Search

SummaryThe establishment and maintenance of protected areas (PAs) is viewed as a key action in delivering post-2020 biodiversity targets. PAs often need to meet multiple objectives, ranging from biodiversity protection to ecosystem service provision and climate change mitigation, but available land and conservation funding is limited. Therefore, optimizing resources by selecting the most beneficial PAs is vital. Here, we advocate for a flexible and transparent approach to selecting protected areas based on multiple objectives, and illustrate this with a decision support tool on a global scale. The tool allows weighting and prioritization of different conservation objectives according to user-specified preferences, as well as real-time comparison of the selected areas that result from such different priorities. We apply the tool across 1347 terrestrial PAs and highlight frequent trade-offs among different objectives, e.g., between species protection and ecosystem integrity. Outputs indicate that decision makers frequently face trade-offs among conflicting objectives. Nevertheless, we show that transparent decision-support tools can reveal synergies and trade-offs associated with PA selection, thereby helping to illuminate and resolve land-use conflicts embedded in divergent societal and political demands and values.

Ongoing climate change is a major threat to biodiversity and impacts on species distributions and abundances are already evident. Heterogenous responses of species due to varying abiotic tolerances and dispersal abilities have the potential to further amplify or ameliorate these impacts through changes in species assemblages. Here we investigate the impacts of climate change on terrestrial bird distributions and, subsequently, on species richness as well as on different aspects of phylogenetic diversity of species assemblages across the globe. We go beyond previous work by disentangling the potential impacts on assemblage phylogenetic diversity of species gains vs. losses under climate change and compare the projected impacts to randomized assemblage changes.We show that climate change might not only affect species numbers and composition of global species assemblages but could also have profound impacts on assemblage phylogenetic diversity, which, across extensive areas, differ significantly from random changes. Both the projected impacts on phylogenetic diversity and on phylogenetic structure vary greatly across the globe. Projected increases in the evolutionary history contained within species assemblages, associated with either increasing phylogenetic diversification or clustering, are most frequent at high northern latitudes. By contrast, projected declines in evolutionary history, associated with increasing phylogenetic over-dispersion or homogenisation, are projected across all continents.The projected widespread changes in the phylogenetic structure of species assemblages show that changes in species richness do not fully reflect the potential threat from climate change to ecosystems. Our results indicate that the most severe changes to the phylogenetic diversity and structure of species assemblages are likely to be caused by species range shifts rather than range reductions and extinctions. Our findings highlight the importance of considering diverse measures in climate impact assessments and the value of integrating species-specific responses into assessments of entire community changes.

The joint use of phylogenetic trees and ecological data has proven useful for many aspects of ecology. However, there are a multitude of phylo-diversity metrics with complex interdependencies and mathematical redundancies (the so-called ‘jungle’ of metrics). Several recentpapers have been trying to ‘map’ this jungle but appear at a first glance to contradict each other. We suggest that these contradictory results are in fact complementary and reflect two approaches to understand diversity metrics: the first focuses on general mathematical properties,the second focuses on assessing metric performance in relation to particular questions.In this manuscript, we discuss the complementarity of the two approaches and in particular how recent papers fit into this categorisation.