•A novel approach to parametrize countryside species-area relationship for projecting extinctions in any region and scale.•The parametrized model was used to project mammal, birds and amphibian ...species extinctions in 804 terrestrial ecoregions.•We identified global hotspots of projected species extinctions as well as major land use drivers in each country.•We combine projected extinctions with a MRIO database to estimate production, consumption, and trade impacts per country.•Out of a total of 927 projected extinctions due to current global land use, 25% is due to land use for export production.
Effective and equitable conservation requires understanding of the global biodiversity impacts inflicted by consumption in individual countries and those embodied in international trade. Research to date has ascertained these impacts in terms of threats, but not on species directly. Here we use a novel approach, by parametrizing the countryside species-area relationship (SAR) (a). Using a recent high-resolution and harmonized global land use map along with (b). IUCN habitat classification data for all 22,386 mammal, bird, and amphibian species, to project endemic species extinctions due to habitat loss to date across all 804 terrestrial ecoregions; and then, (c). Validating the projected extinctions with IUCN Red List. We allocate projected extinctions to the agriculture, pasture, urban, and forestry areas used, traded, and consumed in 129 countries, using an environmentally extended global multi-regional input output database. Results show that for the three taxa combined, a total of 927 endemic species are projected to go extinct due to the impacts of current global land use. The taxonomic breakdown is 186 projected mammal extinctions, 170 birds, and 571 amphibians, with global agriculture land use responsible for 267 projected extinctions; pasture 314, forestry 313, and urbanization 32. Importantly, countryside SAR projections compare well with the number of extinct and threatened species documented by the IUCN Red List. We found that land use for export production is responsible for 25% of these projected global extinctions. Our approach enables parametrization of countryside SARs in any world region even without extensive field studies, and therefore allows quantitative assessment of biodiversity impacts under alternative land use scenarios. Overall, our approach and findings can inform sustainability assessment of commodity supply-chains as well as specific national actions toward achievement of the Aichi 2020 and UN Sustainable Development Goals.
An understanding of risks to biodiversity is needed for planning action to slow current rates of decline and secure ecosystem services for future human use. Although the IUCN Red List criteria ...provide an effective assessment protocol for species, a standard global assessment of risks to higher levels of biodiversity is currently limited. In 2008, IUCN initiated development of risk assessment criteria to support a global Red List of ecosystems. We present a new conceptual model for ecosystem risk assessment founded on a synthesis of relevant ecological theories. To support the model, we review key elements of ecosystem definition and introduce the concept of ecosystem collapse, an analogue of species extinction. The model identifies four distributional and functional symptoms of ecosystem risk as a basis for assessment criteria: A) rates of decline in ecosystem distribution; B) restricted distributions with continuing declines or threats; C) rates of environmental (abiotic) degradation; and D) rates of disruption to biotic processes. A fifth criterion, E) quantitative estimates of the risk of ecosystem collapse, enables integrated assessment of multiple processes and provides a conceptual anchor for the other criteria. We present the theoretical rationale for the construction and interpretation of each criterion. The assessment protocol and threat categories mirror those of the IUCN Red List of species. A trial of the protocol on terrestrial, subterranean, freshwater and marine ecosystems from around the world shows that its concepts are workable and its outcomes are robust, that required data are available, and that results are consistent with assessments carried out by local experts and authorities. The new protocol provides a consistent, practical and theoretically grounded framework for establishing a systematic Red List of the world's ecosystems. This will complement the Red List of species and strengthen global capacity to report on and monitor the status of biodiversity.
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.
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species assesses the extinction risk of nearly 100 000 species, including documentation of a range map, habitat, and elevation data for each species.Numerous recent studies have matched these habitat and elevation data with remotely sensed land cover and elevation datasets to map AOH (also known as extent of suitable habitat) within the range of each species.AOH differs from the two spatial metrics used in the IUCN Red List criteria for extinction risk assessment: EOO (minimum convex polygon around all present native occurrences of a species); and AOO (area actually occupied by a species).AOH can be of value in locating target areas for species-specific field surveys, assessing the proportion of a species’ habitat within protected areas, and monitoring habitat loss and fragmentation.
The natural world has multiple, sometimes conflicting, sometimes synergistic, values to society when viewed through the lens of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), Spatial mapping of nature's ...contributions to the SDGs has the potential to support the implementation of SDG strategies through sustainable land management and conservation of ecosystem services. Such mapping requires a range of spatial data. This paper examines the use of remote sensing and spatial ecosystem service modelling to examine nature's contribution to targets under SDG 6, also highlighting synergies with other key SDGs and trade-offs with agriculture.
We use a wide range of remotely sensed and globally available datasets (for land cover, climate, soil, population, agriculture) alongside the existing and widely used spatial ecosystem services assessment tool, Co$tingNature. With these we identify priority areas for sustainable management to realise targets under SDG 6 (water) at the country scale for Madagascar and at the basin scale for the Volta basin, though the application developed can be applied to any country or major basin in the world. Within this SDG 6 priority areas footprint, we assess the synergies and trade-offs provided by this land for SDG 15 (biodiversity) and SDG 13 (climate action) as well as SDG 2 (zero hunger).
Results highlight the co-benefits of sustainably managing nature's contribution to SDG 6, such as the protection of forest cover (for SDG target 15.2), carbon storage as a contribution to the Paris climate agreement and nationally determined contributions (SDG 13) and biodiversity (for SDG target 15.5) but also trade-offs with the zero hunger goal (for SDG 2). Such analyses allow for better understanding of land management requirements for realising multiple SDGs through protection and restoration of green infrastructure. We provide a freely available tool, within the Co$tingNature platform, based on a variety of remotely sensed products, that can be used by SDG practitioners to carry out similar analyses and inform decision-making at national or sub-national levels globally.
•Existing EO datasets can underpin spatial analyses of nature's contributions to SDGs.•Such analyses indicate within and between country variability in nature's contribution.•A spatial prioritisation suggests the highest priority areas for investment.•Ubiquitous EO data enable globally consistent and geographically comprehensive analyses.•Challenges remain in using EO data for multi-factor models like these.
Protected Areas and Effective Biodiversity Conservation Le Saout, Soizic; Hoffmann, Michael; Shi, Yichuan ...
Science (American Association for the Advancement of Science),
11/2013, Letnik:
342, Številka:
6160
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Although protected areas (PAs) cover 13% of Earth's land (1), substantial gaps remain in their coverage of global biodiversity (2). Thus, there has been emphasis on strategic expansion of the global ...PA network (3-5). However, because PAs are often understaffed, underfunded, and beleaguered in the face of external threats (6, 7), efforts to expand PA coverage should be complemented by appropriate management of existing PAs. Previous calls for enhancing PA management have focused on improving operational effectiveness of each PA e.g., staffing and budgets (6). Little guidance has been offered on how to improve collective effectiveness for meeting global biodiversity conservation goals (3). We provide guidance for strategically allocating management efforts among and within existing PAs to strengthen their collective contribution toward preventing global species extinctions.
BACKGROUNDMirabegron is a β3-adrenergic receptor (β3-AR) agonist approved only for the treatment of overactive bladder. Encouraging preclinical results suggest that β3-AR agonists could also improve ...obesity-related metabolic disease by increasing brown adipose tissue (BAT) thermogenesis, white adipose tissue (WAT) lipolysis, and insulin sensitivity.METHODSWe treated 14 healthy women of diverse ethnicities (27.5 ± 1.1 years of age, BMI of 25.4 ± 1.2 kg/m2) with 100 mg mirabegron (Myrbetriq extended-release tablet, Astellas Pharma) for 4 weeks in an open-label study. The primary endpoint was the change in BAT metabolic activity as measured by 18F-2-fluoro-d-2-deoxy-d-glucose (18F-FDG) PET/CT. Secondary endpoints included resting energy expenditure (REE), plasma metabolites, and glucose and insulin metabolism as assessed by a frequently sampled intravenous glucose tolerance test.RESULTSChronic mirabegron therapy increased BAT metabolic activity. Whole-body REE was higher, without changes in body weight or composition. Additionally, there were elevations in plasma levels of the beneficial lipoprotein biomarkers HDL and ApoA1, as well as total bile acids. Adiponectin, a WAT-derived hormone that has antidiabetic and antiinflammatory capabilities, increased with acute treatment and was 35% higher upon completion of the study. Finally, an intravenous glucose tolerance test revealed higher insulin sensitivity, glucose effectiveness, and insulin secretion.CONCLUSIONThese findings indicate that human BAT metabolic activity can be increased after chronic pharmacological stimulation with mirabegron and support the investigation of β3-AR agonists as a treatment for metabolic disease.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicaltrials.gov NCT03049462.FUNDINGThis work was supported by grants from the Intramural Research Program of the NIDDK, NIH (DK075112, DK075116, DK071013, and DK071014).
Numerous species have been pushed into extinction as an increasing portion of Earth's land surface has been appropriated for human enterprise. In the future, global biodiversity will be affected by ...both climate change and land-use change, the latter of which is currently the primary driver of species extinctions. How societies address climate change will critically affect biodiversity because climate-change mitigation policies will reduce direct climate-change impacts; however, these policies will influence land-use decisions, which could have negative impacts on habitat for a substantial number of species. We assessed the potential impact future climate policy could have on the loss of habitable area in biodiversity hotspots due to associated land-use changes. We estimated past extinctions from historical land-use changes (1500–2005) based on the global gridded land-use data used for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report and habitat extent and species data for each hotspot. We then estimated potential extinctions due to future land-use changes under alternative climate-change scenarios (2005–2100). Future land-use changes are projected to reduce natural vegetative cover by 26-58% in the hotspots. As a consequence, the number of additional species extinctions, relative to those already incurred between 1500 and 2005, due to land-use change by 2100 across all hotspots ranged from about 220 to 21000 (0.2% to 16%), depending on the climate-change mitigation scenario and biological factors such as the slope of the species–area relationship and the contribution of wood harvest to extinctions. These estimates of potential future extinctions were driven by land-use change only and likely would have been higher if the direct effects of climate change had been considered. Future extinctions could potentially be reduced by incorporating habitat preservation into scenario development to reduce projected future land-use changes in hotspots or by lessening the impact of future land-use activities on biodiversity within hotspots. Se ha llevado a numerosas especies a la extinción conforme una porción creciente de la superficie terrestre ha sido adueñada por actividades humanas. En el futuro, la biodiversidad global se verá afectada tanto por el cambio climático como por el cambio en el uso de suelo, de los cuales el último es actualmente el principal conductor de la extinción de especies. La manera en que las sociedades aborden el cambio climático afectará críticamente a la biodiversidad ya que las políticas de mitigación de cambio climático reducirán directamente los impactos del cambio climático; sin embargo, estas políticas influenciarán las decisiones de uso de suelo, lo que podría tener impactos negativos sobre el hábitat de numerosas especies. Evaluamos el impacto potencial que podrían tener las futuras políticas de clima sobre la pérdida del área habitable en los puntos clave de biodiversidad debido al cambio asociado en el uso de suelo. Estimamos las extinciones pasadas a partir de cambios históricos en el uso de suelo (1500 – 2005) con base en la extensión del hábitat, los datos de especies para cada punto clave, y la cuadrícula global de datos sobre uso de suelo, la cual fue utilizada para el Reporte de la Quinta Evaluación del Panel Intergubernamental sobre Cambio Climático. Después estimamos las extinciones potenciales causadas por futuros cambios en el uso de suelo bajo escenarios alternativos de cambio climático (2005 – 2100). El número de extinciones de especies adicionales, en relación con aquellas ya provocadas entre 1500 y 2005, causadas por el cambio en el uso de suelo para 2100 en todos los puntos clave, varió aproximadamente de 220 a 21, 000 (0.2% a 16%), dependiendo del escenario de mitigación de cambio climático y factores biológicos, como la pendiente de la relación especies-área y la contribución de la tala a las extinciones. Estas estimaciones de las extinciones potenciales en el futuro fueron causadas solamente por el cambio en el uso de suelo y probablemente habrían sido más altas si se hubiesen considerado los efectos directos del cambio climático. Las extinciones futuras podrían reducirse potencialmente al incorporar la preservación del hábitat al desarrollo del escenario para reducir los futuros cambios en el uso de suelo en los puntos clave o al disminuir el impacto de las futuras actividades de uso de suelo sobre la biodiversidad dentro de los puntos clave.
Recognizing that protected areas (PAs) are essential for effective biodiversity conservation action, the Convention on Biological Diversity established ambitious PA targets as part of the 2020 ...Strategic Plan for Biodiversity. Under the strategic goal to "improve the status of biodiversity by safeguarding ecosystems, species, and genetic diversity," Target 11 aims to put 17% of terrestrial and 10% of marine regions under PA status by 2020. Additionally and crucially, these areas are required to be of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative, and well-connected and to include "other effective area-based conservation measures" (OECMs). Whereas the area-based targets are explicit and measurable, the lack of guidance for what constitutes important and representative; effective; and OECMs is affecting how nations are implementing the target. There is a real risk that Target 11 may be achieved in terms of area while failing the overall strategic goal for which it is established because the areas are poorly located, inadequately managed, or based on unjustifiable inclusion of OECMs. We argue that the conservation science community can help establish ecologically sensible PA targets to help prioritize important biodiversity areas and achieve ecological representation; identify clear, comparable performance metrics of ecological effectiveness so progress toward these targets can be assessed; and identify metrics and report on the contribution OECMs make toward the target. By providing ecologically sensible targets and new performance metrics for measuring the effectiveness of both PAs and OECMs, the science community can actively ensure that the achievement of the required area in Target 11 is not simply an end in itself but generates genuine benefits for biodiversity. En reconocimiento de que las areas protegidas (APs) son esenciales para la acción efectiva de la conservación de la biodiversidad, la Convención Biológica sobre la Diversidad estableció objetivos ambiciosos de áreas protegidas como parte del Plan Estratégico para la Biodiversidad 2020. Bajo la meta estratégica de "mejorar el estado de la biodiversidad por medio de salvaguardar a los ecosistemas, las especies y la diversidad genética", el Objetivo 11 busca poner 17% de las regiones terrestres y 10% de las marinas en estado de AP para 2020. Además y de manera crucial, estas áreas necesitan ser de particular importancia para la biodiversidad y los servicios ambientales, estar manejadas efectiva y equitativamente, ser representativas ecológicamente, estar bien conectadas e incluir "otras medidas de conservación efectiva basadas en el área" (OMCE). Mientras que los objetivos basados en el área son explícitos y medibles, la falta de dirección para qué significan importante, representativo, efectivo y OMCE está afectando cómo las naciones están implementando el objetivo. Existe un riesgo real de que el Objetivo 11 se alcance en términos de área y falle en el objetivo estratégico general por el cual fue establecido ya que las áreas se encuentran mal ubicadas, manejadas inadecuadamente o basadas en una inclusión injustificada de las OMCE. Argumentamos que la comunidad de científicos de la conservación puede ayudar a establecer objetivos de APs ecológicamente sensibles para ayudar a priorizar áreas de biodiversidad importantes y alcanzar la representación ecológica; identificar medidas claras y comparables de la efectividad ecológica para poder evaluar el progreso hacia estos objetivos; e identificar medidas y reportar sobre la contribución que las OMCE aportan al objetivo. Si proporcionamos objetivos ecológicamente sensibles y nuevas medidas de desempeño para calcular la efectividad de las APs y las OMCE, la comunidad científica puede asegurar activamente que la obtención del área exigida en el Objetivo 11 no sea sólo un fin por sí misma, sino también que genere beneficios genuinos para la biodiversidad.
PDF
