Search

Genetic research is a well-recognized component of understanding biodiversity and is an invaluable approach for documenting and mitigating increasingly high rates of loss. Here we present a quantitative synthesis of conservation genetics science in Latin America and its progress, focusing on evolving trends on different taxonomic groups, environments and markers. We reviewed 528 conservation genetics research papers published in 57 journals from 1992 to 2013. Brazil and Mexico were the most represented countries in the literature and there was a marked disparity between terrestrial (~64%) and aquatic-marine research (~36%). More than a third or the articles focused on plants (~35%) while the other (65%) were animal studies with a clear emphasis on mammals (35%) and bony fishes (24%). Most research (42%) addressed patterns of population structure, while 17% focused on genetic diversity issues and 14% focused on the description of novel genetic markers. Finally, although genetics has become an integral part of conservation biology, genetic analyses have often not been completely integrated into the development of conservation and management strategies and formal policies. We discuss the levels to which these types of studies can effectively contribute to biodiversity conservation in this region, and offer suggestions on how conservation genetic approaches may be used more broadly, enhancing the connectivity between scientists and policy makers.

From the Centro de Ecologia, Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Cientificas (IVIC), Apartado 20632, Caracas 1020-A, Venezuela (Rodriguez-Clark); Provita, Av. Romulo Gallegos, Edf. Pascal, Ofc 171B, Caracas 1071, Venezuela (OliveiraMiranda); Departamento de Estudios Ambientales, Universidad Simon Bolivar, Apartado 89.000, Caracas 1080-A, Venezuela (Aguilera Meneses and de Oliveira-Miranda); Centro de Investigaciones en Ecologia y Zonas Aridas (CIEZA), Universidad Nacional Experimental Francisco de Miranda, Calle Maparari entre calles Las Flores y Cristal, Coro 4101, Falcon, Venezuela (Martino); Laboratorio de Genetica y Evolucion, Departamento de Ciencias Ecologicas, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Chile, Las Palmeras 3425, CP 780-0003, Santiago, Chile (Mendez); Instituto de Biociencias, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Rua do Matao, 277. 05508-090. Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil (Miyaki); ReGeneC, Grupo BioEvo, Pabellon II, Universidad Simon Bolivar, Sartenejas, Caracas 1070-A, Venezuela (Montiel-Villalobos); Instituto de Ecologia y Biodiversidad, Departamento de Ciencias Ecologicas, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Chile, Las Palmeras 3425, CP 780-0024 Santiago, Chile (Poulin); Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H 4R2 Canada (Ruzzante); and Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Bloco A-CCS-Ilha do Fundao, 21941-590-Rio de Janeiro-RJ, Brazil (Sole-Cava).

In response to growing demand for ecosystem-level risk assessment in biodiversity conservation, and rapid proliferation of locally tailored protocols, the IUCN recently endorsed new Red List criteria as a global standard for ecosystem risk assessment. Four qualities were sought in the design of the IUCN criteria: generality; precision; realism; and simplicity. Drawing from extensive global consultation, we explore trade-offs among these qualities when dealing with key challenges, including ecosystem classification, measuring ecosystem dynamics, degradation and collapse, and setting decision thresholds to delimit ordinal categories of threat. Experience from countries with national lists of threatened ecosystems demonstrates well-balanced trade-offs in current and potential applications of Red Lists of Ecosystems in legislation, policy, environmental management and education. The IUCN Red List of Ecosystems should be judged by whether it achieves conservation ends and improves natural resource management, whether its limitations are outweighed by its benefits, and whether it performs better than alternative methods. Future development of the Red List of Ecosystems will benefit from the history of the Red List of Threatened Species which was trialed and adjusted iteratively over 50 years from rudimentary beginnings. We anticipate the Red List of Ecosystems will promote policy focus on conservation outcomes in situ across whole landscapes and seascapes.

Made available in DSpace on 2018-11-26T15:30:50Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2016-08-16 MAVA foundation Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool (IBAT) National Science Foundation's Dimensions of Biodiversity program Rufford Foundation Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool (IBAT) Partnership Knowledge products comprise assessments of authoritative information supported by standards, governance, quality control, data, tools, and capacity building mechanisms. Considerable resources are dedicated to developing and maintaining knowledge products for biodiversity conservation, and they are widely used to inform policy and advise decision makers and practitioners. However, the financial cost of delivering this information is largely undocumented. We evaluated the costs and funding sources for developing and maintaining four global biodiversity and conservation knowledge products: The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems, Protected Planet, and the World Database of Key Biodiversity Areas. These are secondary data sets, built on primary data collected by extensive networks of expert contributors worldwide. We estimate that US$160 million (range: US$116-204 million), plus 293 person-years of volunteer time (range: 278308 person-years) valued at US$14 million (range US$12-16 million), were invested in these four knowledge products between 1979 and 2013. More than half of this financing was provided through philanthropy, and nearly three-quarters was spent on personnel costs. The estimated annual cost of maintaining data and platforms for three of these knowledge products (excluding the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems for which annual costs were not possible to estimate for 2013) is US$6.5 million in total (range: US$6.2-6.7 million). We estimated that an additional US$114 million will be needed to reach pre-defined baselines of data coverage for all the four knowledge products, and that once achieved, annual maintenance costs will be approximately US$12 million. These costs are much lower than those to maintain many other, similarly important, global knowledge products. Ensuring that biodiversity and conservation knowledge products are sufficiently up to date, comprehensive and accurate is fundamental to inform decision-making for biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. Thus, the development and implementation of plans for sustainable long-term financing for them is critical. UNESP WCMC, United Nations Environm Programme, 219 Huntingdon Rd, Cambridge CB3 0DL, England IUCN, 28 Rue Mauverney, CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland Univ Philippines Banos, World Agroforestry Ctr ICRAF, Laguna 4031, Philippines Univ Tasmania, Inst Marine & Antarct Studies, Hobart, Tas 7001, Australia BirdLife Int, David Attenborough Bldg,Pembroke St, Cambridge CB2 3QZ, England Univ Cambridge, Dept Zool, Downing St, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, England IUCN Global Species Programme, David Attenborough Bldg,Pembroke St, Cambridge CB2 3QZ, England IUCN, Nature Based Solut Grp, 28 Rue Mauverney, CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland IUCN Species Survival Commiss, Amphibian Specialist Grp, Toronto, ON M8W 1R2, Canada Royal Bot Gardens, Richmond TW9 3AB, Surrey, England Zool Soc London, Inst Zool, Regents Pk, London NW1 4RY, England Nat Hist Museum, Dept Life Sci, London SW7 5BD, England Old Domin Univ, IUCN Marine Biodivers Unit, Global Species Programme Biol Sci, Norfolk, VA USA Conservat Int, IUCN Global Species Programme, IUCN CI Biodivers Assessment, 2011 Crystal Dr,Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22202 USA Univ Queensland, Ctr Biodivers & Conservat Sci, ARC Ctr Excellence Environm Decis, Brisbane, Qld 4072, Australia Univ Queensland, Sch Geog Planning & Environm Management, Brisbane, Qld 4072, Australia WWF Int, Luc Hoffmann Inst, CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland Univ New S Wales, Ctr Ecosyst Sci, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia Arizona State Univ, Sch Life Sci, POB 874501, Tempe, AZ 85287 USA IUCN Global Ecosyst Management Programme, David Attenborough Bldg,Pembroke St, Cambridge CB2 3QZ, England Provita, Apdo 47552, Caracas 1041A, Venezuela Inst Venezolano Invest Cient, Ctr Ecol, Apdo 20632, Caracas 1020A, Venezuela Sapienza Univ Rome, Dept Biol & Biotechnol, Global Mammal Assessment Program, Viale Univ 32, I-00185 Rome, Italy IUCN, Biodivers Conservat Grp, 28 Rue Mauverney, CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland Crit Ecosyst Partnership Fund, 2011 Crystal Dr,Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22202 USA World Commiss Protected Areas IUCN, 64 Juniper Rd, Chelsea, PQ J9B 1T3, Canada NatureServe, 4600 N Fairfax Dr, Arlington, VA 22203 USA Amer Bird Conservancy, 1731 Connecticut Ave, Washington, DC 20009 USA New South Wales Off Environm & Heritage, Hurstville, NSW 2220, Australia UNESP WCMC, United Nations Environm Programme, 219 Huntingdon Rd, Cambridge CB3 0DL, England National Science Foundation's Dimensions of Biodiversity program: 1136586

25 páginas, 8 figuras, 6 tablas., [EN] 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 newly developed IUCN Red List of Ecosystems is part of a growing toolbox for assessing risks to biodiversity, which addresses ecosystems and their functioning. The Red List of Ecosystems standard allows systematic assessment of all freshwater, marine, terrestrial and subterranean ecosystem types in terms of their global risk of collapse. In addition, the Red List of Ecosystems categories and criteria provide a technical base for assessments of ecosystem status at the regional, national, or subnational level. While the Red List of Ecosystems criteria were designed to be widely applicable by scientists and practitioners, guidelines are needed to ensure they are implemented in a standardized manner to reduce epistemic uncertainties and allow robust comparisons among ecosystems and over time. We review the intended application of the Red List of Ecosystems assessment process, summarize ‘best-practice’ methods for ecosystem assessments and outline approaches to ensure operational rigour of assessments. The Red List of Ecosystems will inform priority setting for ecosystem types worldwide, and strengthen capacity to report on progress towards the Aichi Targets of the Convention on Biological Diversity. When integrated with other IUCN knowledge products, such as the World Database of Protected Areas/Protected Planet, Key Biodiversity Areas and the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, the Red List of Ecosystems will contribute to providing the most complete global measure of the status of biodiversity yet achieved.