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

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

Drivers of extinction risk in African mammals: the interplay of distribution state, human pressure, conservation response and species biology

Although conservation intervention has reversed the decline of some species, our success is outweighed by a much larger number of species moving towards extinction. Extinction risk modelling can identify correlates of risk and species not yet recognized to be threatened. Here, we use machine learning models to identify correlates of extinction risk in African terrestrial mammals using a set of variables belonging to four classes: species distribution state, human pressures, conservation response and species biology. We derived information on distribution state and human pressure from satellite- borne imagery. Variables in all four classes were identified as important predictors of extinction risk, and interactions were observed among variables in different classes (e.g. level of protection, human threats, species distribution ranges). Species biology had a key role in mediating the effect of external variables. The model was 90% accurate in classifying extinction risk status of species, but in a few cases the observed and modelled extinction risk mismatched. Species in this condition might suffer from an incorrect classification of extinction risk (hence require reassessment). An increased availability of satellite imagery combined with improved resolution and classification accuracy of the resulting maps will play a progressively greater role in conservation monitoring.JRC.H.5-Land Resources Managemen

Spatially targeted nature-based solutions can mitigate climate change and nature loss but require a systems approach

Funding Information: This study was funded by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and Natural England (project code ECM 58632). The Breeding Bird Survey is a Partnership between the BTO, RSPB, and Joint Nature Conservation Committee (on behalf of Natural Resources Wales, Natural England, Council for Nature Conservation and Countryside, and NatureScot) and relies on volunteer surveyors. Simon Gillings provided tetrad-level predictions of relative abundance for wading birds. We are grateful to members of the RSPB steering group, who contributed to the development of our scenarios, and Profs. Tim Benton and Andrew Balmford who commented on an earlier version of this manuscript. Conceptualization, T.F. R.B.B. T.B.-L. G.M.B. W.J.P. and R.H.F.; methodology, T.F. T.B.-L. J.P.C. D.M. P.S. and R.H.F.; software, T.F.; formal analysis, T.F.; resources, D.M.; data curation, T.F.; writing – original draft, T.F.; writing – review & editing, R.B.B. T.B.-L. G.M.B. J.P.C. D.M. P.S. W.J.P. and R.H.F.; visualization, T.F.; supervision, W.J.P. The authors declare no competing interests. Publisher Copyright: © 2023 The AuthorsPeer reviewedPublisher PD

Shortfalls and Solutions for Meeting National and Global Conservation Area Targets

Governments have committed to conserving greater than or equal to 17% of terrestrial and greater than or equal to 10% of marine environments globally, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity through ecologically representative Protected Area (PA) systems or other area-based conservation measures , while individual countries have committed to conserve 3-50% of their land area. We estimate that PAs currently cover 14.6% of terrestrial and 2.8% of marine extent, but 59-68% of ecoregions, 77-78% of important sites for biodiversity, and 57% of 25,380 species have inadequate coverage. The existing 19.7 million km super(2) terrestrial PA network needs only 3.3 million km super(2) to be added to achieve 17% terrestrial coverage. However, it would require nearly doubling to achieve, cost-efficiently, coverage targets for all countries, ecoregions, important sites, and species. Poorer countries have the largest relative shortfalls. Such extensive and rapid expansion of formal PAs is unlikely to be achievable. Greater focus is therefore needed on alternative approaches, including community- and privately managed sites and other effective area-based conservation measures

Toward quantification of the impact of 21st-century deforestation on the extinction risk of terrestrial vertebrates

Conservation actions need to be prioritized, often taking into account species’ extinction risk. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List provides an accepted, objective framework for the assessment of extinction risk. Assessments based on data collected in the field are the best option, but the field data to base these on are often limited. Information collected through remote sensing can be used in place of field data to inform assessments. Forests are perhaps the best-studied land-cover type for use of remote-sensing data. Using an open-access 30-m resolution map of tree cover and its change between 2000 and 2012, we assessed the extent of forest cover and loss within the distributions of 11,186 forest-dependent amphibians, birds, and mammals worldwide. For 16 species, forest loss resulted in an elevated extinction risk under red-list criterion A, owing to inferred rapid population declines. This number increased to 23 when data-deficient species (i.e., those with insufficient information for evaluation) were included. Under red-list criterion B2, 484 species (855 when data-deficient species were included) were considered at elevated extinction risk, owing to restricted areas of occupancy resulting from little forest cover remaining within their ranges. The proportion of species of conservation concern would increase by 32.8% for amphibians, 15.1% for birds, and 24.7% for mammals if our suggested uplistings are accepted. Central America, the Northern Andes, Madagascar, the Eastern Arc forests in Africa, and the islands of Southeast Asia are hotspots for these species. Our results illustrate the utility of satellite imagery for global extinction-risk assessment and measurement of progress toward international environmental agreement targets

The prevalence, characteristics and effectiveness of Aichi Target 11's "other effective area‐based conservation measures" (OECMs) in key biodiversity areas

Aichi Target 11 of the CBD Strategic Plan for Biodiversity commits countries to the effective conservation of areas of importance for biodiversity, through protected areas and "other effective area-based conservation measures" (OECMs). However, the prevalence and characteristics of OECMs are poorly known, particularly in sites of importance for biodiversity. We assess the prevalence of potential OECMs in 740 terrestrial Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) outside known or mapped protected areas across ten countries. A majority of unprotected KBAs (76.5%) were at least partly covered by one or more potential OECMs. The conservation of ecosystem services or biodiversity was a stated management aim in 73% of these OECMs. Local or central government bodies managed the highest number of potential OECMs, followed by local and indigenous communities and private landowners. There was no difference between unprotected KBAs with or without OECMs in forest loss or in a number of state-pressure-response metrics

The prevalence, characteristics and effectiveness of Aichi Target 11 ' s "other effective area-based conservation measures" (OECMs) in Key Biodiversity Areas

Aichi Target 11 of the CBD Strategic Plan for Biodiversity commits countries to the effective conservation of areas of importance for biodiversity, through protected areas and “other effective area-based conservation measures” (OECMs). However, the prevalence and characteristics of OECMs are poorly known, particularly in sites of importance for biodiversity. We assess the prevalence of potential OECMs in 740 terrestrial Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) outside known or mapped protected areas across ten countries. A majority of unprotected KBAs (76.5%) were at least partly covered by one or more potential OECMs. The conservation of ecosystem services or biodiversity was a stated management aim in 73% of these OECMs. Local or central government bodies managed the highest number of potential OECMs, followed by local and indigenous communities and private landowners. There was no difference between unprotected KBAs with or without OECMs in forest loss or in a number of state-pressure-response metrics.The project was funded by the CCI Collaborative Fun

Menstrual irregularity and bone mass in premenopausal women: Cross-sectional associations with testosterone and SHBG

Background. There have been few studies examining the associations between menstrual irregularity, androgens and bone mass in population-based samples of premenopausal women. This study aimed to describe the associations between menstrual pattern, testosterone, sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) and bone mass in a population-based sample of premenopausal women. Methods. Cross-sectional study (N = 382, mean age 31.5 years). Menstrual pattern was assessed by questionnaire, bone mass measured by quantitative ultrasound (QUS) and androgen status was assessed by levels of serum testosterone, SHBG and the free androgen index (FAI). Results. Women with irregular cycles (n = 41, 11%) had higher free androgen index (FAI, P = 0.01) and higher QUS measurements including speed of sound (SOS, 1%, P < 0.05), quantitative ultrasound index (QUI, 7%, p < 0.05), and broadband ultrasound attenuation (BUA, 7%, p = 0.10). These associations persisted after adjustment for age and body mass index (BMI). After further adjustment for hormonal factors (either testosterone, SHBG or FAI), the strength of the associations was moderately attenuated, however, women with irregular cycles still had a 6% increase in mean QUS. Total testosterone, FAI and SHBG were also associated with QUS measures (testosterone and FAI, r +0.11 to +0.21, all p < 0.05; SHBG r -0.14 to -0.16, all p < 0.05) and the associations remained significant after adjustment. Conclusion. Irregular menstrual cycles were associated with higher bone mass in this population-based sample of premenopausal women suggesting menstrual disturbance should continue to be evaluated but may be less harmful for bone mass. The association between menstrual irregularity and bone mass was partially mediated by markers of androgen status especially free testosterone

Global priority areas for ecosystem restoration

Extensive ecosystem restoration is increasingly seen as being central to conserving biodiversity1 and stabilizing the climate of the Earth2. Although ambitious national and global targets have been set, global priority areas that account for spatial variation in benefits and costs have yet to be identified. Here we develop and apply a multicriteria optimization approach that identifies priority areas for restoration across all terrestrial biomes, and estimates their benefits and costs. We find that restoring 15% of converted lands in priority areas could avoid 60% of expected extinctions while sequestering 299 gigatonnes of CO2—30% of the total CO2 increase in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution. The inclusion of several biomes is key to achieving multiple benefits. Cost effectiveness can increase up to 13-fold when spatial allocation is optimized using our multicriteria approach, which highlights the importance of spatial planning. Our results confirm the vast potential contributions of restoration to addressing global challenges, while underscoring the necessity of pursuing these goals synergistically.Fil: Strassburg, Bernardo B. N.. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro; Brasil. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro; BrasilFil: Iribarrem, Alvaro. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro; BrasilFil: Beyer, Hawthorne L.. The University of Queensland; Australia. University of Queensland; AustraliaFil: Cordeiro, Carlos Leandro. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro; BrasilFil: Crouzeilles, Renato. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro; Brasil. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro; BrasilFil: Jakovac, Catarina C.. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro; BrasilFil: Braga Junqueira, André. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro; BrasilFil: Lacerda, Eduardo. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro; Brasil. Universidade Federal Fluminense; BrasilFil: Latawiec, Agnieszka E.. University of East Anglia; Reino Unido. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro; BrasilFil: Balmford, Andrew. University of Cambridge; Estados UnidosFil: Brooks, Thomas M.. University Of The Philippines Los Banos; Filipinas. Institute For Marine And Antarctic Studies; Australia. International Union For Conservation Of Nature And Natural Resources; SuizaFil: Butchart, Stuart H. M.. University of Cambridge; Estados UnidosFil: Chazdon, Robin L.. University Of The Sunshine Coast; Australia. University of Connecticut; Estados UnidosFil: Erb, Karl-Heinz. Universitat Fur Bodenkultur Wien; AustriaFil: Brancalion, Pedro. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Buchanan, Graeme. Royal Society For The Protection Of Birds; Reino UnidoFil: Cooper, David. Secretariat Of The Convention On Biological Diversity; CanadáFil: Díaz, Sandra Myrna. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; ArgentinaFil: Donald, Paul F.. University of Cambridge; Estados UnidosFil: Kapos, Valerie. United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre; Reino UnidoFil: Leclère, David. International Institute For Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg; AustriaFil: Miles, Lera. United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre; Reino UnidoFil: Obersteiner, Michael. Oxford Social Sciences Division; Reino Unido. International Institute For Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg; AustriaFil: Plutzar, Christoph. Universitat Fur Bodenkultur Wien; Austria. Universidad de Viena; AustriaFil: de M. Scaramuzza, Carlos Alberto. International Institute For Sustainability; BrasilFil: Scarano, Fabio R.. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro; BrasilFil: Visconti, Piero. International Institute For Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg; Austri