Protected area networks do not represent unseen biodiversity

Abstract Most existing protected area networks are biased to protect charismatic species or landscapes. We hypothesized that conservation networks designed to include unseen biodiversity—species rich groups that consist of inconspicuous taxa, or groups affected by knowledge gaps—are more efficient t...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Ángel Delso, Javier Fajardo, Jesús Muñoz
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Nature Portfolio 2021
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/e42d44044c06425099b2abe84ff1d615
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:e42d44044c06425099b2abe84ff1d615
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:e42d44044c06425099b2abe84ff1d6152021-12-02T14:58:25ZProtected area networks do not represent unseen biodiversity10.1038/s41598-021-91651-z2045-2322https://doaj.org/article/e42d44044c06425099b2abe84ff1d6152021-06-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-91651-zhttps://doaj.org/toc/2045-2322Abstract Most existing protected area networks are biased to protect charismatic species or landscapes. We hypothesized that conservation networks designed to include unseen biodiversity—species rich groups that consist of inconspicuous taxa, or groups affected by knowledge gaps—are more efficient than networks that ignore these groups. To test this hypothesis, we generated species distribution models for 3006 arthropod species to determine which were represented in three networks of different sizes and biogeographic origin. We assessed the efficiency of each network using spatial prioritization to measure its completeness, the increment needed to achieve conservation targets, and its specificity, the extent to which proposed priority areas to maximize unseen biodiversity overlap with existing networks. We found that the representativeness of unseen biodiversity in the studied protected areas, or extrinsic representativeness, is low, with ~ 40% of the analyzed unseen biodiversity species being unprotected. We also found that existing networks should be expanded ~ 26% to 46% of their current area to complete targets, and that existing networks do not efficiently conserve the unseen biodiversity given their low specificity (as low as 8.8%) unseen biodiversity. We conclude that information on unseen biodiversity must be included in systematic conservation planning approaches to design more efficient and ecologically representative protected areas.Ángel DelsoJavier FajardoJesús MuñozNature PortfolioarticleMedicineRScienceQENScientific Reports, Vol 11, Iss 1, Pp 1-10 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Ángel Delso Javier Fajardo Jesús Muñoz Protected area networks do not represent unseen biodiversity
description	Abstract Most existing protected area networks are biased to protect charismatic species or landscapes. We hypothesized that conservation networks designed to include unseen biodiversity—species rich groups that consist of inconspicuous taxa, or groups affected by knowledge gaps—are more efficient than networks that ignore these groups. To test this hypothesis, we generated species distribution models for 3006 arthropod species to determine which were represented in three networks of different sizes and biogeographic origin. We assessed the efficiency of each network using spatial prioritization to measure its completeness, the increment needed to achieve conservation targets, and its specificity, the extent to which proposed priority areas to maximize unseen biodiversity overlap with existing networks. We found that the representativeness of unseen biodiversity in the studied protected areas, or extrinsic representativeness, is low, with ~ 40% of the analyzed unseen biodiversity species being unprotected. We also found that existing networks should be expanded ~ 26% to 46% of their current area to complete targets, and that existing networks do not efficiently conserve the unseen biodiversity given their low specificity (as low as 8.8%) unseen biodiversity. We conclude that information on unseen biodiversity must be included in systematic conservation planning approaches to design more efficient and ecologically representative protected areas.
format	article
author	Ángel Delso Javier Fajardo Jesús Muñoz
author_facet	Ángel Delso Javier Fajardo Jesús Muñoz
author_sort	Ángel Delso
title	Protected area networks do not represent unseen biodiversity
title_short	Protected area networks do not represent unseen biodiversity
title_full	Protected area networks do not represent unseen biodiversity
title_fullStr	Protected area networks do not represent unseen biodiversity
title_full_unstemmed	Protected area networks do not represent unseen biodiversity
title_sort	protected area networks do not represent unseen biodiversity
publisher	Nature Portfolio
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/e42d44044c06425099b2abe84ff1d615
work_keys_str_mv	AT angeldelso protectedareanetworksdonotrepresentunseenbiodiversity AT javierfajardo protectedareanetworksdonotrepresentunseenbiodiversity AT jesusmunoz protectedareanetworksdonotrepresentunseenbiodiversity
_version_	1718389296853942272

Protected area networks do not represent unseen biodiversity

Ejemplares similares