Search

Copyright of Conservation Biology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

To examine the taxonomic uniqueness, range sizes, endemism and conservation status of southern temperate zone mammals and how factors impacting their conservation differ across hemispheres. Land surfaces of all continents (with the exception of Antarctica) and continental islands with an emphasis on the southern temperate hemisphere (land south of the Tropic of Capricorn). We used data from the 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species to characterize conservation status, threats and range sizes to compare northern and southern temperate zone mammals. We assessed the taxonomic uniqueness of the two regions as derived from the EDGE programme. We also conducted a gap analysis by overlapping mammal ranges with protected area coverages for temperate regions. Southern temperate species are phylogenetically more unique than in the Northern Hemisphere. The endemics have significantly smaller range sizes and are at a significantly greater risk of extinction (about 50% greater, with 24.7% of species being threatened versus 15.6% in the Northern Hemisphere). Finally, southern temperate endemics are significantly more likely to exist outside protected areas (13.38% versus 3.65%). The southern temperate zone harbours a unique fauna, attributed to the long isolation from the northern temperate zone. Temperate regions are heavily exploited for human activities, especially grazing and agriculture. The Southern Hemisphere is particularly susceptible to disturbance, given the small range sizes of its species and the low degree of protected area coverage. The scenario now is one of regions with numerous endemics under high threat from human activities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Conservation Biology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Large mammals often play critical roles within ecosystems by affecting either prey populations or the structure and species composition of surrounding vegetation. However, large mammals are highly vulnerable to extirpation by humans and consequently, severe contractions of species ranges result in intact large mammal faunas becoming increasingly rare. We compared historical (AD 1500) range maps of large mammals with their current distributions to determine which areas today retain complete assemblages of large mammals. We estimate that less than 21% of the earth's terrestrial surface still contains all of the large (.20 kg) mammals it once held, with the proportion varying between 68% in Australasia to only 1% in Indomalaya. Although the presence of large mammals offers no guarantee of the presence of all smaller animals, their absence represents an ecologically based measurement of human impacts on biodiversity. Given the ecological importance of large mammals and their vulnerability to extinction, better protection and extension of sites containing complete assemblages of large mammals is urgently needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A new method to compare amphibian, bird, and mammal beta-diversity within the Western Hemisphere reveals that areas of high beta-diversity coincide, with implications for understanding regional diversity patterns and for conservation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Ostrich: The Journal of African Ornithology is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Slowing rates of global biodiversity loss requires preventing species extinctions. Here we pinpoint centers of imminent extinction, where highly threatened species are confined to single sites. Within five globally assessed taxa (i.e., mammals, birds, selected reptiles, amphibians, and conifers), we find 794 such species, three times the number recorded as having gone extinct since 1500. These species occur in 595 sites, concentrated in tropical forests, on islands, and in mountainous areas. Their taxonomic and geographical distribution differs significantly from that of historical extinctions, indicating an expansion of the current extinction episode beyond sensitive species and places toward the planet's most biodiverse mainland regions. Only one-third of the sites are legally protected, and most are surrounded by intense human development. These sites represent clear opportunities for urgent conservation action to prevent species loss. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Global conservation assessments require information on the distribution of biodiversity across the planet. Yet this information is often mapped at a very coarse spatial resolution relative to the scale of most land-use and management decisions. Furthermore, such mapping tends to focus selectively on better-known elements of biodiversity (e.g., vertebrates). We introduce a new approach to describing and mapping the global distribution of terrestrial biodiversity that way help to alleviate these problems. This approach focuses on estimating spatial pattern in emergent properties of biodiversity (richness and compositional turnover) rather than distributions of individual species, making it well suited to lesser-known, yet highly diverse, biological groups. We have developed a global biodiversity model linking these properties to mapped ecoregions and fine-scale environmental surfaces. The model is being calibrated progressively using extensive biological data sets for a wide variety of taxa. We also describe un analytical approach to applying our model in global conservation assessments, illustrated with a preliminary analysis of the representativeness of the world's protected-area system. Our approach is intended to complement, not compete with, assessments based on individual species of particular conservation concern. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents a detailed map of the terrestrial ecoregions of the world that is better suited to identify areas of outstanding biodiversity and representative communities. Definition of ecoregions; Features that enhance the map's utility for conservation planning and global and regional scales; Delineation of ecoregions; How ecoregions can be a tool for conservation.

Understanding patterns of biodiversity distribution is essential to conservation strategies, but severe data constraints make surrogate measures necessary. For this reason, many studies have tested the performance of terrestrial vertebrates as surrogates for overall species diversity, but these tests have typically been limited to a single taxon or region. Here we show that global patterns of richness are highly correlated among amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals, as are endemism patterns. Furthermore, we demonstrate that although the correlation between global richness and endemism is low, aggregate regions selected for high levels of endemism capture significantly more species than expected by chance. Although areas high in endemism have long been targeted for the protection of narrow-ranging species, our findings provide evidence that endemism is also a useful surrogate for the conservation of all terrestrial vertebrates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Systematic conservation planning and Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) are the two most widely used approaches for identifying important sites for biodiversity. However, there is limited advice for conservation policy makers and practitioners on when and how they should be combined. Here we provide such guidance, using insights from the recently developed Global Standard for the Identification of KBAs and the language of decision science to review and clarify their similarities and differences. We argue the two approaches are broadly similar, with both setting transparent environmental objectives and specifying actions. There is however greater contrast in the data used and actions involved, as the KBA approach uses biodiversity data alone and identifies sites for monitoring and vigilance actions at a minimum, whereas systematic conservation planning combines biodiversity and implementation‐relevant data to guide management actions. This difference means there is much scope for combining approaches, so conservation planners should use KBA data in their analyses, setting context‐specific targets for each KBA type, and planners and donors should use systematic conservation planning techniques when prioritizing between KBAs for management action. In doing so, they will benefit conservation policy, practice and research by building on the collaborations formed through the KBA Standard's development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A letter to the editor is presented which responds to an article in a 2006 issue entitled "Global tests of biodiversity concordance and the importance of endemism" by John E. Lamoreau, John C. Morrison, Taylor H. Ricketts, David M. Olson, Eric Dinerstein, Meghan W. McKnight, and Herman H. Shugart.