The Importance of Conserving Biodiversity Outside of Protected Areas in Mediterranean Ecosystems

Mediterranean-type ecosystems constitute one of the rarest terrestrial biomes and yet they are extraordinarily biodiverse. Home to over 250 million people, the five regions where these ecosystems are found have climate and coastal conditions that make them highly desirable human habitats. The current conservation landscape does not reflect the mediterranean biome's rarity and its importance for plant endemism. Habitat conversion will clearly outpace expansion of formal protected-area networks, and conservationists must augment this traditional strategy with new approaches to sustain the mediterranean biota. Using regional scale datasets, we determine the area of land in each of the five regions that is protected, converted (e.g., to urban or industrial), impacted (e.g., intensive, cultivated agriculture), or lands that we consider to have conservation potential. The latter are natural and semi-natural lands that are unprotected (e.g., private range lands) but sustain numerous native species and associated habitats. Chile has the greatest proportion of its land (75%) in this category and California-Mexico the least (48%). To illustrate the potential for achieving mediterranean biodiversity conservation on these lands, we use species-area curves generated from ecoregion scale data on native plant species richness and vertebrate species richness. For example, if biodiversity could be sustained on even 25% of existing unprotected, natural and semi-natural lands, we estimate that the habitat of more than 6,000 species could be represented. This analysis suggests that if unprotected natural and semi-natural lands are managed in a manner that allows for persistence of native species, we can realize significant additional biodiversity gains. Lasting biodiversity protection at the scale needed requires unprecedented collaboration among stakeholders to promote conservation both inside and outside of traditional protected areas, including on lands where people live and work

The impact of conservation on the status of the world's vertebrates.

Using data for 25,780 species categorized on the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List, we present an assessment of the status of the world's vertebrates. One-fifth of species are classified as Threatened, and we show that this figure is increasing: On average, 52 species of mammals, birds, and amphibians move one category closer to extinction each year. However, this overall pattern conceals the impact of conservation successes, and we show that the rate of deterioration would have been at least one-fifth again as much in the absence of these. Nonetheless, current conservation efforts remain insufficient to offset the main drivers of biodiversity loss in these groups: agricultural expansion, logging, overexploitation, and invasive alien species

A pan-neotropical analysis of hunting preferences

Hunting in the neotropics is a widespread form of resource extraction. However, there is increasing concern that current activities are leading to the decline and extirpation of vulnerable species; particulary ateline primates, large ungulates (such as tapirs and white-lipped peccaries) and large birds such as curassows. Hunting patterns are expected to be a product of two principal influences: the value of return for a given amount of effort invested into hunting, and cultural factors that determine the prestige and usefulness of prey. Previous work has suggested that hunting profiles change in a predictable way over time, becoming more diverse and more dependent on smaller bodied species as preferred, large-bodied prey become scarcer. In this paper, we evaluate the hunting profiles of 78 neotropical communities in Central and South America. We investigate the uniformity of species preferences, whether communities that are geographically closer have similar hunting profiles, and whether the age and size of settlements can be used to predict the type and diversity of species targeted. We found that there was only a weak correlation between the structure of communities’ hunting profiles and their geographical proximity. Neither a community’s size nor age was a good predictor of the shape and structure of its hunting profile. Our data suggest that either the availability of prey or the cultural influences dictating the value of different species can change rapidly over small distances, and that older and larger settlements do not impact prey species distributions in a predictable way