Mapping nationally and globally at-risk species to identify hotspots for (and gaps in) conservation

Mapping Intimacies ◽

10.1101/2021.11.29.470436 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Marie E Hardouin ◽

Anna L Hargreaves

Keyword(s):

At Risk ◽

Protected Areas ◽

Geographic Range ◽

Species At Risk ◽

Spatial Overlap ◽

Range Edge ◽

Critical Areas ◽

Trade Offs ◽

Taxonomic Groups ◽

Threat Levels

Protecting habitat of species-at-risk is critical to their recovery, but can be contentious. For example, protecting species that are locally imperilled but globally common (e.g. species that only occur in a jurisdiction at the edge of their geographic range) is often thought to distract from protecting globally-imperilled species. However, such perceived trade-offs are based on the assumption that threatened groups have little spatial overlap, which is rarely quantified. Here, we compile range maps of terrestrial species-at-risk in Canada to assess the geographic overlap of nationally and globally at-risk species with each other, among taxonomic groups, and with protected areas. While many nationally-at-risk taxa only occurred in Canada at their northern range edge (median=4% of range in Canada), nationally-at-risk species were not significantly more peripheral in Canada than globally-at-risk species. Further, 56% of hotspots of nationally-at-risk taxa were also hotspots of globally-at-risk taxa in Canada, undercutting the perceived trade-off in their protection. Hotspots of nationally-at-risk taxa also strongly overlapped with hotspots of individual taxonomic groups, though less so for mammals. While strong spatial overlap across threat levels and taxa should facilitate efficient habitat protection, <7% of the area in Canada's at-risk hotspots is protected, and more than 70% of nationally and globally-at-risk species in Canada have <10% of their Canadian range protected. Our results counter the perception that protecting nationally vs. globally at-risk species are at odds, and identify critical areas to target as Canada strives to increase its protected areas and promote species-at-risk recovery.

Download Full-text

Comparative analysis of abundance–occupancy relationships for species at risk at both broad taxonomic and spatial scales

Canadian Journal of Zoology ◽

10.1139/cjz-2014-0318 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 93 (7) ◽

pp. 515-519 ◽

Cited By ~ 10

Author(s):

Nancy E. Roney ◽

Anna Kuparinen ◽

Jeffrey A. Hutchings

Keyword(s):

At Risk ◽

Comparative Analysis ◽

Large Scale ◽

Spatial Scales ◽

Freshwater Fishes ◽

Reference Points ◽

Species At Risk ◽

Large Spatial Scale ◽

Terrestrial Mammals ◽

Taxonomic Groups

The abundance–occupancy relationship is one of the most well-examined relationships in ecology. At the species level, a positive association has been widely documented. However, until recently, research on the nature of this relationship at broad taxonomic and spatial scales has been limited. Here, we perform a comparative analysis of 12 taxonomic groups across a large spatial scale (Canada), using data on Canadian species at risk: amphibians, arthropods, birds, freshwater fishes, lichens, marine fishes, marine mammals, molluscs, mosses, reptiles, terrestrial mammals, and vascular plants. We find a significantly positive relationship in all taxonomic groups with the exception of freshwater fishes (negative association) and lichens (no association). In general, our work underscores the strength and breadth of this apparently fundamental relationship and provides insight into novel applications for large-scale population dynamics. Further development of species-independent abundance–occupancy relationships, or those of a similar nature, might well prove instrumental in serving as starting points for developing species-independent reference points and recovery strategies.

Download Full-text

Spatial distribution and hotspots of mammals in Canada

10.1101/2020.01.29.925461 ◽

2020 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Victor Cameron ◽

Anna L. Hargreaves

Keyword(s):

At Risk ◽

Conservation Status ◽

Grid Cell ◽

Mammal Species ◽

Range Edge ◽

Threat Status ◽

Trade Offs ◽

As Species ◽

Edge Populations ◽

Mammal Diversity

AbstractHigh-latitude countries often contain the polar range edge of species that are common farther south. The more peripherally a species occurs in a country, the smaller its national range will be and the more its national range will consist of range-edge populations, which are often predicted to be relatively small, isolated, and unproductive. Together, this may focus national conservation efforts toward peripheral species whose global conservation value is controversial. However, if range-edge taxa occur where overall diversity is also high, there would be fewer trade-offs in protecting them. Using 153 of the 158 terrestrial mammal species in Canada, we tested how species’ distributions relate to their national conservation status and total mammal richness. Half of ‘Canadian’ mammals had <20% of their global range in Canada. Range area in Canada was strongly associated with national threat status; mammals considered ‘at-risk’ in Canada had 42% smaller Canadian ranges than mammals considered secure. However, after accounting for range area, being more peripheral (smaller proportion of global range in Canada) did not increase the likelihood that a taxon was considered at-risk. We overlaid the 153 maps to calculate mammal diversity across Canada, divided into 100×100 km grid cells. We found that hotspots of at-risk mammals (cells with >4 at-risk taxa) and hotspots of range-edge mammals (cells with >12 taxa with ≤20% of their range in Canada) were about twice as species rich as non-hotspot cells, containing up to 44% of Canadian mammal diversity per grid-cell. Our results suggest that protecting areas with the most at-risk or range-edge mammals would simultaneously protect habitat for many species currently deemed secure.

Download Full-text

Estimating the conservation value of protected areas in Maritime Canada for two species at risk: the Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi) and Canada Warbler (Cardellina canadensis)

Avian Conservation and Ecology ◽

10.5751/ace-01359-140116 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 14 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Alana R. Westwood ◽

Cindy Staicer ◽

Péter Sólymos ◽

Samuel Haché ◽

Trish Fontaine ◽

...

Keyword(s):

At Risk ◽

Protected Areas ◽

Conservation Value ◽

Species At Risk ◽

Maritime Canada

Download Full-text

Urbanization and Mismatch with Protected Areas Place the Conservation of a Threatened Species at Risk

Biotropica ◽

10.1111/j.1744-7429.2006.00260.x ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 39 (2) ◽

pp. 264-268 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Marcio Uehara-Prado ◽

Rafael Luís Fonseca

Keyword(s):

At Risk ◽

Protected Areas ◽

Threatened Species ◽

Species At Risk

Download Full-text

Conserving plant species at risk in Canada: land tenure, threats, and representation in federal programs

FACETS ◽

10.1139/facets-2019-0014 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 5 (1) ◽

pp. 538-550

Author(s):

J.L. McCune ◽

Peter D.S. Morrison

Keyword(s):

At Risk ◽

Plant Species ◽

Land Tenure ◽

Species At Risk ◽

Private Land ◽

Federal Programs ◽

Private Lands ◽

Stewardship Program ◽

Federal Land ◽

Taxonomic Groups

Fully 37% of species listed under Canada’s Species at Risk Act (SARA) are plants or lichens. The law does not automatically protect species on private land, and it is unknown how many at-risk plants grow mainly on private land. We analyzed official status reports and related documents for 234 plant species at risk to determine land tenure and evaluated differences in threats and changes in status. We also assessed how well plants were represented in two federal programs: the Natural Areas Conservation Program (NACP) and the Habitat Stewardship Program (HSP). Of SARA-listed plant species, 35% have the majority of their known populations on private land while <10% occur mostly on federal land. Species growing mainly on private land were no more or less likely to decline in status over time compared with others. Plant species at risk were less likely than other taxonomic groups to be found on land protected under the NACP. The proportion of HSP projects targeting plants is well below the expected proportion based on the number of listed species. We recommend that policy-makers promote and prioritize actions to increase the representation of plant species in federally funded programs, especially on private lands.

Download Full-text

Spatial distribution and conservation hotspots of mammals in Canada

FACETS ◽

10.1139/facets-2020-0018 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 5 (1) ◽

pp. 692-703 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Victor Cameron ◽

Anna L. Hargreaves

Keyword(s):

At Risk ◽

Conservation Status ◽

Grid Cell ◽

Mammal Species ◽

Range Edge ◽

Threat Status ◽

Trade Offs ◽

As Species ◽

Edge Populations ◽

Mammal Diversity

High-latitude countries often contain the polar range edge of species that are common farther south, potentially focusing national conservation efforts toward range-edge populations. The global conservation value of edge populations is controversial, but if they occur where biodiversity is high, there need not be trade-offs in protecting them. Using 152 of 158 terrestrial mammal species in Canada, we tested how species’ distributions relate to their national conservation status and total mammal richness. We found that half of “Canadian” mammals had <20% of their global range in Canada. National threat status was strongly associated with range area; mammals considered “at risk” had 42% smaller Canadian ranges than mammals considered secure. However, after accounting for range area, taxa with smaller proportions of their global range in Canada were not more likely to be considered at risk, suggesting edge populations are not inherently more vulnerable. When we calculated mammal diversity across Canada (100 × 100 km grid cells), we found that hotspots of at-risk or range-edge mammals were twice as species rich as nonhotspot cells, containing up to 44% of Canadian mammal diversity per grid cell. Our results suggest that protecting areas with the most at-risk or range-edge mammals would simultaneously protect habitat for many species currently deemed secure.

Download Full-text

Global patterns of raptor distribution and protected areas optimal selection to reduce the extinction crises

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ◽

10.1073/pnas.2018203118 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 118 (37) ◽

pp. e2018203118

Author(s):

Carlos Cruz ◽

Giulia Santulli-Sanzo ◽

Gerardo Ceballos

Keyword(s):

Protected Areas ◽

Species Distribution ◽

Conservation Status ◽

Geographic Range ◽

Species At Risk ◽

Final Solution ◽

Fundamental Understanding ◽

Global Patterns ◽

Global Population ◽

Diurnal Species

Globally, human-caused environmental impacts, such as habitat loss, have seriously impacted raptor species, with some 50% of species having decreasing populations. We analyzed global patterns of distribution of all 557 raptor species, focusing on richness, endemism, geographic range, conservation status, and population trends. Highest species diversity, endemism, species at risk, or restricted species were concentrated in different regions. Patterns of species distribution greatly differed between nocturnal and diurnal species. To test the efficiency of the global protected areas in conserving raptors, we simulated and compared global reserve systems created with strategies aiming at: 1) constraining the existing system into the final solution; and 2) minimizing the socioeconomic cost of reserve selection. We analyzed three targets of species distribution to be protected (10, 20, 30%). The first strategy was more efficient in meeting targets and less efficient in cost and compactness of reserves. Focusing on actions in the existing protected areas is fundamental to consolidate conservation, and politically and economically more viable than creating new reserves. However, creating new reserves is essential to protect more populations throughout the species’ geographic range. Our findings provide a fundamental understanding of reserves to maintain raptor diversity and reduce the global population and species extinction crisis.

Download Full-text