The Brazilian Cerrado is a global biodiversity hotspot with notoriously high rates of native vegetation suppression and wildfires over the past three decades. As a result, climate change can already ...be detected at both local and regional scales. In this study, we used three different approaches based on independent datasets to investigate possible changes in the daytime and nighttime temperature and air humidity between the peak of the dry season and the beginning of the rainy season in the Brazilian Cerrado. Additionally, we evaluated the tendency of dew point depression, considering it as a proxy to assess impacts on biodiversity. Monthly increases of 2.2−4.0℃ in the maximum temperatures and 2.4−2.8℃ in the minimum temperatures between 1961 and 2019 were recorded, supported by all analyzed datasets which included direct observations, remote sensing, and modeling data. The warming raised the vapor pressure deficit, and although we recorded an upward trend in absolute humidity, relative humidity has reduced by ~15%. If these tendencies are maintained, gradual air warming will make nightly cooling insufficient to reach the dew point in the early hours of the night. Therefore, it will progressively reduce both the amount and duration of nocturnal dewfall, which is the main source of water for numerous plants and animal species of the Brazilian Cerrado during the dry season. Through several examples, we hypothesize that these climate changes can have a high impact on biodiversity and potentially cause ecosystems to collapse. We emphasize that the effects of temperature and humidity on Cerrado ecosystems cannot be neglected and should be further explored from a land use perspective.
This study shows the significant shifts in the daytime and nighttime temperature and air humidity in the Brazilian Cerrado, where the massive suppression of native vegetation is the main radiative force driving these climate changes. Using the tendency of dew point depression as a proxy to assess impacts on biodiversity, the authors suggest that these regional climate changes can have a high impact on fauna and flora and potentially cause ecosystems to collapse.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
33.
Is habitat fragmentation good for biodiversity? Fletcher, Robert J.; Didham, Raphael K.; Banks-Leite, Cristina ...
Biological conservation,
October 2018, 2018-10-00, Volume:
226
Journal Article
Peer reviewed
Open access
Habitat loss is a primary threat to biodiversity across the planet, yet contentious debate has ensued on the importance of habitat fragmentation ‘per se’ (i.e., altered spatial configuration of ...habitat for a given amount of habitat loss). Based on a review of landscape-scale investigations, Fahrig (2017; Ecological responses to habitat fragmentation per se. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 48:1-23) reports that biodiversity responses to habitat fragmentation ‘per se’ are more often positive rather than negative and concludes that the widespread belief in negative fragmentation effects is a ‘zombie idea’. We show that Fahrig's conclusions are drawn from a narrow and potentially biased subset of available evidence, which ignore much of the observational, experimental and theoretical evidence for negative effects of altered habitat configuration. We therefore argue that Fahrig's conclusions should be interpreted cautiously as they could be misconstrued by policy makers and managers, and we provide six arguments why they should not be applied in conservation decision-making. Reconciling the scientific disagreement, and informing conservation more effectively, will require research that goes beyond statistical and correlative approaches. This includes a more prudent use of data and conceptual models that appropriately partition direct vs indirect influences of habitat loss and altered spatial configuration, and more clearly discriminate the mechanisms underpinning any changes. Incorporating these issues will deliver greater mechanistic understanding and more predictive power to address the conservation issues arising from habitat loss and fragmentation.
•Habitat loss and fragmentation have long been considered to have negative effects on biodiversity.•Yet recent review by Fahrig (2017) argues that in fact habitat fragmentation has largely positive effects on biodiversity.•We highlight empirical and theoretical counter evidence that illustrate negative effects of fragmentation can be common.•We argue that positive effects can often be misleading or not of conservation importance.•We provide six key reasons why the conclusions in Fahrig (2017) should not be used in conservation decision-making.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZRSKP
Global change, especially land‐use intensification, affects human well‐being by impacting the delivery of multiple ecosystem services (multifunctionality). However, whether biodiversity loss is a ...major component of global change effects on multifunctionality in real‐world ecosystems, as in experimental ones, remains unclear. Therefore, we assessed biodiversity, functional composition and 14 ecosystem services on 150 agricultural grasslands differing in land‐use intensity. We also introduce five multifunctionality measures in which ecosystem services were weighted according to realistic land‐use objectives. We found that indirect land‐use effects, i.e. those mediated by biodiversity loss and by changes to functional composition, were as strong as direct effects on average. Their strength varied with land‐use objectives and regional context. Biodiversity loss explained indirect effects in a region of intermediate productivity and was most damaging when land‐use objectives favoured supporting and cultural services. In contrast, functional composition shifts, towards fast‐growing plant species, strongly increased provisioning services in more inherently unproductive grasslands.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
Mountain areas often hold special species communities, and they are high on the list of conservation concern. Global warming and changes in human land use, such as grazing pressure and afforestation, ...have been suggested to be major threats for biodiversity in the mountain areas, affecting species abundance and causing distribution shifts towards mountaintops. Population shifts towards poles and mountaintops have been documented in several areas, indicating that climate change is one of the key drivers of species’ distribution changes. Despite the high conservation concern, relatively little is known about the population trends of species in mountain areas due to low accessibility and difficult working conditions. Thanks to the recent improvement of bird monitoring schemes around Europe, we can here report a first account of population trends of 44 bird species from four major European mountain regions: Fennoscandia, UK upland, south‐western (Iberia) and south‐central mountains (Alps), covering 12 countries. Overall, the mountain bird species declined significantly (−7%) during 2002–2014, which is similar to the declining rate in common birds in Europe during the same period. Mountain specialists showed a significant −10% decline in population numbers. The slope for mountain generalists was also negative, but not significantly so. The slopes of specialists and generalists did not differ from each other. Fennoscandian and Iberian populations were on average declining, while in United Kingdom and Alps, trends were nonsignificant. Temperature change or migratory behaviour was not significantly associated with regional population trends of species. Alpine habitats are highly vulnerable to climate change, and this is certainly one of the main drivers of mountain bird population trends. However, observed declines can also be partly linked with local land use practices. More efforts should be undertaken to identify the causes of decline and to increase conservation efforts for these populations.
Overall populations of 44 mountain bird species declined significantly c. −7% in Europe (inc. Fennoscandia, UK upland, Alps and Iberia) during 2002–2014. Mountain specialists species, which occur only in the mountain areas in Europe, showed a significant −10% decline in population numbers.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
Global targets for the percentage area of land protected, such as 30% by 2030, have gained increasing prominence, but both their scientific basis and likely effectiveness have been questioned. As ...with emissions‐reduction targets based on desired climate outcomes, percentage‐protected targets combine values and science by estimating the area over which conservation actions are required to help achieve desired biodiversity outcomes. Protected areas are essential for achieving many biodiversity targets, in part because many species are highly sensitive to human‐associated disturbance. However, because the contribution of protected areas to biodiversity outcomes is contingent on their location, management, governance, threats, and what occurs across the broader landscape matrix, global percentage‐protected targets are unavoidably empirical generalizations of ecological patterns and processes across diverse geographies. Percentage‐protected targets are insufficient in isolation but can complement other actions and contribute to biodiversity outcomes within a framework that balances accuracy and pragmatism in a global context characterized by imperfect biodiversity data. Ideally, percentage‐protected targets serve as anchors that strengthen comprehensive national biodiversity strategies by communicating the level of ambition necessary to reverse current trends of biodiversity loss. If such targets are to fulfill this role within the complex societal process by which both values and science impel conservation actions, conservation scientists must clearly communicate the nature of the evidence base supporting percentage‐protected targets and how protected areas can function within a broader landscape managed for sustainable coexistence between people and nature. A new paradigm for protected and conserved areas recognizes that national coordination, incentives, and monitoring should support rather than undermine diverse locally led conservation initiatives. However, the definition of a conserved area must retain a strong focus on biodiversity to remain consistent with the evidence base from which percentage‐protected targets were originally derived.
Resumen
Las metas globales del porcentaje de área de suelo protegido, como el de 30% para el 2030, han obtenido una prominencia incrementada, a pesar de que se les cuestionen sus bases científicas y la probabilidad de su efectividad. Así como las metas de reducción de emisiones, las metas de porcentaje de protección combinan valores y ciencia mediante la estimación del área que requiere acciones de conservación para ayudar a lograr los resultados deseados de biodiversidad. Las áreas protegidas son esenciales para alcanzar muchas metas de biodiversidad, en parte porque muchas especies son altamente sensibles a las perturbaciones asociadas con el humano. Sin embargo, debido a que la contribución de las áreas protegidas a los resultados de biodiversidad depende de su ubicación, gestión, manejo, amenazas y lo que ocurra a lo largo de la amplia matriz del paisaje, las metas de porcentaje de protección son generalizaciones empíricas inevitables de los patrones y procesos ecológicos en la geografía diversa. Las metas de porcentaje de protección son insuficientes por sí solas, pero pueden complementar a otras acciones y contribuir a los resultados de biodiversidad dentro de un marco de trabajo que balancee la exactitud y el pragmatismo dentro de un contexto global caracterizado por datos imperfectos de la biodiversidad. Idealmente, las metas de porcentaje de protección fungen como pilares que fortalecen las estrategias nacionales integrales de biodiversidad mediante la comunicación del nivel de ambición necesaria para revertir las tendencias actuales de pérdida de la biodiversidad. Si se espera que dichas metas realicen este papel dentro del complejo proceso social en el que tanto los valores como la ciencia impulsan las acciones de conservación, los científicos de la conservación deben comunicar claramente la naturaleza de la base de evidencias que respalda las metas de porcentaje de protección y cómo las áreas protegidas pueden funcionar dentro de un paisaje más amplio gestionado por la coexistencia sustentable entre la naturaleza y las personas. Un nuevo paradigma para las áreas protegidas y conservadas reconoce que la coordinación nacional, los incentivos y el monitoreo deberían respaldar, y no debilitar, a las diferentes iniciativas de conservación llevadas por la población local. Sin embargo, la definición de un área conservada debe mantener un enfoque sólido sobre la biodiversidad para seguir siendo coherente con la base de evidencias de la cual derivaron originalmente las metas de porcentaje de protección.
保护百分比目标有利于积极的生物多样性结果
【摘要】关于土地保护面积百分比的全球目标(比如到2030年达到30%的土地保护面积)已经获得了越来越多的关注, 同时其科学基础和有效性也受到了质疑。与基于预期气候结果的减排目标一样, 保护百分比目标通过估计需要多大面积来采取保护行动以帮助实现预期生物多样性结果, 以来将价值观与科学相结合。保护区对于实现许多生物多样性目标来说至关重要, 一部分原因是许多物种对人类干扰十分敏感。然而, 保护区对生物多样性结果的贡献取决于其位置、管理、治理、面临的威胁以及在整个更广泛的景观基质中存在的问题, 因此, 全球保护百分比目标不可避免地是对不同地理区域的生态格局和过程的经验概括。虽然仅仅设立保护百分比目标是不够的, 但可以采取其它行动作为补充; 在生物多样性数据不完善的全球背景下, 还可以将保护百分比目标纳入平衡准确性和实用性的框架内, 以促进生物多样性保护成果。在理想情况下, 保护百分比目标可以作为锚点, 通过表现出雄心壮志来扭转当前生物多样性丧失趋势, 来强化国家生物多样性综合战略。如果想让这些目标在由价值观和科学共同推动保护行动的复杂社会过程中发挥作用, 保护科学家必须清楚地阐明支持保护百分比目标的证据基础, 以及保护区在以人与自然可持续共存为目标进行管理的更广泛的景观中如何发挥作用。新的保护区范式应认识到, 国家水平的协调、激励和监测工作应支持而非破坏地方领导的各种保护措施。然而, 在定义保护区时必须保有对生物多样性的高度关注, 以确保与最初得出保护百分比目标的证据基础保持一致。【翻译 :胡怡思;审校 :聂永刚】
Article impact statement: Targets for the percentage of area under protection can advance conservation if their context and evidence base is clearly communicated.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
Signatory countries to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) are formulating goals and indicators through 2050 under the post‐2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). Among the goals is ...increasing the integrity of ecosystems. The CBD is now seeking input toward a quantifiable definition of integrity and methods to track it globally. Here, we offer a schema for using Earth observations (EO) to monitor and evaluate global forest ecosystem integrity (EI). Our approach builds on three topics: the concept of EI, the use of satellite‐based EO, and the use of “essential biodiversity variables” to monitor and report on it. Within this schema, EI is a measure of the structure, function, and composition of an ecosystem relative to the range of variation determined by climatic–geophysical environment. We use evaluation criteria to recommend eight potential indicators of EI that can be monitored around the globe using Earth Observations to support the efforts of nations to monitor and report progress to implement the post‐2020 GBF. If operationalized, this schema should help Parties to the CBD take action and report progress on achieving ecosystem commitments during this decade.
Full text
Available for:
FZAB, GIS, IJS, IZUM, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
We provide a general compilation of the diversity and geographical distribution of Amazonian fishes, updated to the end of 2018. Our database includes documented distributions of 4214 species (both ...Amazonian and from surrounding basins), compiled from published information plus original data from ichthyological collections. Our results show that the Amazon basin comprises the most diverse regional assemblage of freshwater fishes in the world, with 2716 valid species (1696 of which are endemic) representing 529 genera, 60 families, and 18 orders. These data permit a view of the diversity and distribution of Amazonian fishes on a basinwide scale, which in turn allows the identification of congruent biogeographical patterns, here defined as the overlapping distributions of two or more lineages (species or monophyletic groups). We recognize 20 distinct distributional patterns of Amazonian fishes, which are herein individually delimited, named, and diagnosed. Not all these patterns are associated with identifiable geographical barriers, and some may result from ecological constraints. All the major Amazonian subdrainages fit into more than one biogeographical pattern. This fact reveals the complex history of hydrographical basins and shows that modern basin-defined units contribute relatively little as explanatory factors for the present distributions of Amazonian fishes. An understanding of geomorphological processes and associated paleographic landscape changes provides a far better background for interpreting observed patterns. Our results are expected to provide a framework for future studies on the diversification and historical biogeography of the Amazonian aquatic biota.
Decades of research and policy interventions on biodiversity have insufficiently addressed the dual issues of biodiversity degradation and social justice. New approaches are therefore needed. We ...devised a research and action agenda that calls for a collective task of revisiting biodiversity toward the goal of sustaining diverse and just futures for life on Earth. Revisiting biodiversity involves critically reflecting on past and present research, policy, and practice concerning biodiversity to inspire creative thinking about the future. The agenda was developed through a 2‐year dialogue process that involved close to 300 experts from diverse disciplines and locations. This process was informed by social science insights that show biodiversity research and action is underpinned by choices about how problems are conceptualized. Recognizing knowledge, action, and ethics as inseparable, we synthesized a set of principles that help navigate the task of revisiting biodiversity. The agenda articulates 4 thematic areas for future research. First, researchers need to revisit biodiversity narratives by challenging conceptualizations that exclude diversity and entrench the separation of humans, cultures, economies, and societies from nature. Second, researchers should focus on the relationships between the Anthropocene, biodiversity, and culture by considering humanity and biodiversity as tied together in specific contexts. Third, researchers should focus on nature and economies by better accounting for the interacting structures of economic and financial systems as core drivers of biodiversity loss. Finally, researchers should enable transformative biodiversity research and action by reconfiguring relationships between human and nonhuman communities in and through science, policy, and practice. Revisiting biodiversity necessitates a renewed focus on dialogue among biodiversity communities and beyond that critically reflects on the past to channel research and action toward fostering just and diverse futures for human and nonhuman life on Earth.
Una Agenda para la Investigación y la Acción hacia un Futuro Diverso y Justo para la Vida sobre la Tierra
Resumen
Las décadas de investigación e intervenciones políticas sobre la biodiversidad han tratado significativamente los temas de la degradación de la biodiversidad y la justicia social. Debido a esto, se requieren nuevas estrategias. Diseñamos una agenda de investigación y acción que llama a la labor colectiva de revisar la biodiversidad hacia el objetivo de sustentar un futuro diverso y justo para la vida sobre la Tierra. Cuando se revisa la biodiversidad, se requiere de una reflexión crítica sobre las investigaciones, políticas y prácticas presentes y pasadas sobre la biodiversidad para inspirar un pensamiento creativo acerca del futuro. Desarrollamos la agenda por medio de un proceso de diálogo de dos años que involucró a casi 300 expertos de diversas disciplinas y localidades. Este proceso estuvo orientado por el conocimiento de las ciencias sociales que muestra cómo la investigación y la acción para la biodiversidad están sostenidas por las opciones de cómo están conceptualizados los problemas. Reconocimos al conocimiento, la acción y la ética como inseparables y sintetizamos un conjunto de principios que ayuda a navegar la labor de revisar la biodiversidad. La agenda articula cuatro áreas temáticas para la investigación en el futuro. Primero, los investigadores necesitan revisar las narrativas de la biodiversidad mediante el cuestionamiento de las conceptualizaciones que excluyen a la diversidad y consolidan la separación entre humanos, culturas, economías y sociedades y la naturaleza. Segundo, los investigadores deberían enfocarse en las relaciones entre el antropoceno, la biodiversidad y la cultura al considerar a la humanidad y la biodiversidad como interconectadas en contextos específicos. Tercero, los investigadores deberían enfocarse en la naturaleza y las economías al tener en mejor cuenta la interacción de las estructuras de los sistemas económico y financiero como conductores nucleares de la pérdida de la biodiversidad. Finalmente, los investigadores deberían permitir la investigación y acción transformadoras de la biodiversidad al reconfigurar las relaciones entre las comunidades humanas y no humanas dentro y a través de la ciencia, la política y la práctica. La revisión de la biodiversidad necesita de un enfoque renovado sobre el diálogo entre las comunidades de la biodiversidad y más allá, que reflexione críticamente sobre el pasado para canalizar a la investigación y acción hacia el fomento del futuro justo y diverso para la vida humana y no humana sobre la Tierra.
Article Impact Statement: Placing diversity and justice at the heart of transformative change for biodiversity offers important new directions for research and action.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
Aim: Freshwater megafauna remain underrepresented in research and conservation, despite a disproportionately high risk of extinction due to multiple human threats. Therefore, our aims are threefold; ...(i) identify global patterns of freshwater megafauna richness and endemism, (ii) assess the conservation status of freshwater megafauna and (iii) demonstrate spatial and temporal patterns of human pressure throughout their distribution ranges. Location: Global. Methods: We identified 207 extant freshwater megafauna species, based on a 30 kg weight threshold, and mapped their distributions using HydroBASINS subcatchments (level 8). Information on conservation status and population trends for each species was extracted from the IUCN Red List website. We investigated human impacts on freshwater megafauna in space and time by examining spatial congruence between their distributions and human pressures, described by the Incident Biodiversity Threat Index and Temporal Human Pressure Index. Results: Freshwater megafauna occur in 76% of the world's main river basins (level 3 HydroBASINS), with species richness peaking in the Amazon, Congo, Orinoco, Mekong and Ganges-Brahmaputra basins. Freshwater megafauna are more threatened than their smaller counterparts within the specific taxonomic groups (i.e., fishes, mammals, reptiles and amphibians). Out of the 93 freshwater megafauna species with known population trends, 71% are in decline. Meanwhile, IUCN Red List assessments reported insufficient or outdated data for 43% of all freshwater megafauna species. Since the early 1990s, human pressure has increased throughout 63% of their distribution ranges, with particularly intense impacts occurring in the Mekong and Ganges-Brahmaputra basins. Main conclusions: Freshwater megafauna species are threatened globally, with intense and increasing human pressures occurring in many of their biodiversity hotspots. We call for research and conservation actions for freshwater megafauna, as they are highly sensitive to present and future pressures including a massive boom in hydropower dam construction in their biodiversity hotspots.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, DOBA, FZAB, GIS, IJS, IZUM, KILJ, NLZOH, NMLJ, NUK, OILJ, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
PDF
