the wilder the better in biodiversity conservation? comparison of three biodiversity prioritization...

The wilder the better in biodiversity

conservation? Comparison of three

biodiversity prioritization approaches

in Peneda-Gerês National Park,

Portugal Silvia Ceaușu

Inês Gomes

Henrique Miguel Pereira

Centro de Biologia Ambiental, Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa

1/9/20123rd European Congress of Conservation Biology

Glasgow 2012

Need for prioritizing

Biodiversity loss


Glasgow 2012

(Butchart 2010)

Proactive vs Reactive approaches

Irre

pla

ce

ab

ility

Vulnerability

High-

biodiversity

wilderness

areas

Last of the

wild

Biodiversity

hotspots

Crisis

ecoregions

Proactive Reactive

Approaches prioritizing high vulnerability

Approaches prioritizing low vulnerability


Glasgow 2012

(after Brooks et al. 2006)

Scope and study area

Peneda-Gerês National Park (PNPG) -

~67000 ha

~9000 inhabitants

High rate of farmland abandonment

N

¡ rea do PNPG

Concelhos da · rea do PNPG

LEGENDA

MelgaÁo

Arcos de Valdevez

Ponte da Barca

Terras de BouroMontalegre

0 10Km


Glasgow 2012

Species, wilderness and ecosystem services (ES) implications of

different prioritization approaches at local scale

Prioritizing parametersHotspots

Species richness

Rarity = 1/no of grid cells

Vulnerability score – Red Book of the Vertebrates of Portugal

Planning units = 233 grid cells

(2kmx2km)

Conservation features = 177 species

LEGENDA

N

0 10KmCaminhos

Rede vi· ria

Albufeiras

Rede elÈctrica

Aglomerados Urbanos

Complementarity - Marxan

Wilderness

Human settlements: 1

Power grid: ¼

Dams: ¼

Roads: 1

Trails: ¼


Glasgow 2012

Assessment

Overall species coverage (144 birds+20 amphibians+13

reptiles)

Coverage of mega-fauna (wolves+wild goats+birds of prey)

Wilderness coverage

Ecosystem services (ES)


Glasgow 2012

Prioritization maps

Hotspots Complementarity Wildernessρ=0.79

p<2.2e-16ρ=-0.19p<0.005

ρ=-0.13

p<0.051/9/2012

3rd European Congress of Conservation Biology

Glasgow 2012

Species coverage

Complementarity – 27%

Hotspots – 44%

Wilderness – 72%


Glasgow 2012

Birds+Amphibians+Reptiles

0 20 40 60 80 100

05

01

00

15

0

Total number of species

Percentage of area

Nu

mb

er

of sp

ecie

s

Proactive - Wilderness

Reactive - Hotspots

Reactive - Complementarity

Species coverage - mega-fauna

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Coverage of important areas for megafauna

Percentage of area

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f are

a im

port

ant

for

meg

afa

una


Reactive - Hotspots



Glasgow 2012

Wolves+Wild goats+Birds of prey

Wilderness coverage

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Total wilderness score

Percentage of area

Wild

ern

ess s

core

perc

enta

ge


Reactive - Hotspots


Wilderness score


Glasgow 2012

ES – Landslide protection

Hotspots Complementarity Wilderness

26.52% 33.34% 38.72%


Glasgow 2012

Areas important for landslide protection (slope>30°)

ES-Water spring protection

37.7% 33.63% 51.34%


Glasgow 2012


Areas important water spring protection

ES-Soil infiltration

64.35% 50.31% 39.95%


Glasgow 2012


Areas important for soil infiltration

Discussion


Glasgow 2012

Species richness and irreplaceability show high positive correlation which contrasts with the results found at regional level (Rey Benayas and de la Montana 2003, Diniz-Filho et al., 2006)

Complementarity has highest overall species coverage performance (Kati et al. 2004).

Wilderness covers better the important areas for megafauna (Navarro and Pereira, 2012)

Wilderness insures protection of higher altitude areas and the ES produced here.

Consequences of conservation at the level of ecosystem services (Chan et al. 2006).

In the wilderness approach we have a direct relation between management actions and the indicator of what we want to protect

Thank you!


Glasgow 2012

Questions?

Brooks, T. M, R. A Mittermeier, G. A.B da Fonseca, J. Gerlach, M. Hoffmann, J. F. Lamoreux, C. G Mittermeier, J. D Pilgrim, and A. S.L

Rodrigues. “Global Biodiversity Conservation Priorities.” Science 313, no. 5783 (2006): 58.

Butchart, S. H.M, M. Walpole, B. Collen, A. Van Strien, J. P.W Scharlemann, R. E.A Almond, J. E.M Baillie, et al. “Global Biodiversity: Indicators

of Recent Declines.” Science 328, no. 5982 (2010): 1164.

Chan, K. M.A, M. R Shaw, D. R Cameron, E. C Underwood, and G. C Daily. “Conservation Planning for Ecosystem Services.” PLoS Biology 4,

no. 11 (2006): e379.

Diniz-Filho, J. A. F., L. M. Bini, M. P. Pinto, T. F. L. V. Chan, K. M.A, M. R Shaw, D. R Cameron, E. C Underwood, and G. C Daily. “Conservation

Planning for Ecosystem Services.” PLoS Biology 4, no. 11 (2006): e379.

B. Rangel, P. Carvalho, and R. P. Bastos. “Anuran Species Richness, Complementarity and Conservation Conflicts in Brazilian Cerrado.”

Acta Oecologica 29, no. 1 (2006): 9–15.

Kati, V., P. Devillers, M. Dufrene, A. Legakis, D. Vokou, and P. Lebrun. “Hotspots, Complementarity or Representativeness? Designing Optimal

Small-scale Reserves for Biodiversity Conservation.” Biological Conservation 120, no. 4 (2004): 471–480.

Navarro, Laetitia, and Henrique Pereira. “Rewilding Abandoned Landscapes in Europe.” Ecosystems 15, no. 6 (2012): 900–912.

Rey Benayas, J. M, and E. de la Montana. “Identifying Areas of High-value Vertebrate Diversity for Strengthening Conservation.” Biological

Conservation 114, no. 3 (2003): 357–370.

[email protected]

Acknowledgments:MoBiA project (PTDC/AAC-AMB/114522/2009)AbaFoBio project (PTDC/AMB/73901/2006)

Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia

the wilder the better in biodiversity conservation? comparison of three biodiversity prioritization...

Education