteana gen. n.: A. hollisi sp. n. and A. neavei burtti subsp. n.; Brachybothrus gen. n.: B. phyllopterus sp. n. and B. hola sp. n.; Coryphosima stenoptera colorata subsp. n.; Duronia chloronota phippsi subsp. n.; Oxyduronia gen. n.: O. anablepioides sp. n.; Sumba exilis sp. n. Nine new synonyms are recognized: Sumba longicornis Ramme, 1929 = S. roseipennis I. Bolívar, 1912, syn. n.; Orthochirista variegata Sjöstedt, 1931 = Gymnobothrus linea alba I. Bolívar, 1889, syn. n.; Orthochirista elgonensis Sjöstedt, 1931 = Gymnobothrus linea alba I. Bolívar, 1889, syn. n.; Gymnobothrus gracilis (Ramme, 1931) = Gymnobothrus anchietae I. Bolívar, 1889, syn. n.; Gymnobothrus subcarinatus (I. Bolívar, 1922) = Gymnobothrus flexuosus (Schulthess, 1898), syn. n.; Gymnobothroides montanus Kevan, 1950 = Gymnobothrus levipes levipes (Karsch, 1896), syn. n.; Gymnobothroides keniensis Johnston, 1937 = Gymnobothrus levipes abbreviatus (Chopard, 1921), syn. n.; Gymnobothroides Karny, 1915 = Gymnobothrus I. Bolívar, 1889, syn. n.; Phloeochopardia Dirsh, 1958 = Gymnobothrus I. Bolívar, 1889, syn. n. The following 24 new or restored combinations, or new or restored states, are erected for previously described taxa: Chokwea backlundi res. comb. (formerly Chromochokwea backlundi (Uvarov, 1953)); Chokwea eucteana comb. n. (formerly Platyverticula eucteana Jago, 1983); Sumba callosa comb. n. (formerly Rhabdoplea callosa Uvarov, 1953); Anacteana neavei comb. n. (formerly Acteana neavei I. Bolívar, 1912); Anacteana neavei neavei stat. n.; Duronia chloronota curta Uvarov, 1953, stat. n. et comb. (formerly Duronia curta Uvarov, 1953); Coryphosima abyssinica (Uvarov, 1934), res. stat. (formerly synonymized with C. elgonensis by Dirsh, 1966 (though this was ignored by Otte 1995)); Coryphosima amplificata (Johnston, 1937), res. stat. et comb. n. (formerly Rastafaria amplificata amplificata (Johnston, 1937)); Coryphosima morotoensis (Jago, 1968), stat. n. et comb. n. (formerly Rastafaria amplificata morotoensis (Jago, 1968)); Coryphosima triangularis (Bouvy, 1982), comb. n. (formerly Rastafaria triangularis Bouvy, 1982); Gymnobothrus longicornis longicornis stat. n.; Gymnobothrus longicornis ephippinotus Jago, 1966, stat. n. et comb. n. (formerly Gymnobothrus ephippinotus Jago, 1966); Gymnobothrus longicornis sellatus Uvarov, 1953, stat. n. et comb. n. (formerly Gymnobothrus sellatus Uvarov, 1953); Gymnobothrus anchietae anchietae stat. n.; Gymnobothrus anchietae bounites Jago, 1970, stat. n. et comb. n. (formerly Gymnobothrus bounites Jago, 1970); Gymnobothrus anchietae flaviventris Uvarov, 1953, stat. n. et comb. n. (formerly Gymnobothrus flaviventris Uvarov, 1953). Gymnobothrus anchietae inflexus Uvarov, 1934, stat. n. et comb. n. (formerly Gymnobothrus inflexus Uvarov, 1934); Gymnobothrus levipes (Karsch, 1896), comb. n.; Gymnobothrus levipes levipes (Karsch, 1896), stat. n. et comb. n. (formerly Gymnobothroides levipes (Karsch, 1896)); Gymnobothrus levipes abbreviatus (Chopard, 1921), stat. n. et comb. n. (formerly Phloeochopardia abbreviata (Chopard, 1921)); Gymnobothrus pullus (Karny, 1915), comb. n.; Gymnobothrus pullus pullus (Karny, 1915), stat. n. et comb. n. (formerly Gymnobothroides pullus Karny, 1915); Gymnobothrus pullus minutus (Ramme, 1929), stat. n. et comb. n., nom. res. (formerly Gymnobothroides minutus Ramme, 1929); Gymnobothrus pullus hemipterus (Miller, 1932), stat. n. et comb. n. (formerly Gymnobothroides hemipterus Miller, 1932)