186 research outputs found

    How many species of flowering plants are there?

    Get PDF
    We estimate the probable number of flowering plants. First, we apply a model that explicitly incorporates taxonomic effort over time to estimate the number of as-yet-unknown species. Second, we ask taxonomic experts their opinions on how many species are likely to be missing, on a family-by-family basis. The results are broadly comparable. We show that the current number of species should grow by between 10 and 20 per cent. There are, however, interesting discrepancies between expert and model estimates for some families, suggesting that our model does not always completely capture patterns of taxonomic activity. The as-yet-unknown species are probably similar to those taxonomists have described recently—overwhelmingly rare and local, and disproportionately in biodiversity hotspots, where there are high levels of habitat destruction

    On Population Growth Near Protected Areas

    Get PDF
    Background: Protected areas are the first, and often only, line of defense in efforts to conserve biodiversity. They might be detrimental or beneficial to rural communities depending on how they alter economic opportunities and access to natural resources. As such, protected areas may attract or repel human settlement. Disproportionate increases in population growth near protected area boundaries may threaten their ability to conserve biodiversity. Methodology/Principal Findings: Using decadal population datasets, we analyze population growth across 45 countries and 304 protected areas. We find no evidence for population growth near protected areas to be greater than growth of rural areas in the same country. Furthermore, we argue that what growth does occur near protected areas likely results from a general expansion of nearby population centers. Conclusions/Significance: Our results contradict those from a recent study by Wittemyer et al., who claim overwhelming evidence for increased human population growth near protected areas. To understand the disagreement, we re-analyzed the protected areas in Wittemyer et al.’s paper. Their results are simply artifacts of mixing two incompatible datasets. Protected areas may experience unusual population pressures near their edges; indeed, individual case studies provid

    Biophysical suitability, economic pressure and land-cover change: a global probabilistic approach and insights for REDD+

    Get PDF
    There has been a concerted effort by the international scientific community to understand the multiple causes and patterns of land-cover change to support sustainable land management. Here, we examined biophysical suitability, and a novel integrated index of “Economic Pressure on Land” (EPL) to explain land cover in the year 2000, and estimated the likelihood of future land-cover change through 2050, including protected area effectiveness. Biophysical suitability and EPL explained almost half of the global pattern of land cover (R 2 = 0.45), increasing to almost two-thirds in areas where a long-term equilibrium is likely to have been reached (e.g. R 2 = 0.64 in Europe). We identify a high likelihood of future land-cover change in vast areas with relatively lower current and past deforestation (e.g. the Congo Basin). Further, we simulated emissions arising from a “business as usual” and two reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) scenarios by incorporating data on biomass carbon. As our model incorporates all biome types, it highlights a crucial aspect of the ongoing REDD + debate: if restricted to forests, “cross-biome leakage” would severely reduce REDD + effectiveness for climate change mitigation. If forests were protected from deforestation yet without measures to tackle the drivers of land-cover change, REDD + would only reduce 30 % of total emissions from land-cover change. Fifty-five percent of emissions reductions from forests would be compensated by increased emissions in other biomes. These results suggest that, although REDD + remains a very promising mitigation tool, implementation of complementary measures to reduce land demand is necessary to prevent this leakage

    Measuring Terrestrial Area of Habitat (AOH) and Its Utility for the IUCN Red List

    Get PDF
    The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species includes assessment of extinction risk for 98 512 species, plus documentation of their range, habitat, elevation, and other factors. These range, habitat and elevation data can be matched with terrestrial land cover and elevation datasets to map the species’ area of habitat (AOH; also known as extent of suitable habitat; ESH). This differs from the two spatial metrics used for assessing extinction risk in the IUCN Red List criteria: extent of occurrence (EOO) and area of occupancy (AOO). AOH can guide conservation, for example, through targeting areas for field surveys, assessing proportions of species’ habitat within protected areas, and monitoring habitat loss and fragmentation. We recommend that IUCN Red List assessments document AOH wherever practical

    Local biodiversity is higher inside than outside terrestrial protected areas worldwide

    Get PDF
    Protected areas are widely considered essential for biodiversity conservation. However, few global studies have demonstrated that protection benefits a broad range of species. Using a new global biodiversity database with unprecedented geographic and taxonomic coverage, we compare four biodiversity measures at sites sampled in multiple land uses inside and outside protected areas. Globally, species richness is 10.7% higher and abundance 14.5% higher in samples taken inside protected areas compared to samples taken outside, but neither rarefaction-based richness nor endemicity differ significantly. Importantly, we show that the positive effects of protection are mostly attributable to differences in land use between protected and unprotected sites. Nonetheless, even within some human-dominated land uses, species richness and abundance are higher in protected sites. Our results reinforce the global importance of protected areas but suggest that protection does not consistently benefit species with small ranges or increase the variety of ecological niches

    Changing how Earth System Modelling is done to provide more useful information for decision making, science and society

    Get PDF
    New details about natural and anthropogenic processes are continually added to models of the Earth system, anticipating that the increased realism will increase the accuracy of their predictions. However, perspectives differ about whether this approach will improve the value of the information the models provide to decision makers, scientists, and societies. The present bias toward increasing realism leads to a range of updated projections, but at the expense of uncertainty quantification and model tractability. This bias makes it difficult to quantify the uncertainty associated with the projections from any one model or to the distribution of projections from different models. This in turn limits the utility of climate model outputs for deriving useful information such as in the design of effective climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies or identifying and prioritizing sources of uncertainty for reduction. Here we argue that a new approach to model development is needed, focused on the delivery of information to support specific policy decisions or science questions. The central tenet of this approach is the assessment and justification of the overall balance of model detail that reflects the question posed, current knowledge, available data, and sources of uncertainty. This differs from contemporary practices by explicitly seeking to quantify both the benefits and costs of details at a systemic level, taking into account the precision and accuracy with which predictions are made when compared to existing empirical evidence. We specify changes to contemporary model development practices that would help in achieving this goal.</jats:p

    The role of protected areas in the avoidance of anthropogenic conversion in a high pressure region : a matching method analysis in the core region of the brazilian cerrado

    Get PDF
    Global efforts to avoid anthropogenic conversion of natural habitat rely heavily on the establishment of protected areas. Studies that evaluate the effectiveness of these areas with a focus on preserving the natural habitat define effectiveness as a measure of the influence of protected areas on total avoided conversion. Changes in the estimated effectiveness are related to local and regional differences, evaluation methods, restriction categories that include the protected areas, and other characteristics. The overall objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of protected areas to prevent the advance of the conversion of natural areas in the core region of the Brazil’s Cerrado Biome, taking into account the influence of the restriction degree, governmental sphere, time since the establishment of the protected area units, and the size of the area on the performance of protected areas. The evaluation was conducted using matching methods and took into account the following two fundamental issues: control of statistical biases caused by the influence of covariates on the likelihood of anthropogenic conversion and the non-randomness of the allocation of protected areas throughout the territory (spatial correlation effect) and the control of statistical bias caused by the influence of auto-correlation and leakage effect. Using a sample design that is not based on ways to control these biases may result in outcomes that underestimate or overestimate the effectiveness of those units. The matching method accounted for a bias reduction in 94–99% of the estimation of the average effect of protected areas on anthropogenic conversion and allowed us to obtain results with a reduced influence of the auto-correlation and leakage effects. Most protected areas had a positive influence on the maintenance of natural habitats, although wide variation in this effectiveness was dependent on the type, restriction, governmental sphere, size and age group of the unit

    Quantitative trait loci conferring grain mineral nutrient concentrations in durum wheat 3 wild emmer wheat RIL population

    Get PDF
    Mineral nutrient malnutrition, and particularly deficiency in zinc and iron, afflicts over 3 billion people worldwide. Wild emmer wheat, Triticum turgidum ssp. dicoccoides, genepool harbors a rich allelic repertoire for mineral nutrients in the grain. The genetic and physiological basis of grain protein, micronutrients (zinc, iron, copper and manganese) and macronutrients (calcium, magnesium, potassium, phosphorus and sulfur) concentration was studied in tetraploid wheat population of 152 recombinant inbred lines (RILs), derived from a cross between durum wheat (cv. Langdon) and wild emmer (accession G18-16). Wide genetic variation was found among the RILs for all grain minerals, with considerable transgressive effect. A total of 82 QTLs were mapped for 10 minerals with LOD score range of 3.2–16.7. Most QTLs were in favor of the wild allele (50 QTLs). Fourteen pairs of QTLs for the same trait were mapped to seemingly homoeologous positions, reflecting synteny between the A and B genomes. Significant positive correlation was found between grain protein concentration (GPC), Zn, Fe and Cu, which was supported by significant overlap between the respective QTLs, suggesting common physiological and/or genetic factors controlling the concentrations of these mineral nutrients. Few genomic regions (chromosomes 2A, 5A, 6B and 7A) were found to harbor clusters of QTLs for GPC and other nutrients. These identified QTLs may facilitate the use of wild alleles for improving grain nutritional quality of elite wheat cultivars, especially in terms of protein, Zn and Fe

    Shortfalls and Solutions for Meeting National and Global Conservation Area Targets

    Get PDF
    Governments have committed to conserving 17% of terrestrial and 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 km2 terrestrial PA network needs only 3.3 million km2 to be added to achieve 17% terrestrial coverage. However, it would require nearly doubling to achieve, costefficiently, 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.We are grateful to the many individuals and organizations who contribute to the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species,WDPA, or to identification of IBAs or AZEs. We thank A. Bennett for help with data collation and N. Dulvy, W. Laurance, and D. Faith for helpful comments on an earlier draft. This work was supported by the Cambridge Conservation Initiative Collaborative Fund and Arcadia.This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from Wiley via http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/conl.1215
    corecore