scieee Science in your language
[en] (orig)

The representation potential of raptors for globally important nature conservation areas

Abstract

Stemming from a pervasive lack of knowledge on biodiversity, important areas for conservation are typically identified using a subset of well known species, commonly termed surrogate or indicator groups. Birds have been commonly used as biodiversity surrogates due to the good level of knowledge on their taxonomy, ecology and distribution. Raptors in particular have been often proposed as an effective surrogate for other biodiversity based on their dietary diversity, being at the top of the food chain, their preference for highly productive areas, their generally threatened status and high public appeal. However, so far the surrogacy effectiveness of raptors has been largely studied locally or using a narrow selection of surrogate and surrogated taxa. Here we use a spatial conservation planning tool to quantify the surrogacy performance of raptors, overall and by different raptor groups (hawks and eagles, falcons, vultures, owls) to represent important biodiversity areas (such as IUCN protected areas and key biodiversity areas), wilderness areas and the worlds ecoregions. We compared the above surrogacy performance with that of all other non-raptor avian species. We show that raptors perform marginally worse than all other avian species in representing important biodiversity areas and ecoregions. However, raptors representation for wilderness areas was similar or slightly better compared to that of using all non-raptor birds. We also report a large variation in the representation performance by the four raptor groups. Falcons had a particularly high potential in representing protected areas and wilderness areas, equaling or largely surpassing the representation potential provided by all raptors and all other non-raptor birds. Overall, the results suggest that raptors, and particularly falcons, can perform relatively well in representing some important areas for conservation, such as protected areas and wilderness areas, but are relatively poor surrogates for key biodiversity areas and ecoregions. These rather contrasting results call for caution on the use of raptors as global surrogates of wider biodiversity.

Read accessible full text

The representation potential of raptors for globally important nature conservation areas

Author: Santangeli, A.,Girardello, M.
Publisher: Elsevier
Year: 2021
Source: https://repositorio.ulisboa.pt/bitstream/10451/51563/1/1-s2.0-S1470160X21000996-main.pdf
Ecological Indica o s 124 (2021) 107434
A ailable online 29 Janua y 2021
1470-160X/© 2021 The Au ho s. Published by Else ie L d. This is an open access a icle unde he CC BY license (h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/).
Sho No e
The ep esen a ion po en ial o ap o s o globally impo an na u e
conse a ion a eas
A. San angeli
a
,
b
,
c
,
d
,
*
, M. Gi a dello
e
a
Resea ch Cen e o Ecological Change, O ganismal and E olu iona y Biology Resea ch P og amme, Uni e si y o Helsinki, PO Box 65 (Viikinkaa i 1), 00014 Helsinki,
Finland
b
Helsinki Ins i u e o Li e Science, Uni e si y o Helsinki, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland
c
The Helsinki Lab o O ni hology, Finnish Museum o Na u al His o y, Uni e si y o Helsinki, Finland
d
Fi zPa ick Ins i u e o A ican O ni hology, DST-NRF Cen e o Excellence, Uni e si y o Cape Town, Cape Town, Sou h A ica
e
cE3c - Cen e o Ecology, E olu ion and En i onmen al Changes/Azo ean Biodi e si y G oup and Uni e sidade dos Aço es – Dep o de Ciˆ
encias e Engenha ia do
Ambien e, PT-9700-042, Ang a do He oísmo, Aço es, Po ugal
ARTICLE INFO
Keywo ds:
Su ogacy
Umb ella species
Bi ds o p ey
Flagship species
Global p io i iza ion
Indica o species
ABSTRACT
S emming om a pe asi e lack o knowledge on biodi e si y, impo an a eas o conse a ion a e ypically
iden i ied using a subse o well known species, commonly e med su oga e o indica o g oups. Bi ds ha e been
commonly used as biodi e si y su oga es due o he good le el o knowledge on hei axonomy, ecology and
dis ibu ion. Rap o s in pa icula ha e been o en p oposed as an e ec i e su oga e o o he biodi e si y based
on hei die a y di e si y, being a he op o he ood chain, hei p e e ence o highly p oduc i e a eas, hei
gene ally h ea ened s a us and high public appeal. Howe e , so a he su ogacy e ec i eness o ap o s has
been la gely s udied locally o using a na ow selec ion o su oga e and su oga ed axa.
He e we use a spa ial conse a ion planning ool o quan i y he su ogacy pe o mance o ap o s, o e all and
by di e en ap o g oups (hawks and eagles, alcons, ul u es, owls) o ep esen impo an biodi e si y a eas
(such as IUCN p o ec ed a eas and key biodi e si y a eas), wilde ness a eas and he wo lds eco egions. We
compa ed he abo e su ogacy pe o mance wi h ha o all o he non- ap o a ian species.
We show ha ap o s pe o m ma ginally wo se han all o he a ian species in ep esen ing impo an
biodi e si y a eas and eco egions. Howe e , ap o s ep esen a ion o wilde ness a eas was simila o sligh ly
be e compa ed o ha o using all non- ap o bi ds. We also epo a la ge a ia ion in he ep esen a ion
pe o mance by he ou ap o g oups. Falcons had a pa icula ly high po en ial in ep esen ing p o ec ed a eas
and wilde ness a eas, equaling o la gely su passing he ep esen a ion po en ial p o ided by all ap o s and all
o he non- ap o bi ds.
O e all, he esul s sugges ha ap o s, and pa icula ly alcons, can pe o m ela i ely well in ep esen ing
some impo an a eas o conse a ion, such as p o ec ed a eas and wilde ness a eas, bu a e ela i ely poo
su oga es o key biodi e si y a eas and eco egions. These a he con as ing esul s call o cau ion on he use o
ap o s as global su oga es o wide biodi e si y.
1. In oduc ion
Knowledge abou biodi e si y and i s dis ibu ion, commonly
e e ed o as he Linnean and Wallacean sho alls, is e y limi ed
(Whi ake e al., 2005). Consequen ly, he iden i ica ion o p io i y
a eas o biodi e si y conse a ion o en elies on a na ow selec ion o
species ac ing as su oga es o wide biodi e si y ( he su ogacy
concep ; Ca o, 2010). Howe e , ypically his na ow selec ion o su -
oga e species (i.e. ypically well moni o ed species used o ep esen
o he species, he su oga ed species, in a aining a conse a ion
objec i e; Ca o, 2010) is assumed, implici ly o explici ly, o be an
e ec i e su oga e o biodi e si y (La sen e al., 2012). This assump ion
o en emains un es ed, lea ing us in an unce ain and po en ially
misleading si ua ion o alse belie ha p io i izing conse a ion
* Co esponding au ho a : Resea ch Cen e o Ecological Change, O ganismal and E olu iona y Biology Resea ch P og amme, Uni e si y o Helsinki, PO Box 65
(Viikinkaa i 1), 00014 Helsinki, Finland.
E-mail add ess: [email p o ec ed] (A. San angeli).
Con en s lis s a ailable a ScienceDi ec
Ecological Indica o s
jou nal homepage: www.else ie .com/loca e/ecolind
h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107434
Recei ed 20 Oc obe 2020; Recei ed in e ised o m 10 Decembe 2020; Accep ed 17 Janua y 2021
Ecological Indica o s 124 (2021) 107434
2
owa ds a eas impo an o speci ic su oga e axa does ha e an impac
on a much wide ange o species.
Bi ds a e commonly used as su oga es o biodi e si y owing o he
la ge and ypically high quali y ele an in o ma ion on hei axonomy
and dis ibu ion, hei b oad appeal o he public and o en conspicuous
na u e (La sen e al., 2012). Among bi ds, ap o s ha e been pa icula ly
highligh ed as a po en ially e ec i e su oga e g oup o wide biodi-
e si y (Se gio e al., 2006, 2008). Rap o s, as mos la ge p eda o s, a e
gene ally globally h ea ened by inc easing human ac i i ies, wi h
popula ions o se e al species, like many ul u es, apidly declining
(McClu e e al., 2018). Being a he op o ecological ood chains, ap o s
may ac as sen inels o en i onmen al change, gi ing ea ly wa nings o
po en ial an h opogenic impac s on biodi e si y (Bu ield, 2008;
Don´
aza e al., 2016). Rap o s p e e ence o a di e si y o p ey ac oss
he ood chain, and o highly p oduc i e a eas, may acili a e hei ole
as umb ella o o he biodi e si y (Se gio e al., 2008; Bu gas e al.,
2014). Mo eo e , due o hei appeal and cha isma, ap o s a e widely
app ecia ed by he public and well s udied by scien is s (Buechley e al.,
2019), and can ac as lagship species, le e aging unds o help p ese e
biodi e si y as a whole (Don´
aza e al., 2016; McGowan e al., 2020).
While local s udies ha e a emp ed o quan i y he su ogacy e ec-
i eness o ap o s a he local scale and/o wi h a na ow selec ion o
su oga e and su oga ed species, a global analysis o he su ogacy
e ec i eness o ap o s is s ill lacking. Mos impo an ly, he s udies
conduc ed so a ha e exclusi ely ocused on ap o ep esen a ion o
o he species (Se gio e al., 2006, 2008; Bu gas e al., 2014), whe eas
none ha e add essed ap o ep esen a ion po en ial o impo an con-
se a ion a eas, ha is, hose a eas ha ha bo species and ecosys ems o
conse a ion conce n.
As he occu ence o ap o s is ypically associa ed wi h a eas o high
species ichness and in ac ecosys ems (Se gio e al., 2008), he e we aim
o quan i y how well ap o s can ep esen globally impo an e es ial
a eas o biodi e si y conse a ion as well as wild a eas. Using a global
conse a ion p io i iza ion app oach, we i s compa e he e ec i eness
o ap o s wi h ha o all o he non- ap o bi d species in ep esen ing
impo an a eas o biodi e si y conse a ion, such as p o ec ed a eas,
key biodi e si y a eas, wilde ness a eas, e es ial eco egions. Nex ,
wi hin he ap o guild, we also aim o compa e he ep esen a ion o
hose a eas by ou dis inc sub-g oups o ap o species di e ing in hei
ecology, li e-his o y and ex inc ion isk, namely hawks and eagles, al-
cons, owls and ul u es. This g ouping ollows he a ionale and
app oach o Buechley e al. (2019).
2. Ma e ial and me hods
2.1. S udy egion and su oga e g oups
The a ge egion o his s udy includes all e es ial a eas o he
wo ld.
As su oga e axa we conside ed wo main g oups o bi ds, all ap-
o s, o de s Accipi i o mes, Ca ha i o mes, Falconi o mes, S igi-
o mes (n =557 species) and all o he non- ap o bi ds (n =10353).
Wi hin ap o s, we also conside ed ou con as ing g oups wi h
dis inc i e ecology, li e-his o y, and conse a ion s a us: Hawks and
eagles, alcons, owls, ul u es (n =234, 64, 236, 23). The selec ion o
ap o s and hei sub-g oups s ic ly ollows ha used by wo ecen
s udies (McClu e e al., 2018; Buechley e al., 2019). Mo eo e , he se-
lec ion o all species as de ailed abo e was condi ional on he a ail-
abili y o hei digi ized ange maps as p o ided by Bi dLi e
In e na ional and Na u eSe e (2015) and was es ic ed o species
whose ange o e laps, a leas pa ly, e es ial a eas. Fo all su oga e
axa, we only used he b eeding and esiden ange o each species. This
seasonal es ic ion aims o a oid noise s emming om he species being
only pa ly p esen in an a ea, and also because mos o he conse a ion
planning s udies ocus on he b eeding and esiden ange o he species
(e.g. Mon esino Pouzols e al., 2014; San angeli e al., 2019a, 2019b,
2020). The ange o each species was as e ized o a esolu ion o 50 km
×50 km. This esolu ion was deemed coa se enough o minimize he
impac o bo h commission and omission e o s associa ed o he species
anges. Changes in he esolu ion we e howe e ound o ha e only a
ma ginal impac on he esul s o such ypes o analyses (Mon esino
Pouzols e al., 2014).
2.2. Su oga ed g oups
As su oga ed g oups, we ocused on a eas widely ecognized as
p io i y o global biodi e si y conse a ion, wilde ness a eas and he
di e si y o he wo ld’s eco egions. The p o ec ed a eas (he ea e PA) o
he global e es ial ealm a e es ablished unde he In e na ional
Union o Conse a ion o Na u e (IUCN) wi h he aim o e ec i ely
conse e he composi ion, s uc u e, unc ion and e olu iona y po en ial
o biodi e si y (Dudley, 2008). These a eas a e widely ecognized as
s ongholds o biodi e si y conse a ion (Wa son e al., 2014). Fo he
pu pose o his s udy, we conside ed all PAs (i.e. all IUCN PA ca ego ies
oge he ), as well as he s ic ly PAs (IUCN ca ego ies I o IV) only as a
sepa a e laye . While s ic ly PAs a e included wi hin all PAs, he
a ionale o conside ing also he s ic ly p o ec ed a eas is because in
hese si es de elopmen is no allowed and access o en es ic ed,
he eby hey may ep esen e en mo e impo an s ongholds o
biodi e si y conse a ion unde s ong human p essu es (Rehbein e al.,
2020).
Simila ly, wi hin bu also ou side o he cu en PA ne wo k, Key
Biodi e si y A eas (KBA) a e iden i ied as essen ial si es o a e species
ex inc ions, being o en e ugia o a e and endange ed biodi e si y
(Newbold e al., 2015). Wilde ness a eas a e iden i ied as he las
emaining in ac ecosys ems globally, which unc ion na u ally and
suppo a disp opo iona e ange o ecosys em se ices and biodi e si y
(Wa son and Ven e , 2017). Mo eo e , ep esen a i e examples o he
wo lds ecosys ems ha e been mapped h ough he iden i ica ion o he
global eco egions which ha bo excep ional biodi e si y (Olson e al.,
2001). In his s udy, we hus collec ed spa ial da a on he wo ld’s PAs
( om www.p o ec edplane .ne ), KBAs (Bi dLi e In e na ional, 2019),
wilde ness a eas (Las o he Wild Da a Ve sion 2 2005) and he wo lds
e es ial eco egions (Olson e al., 2001). As o he su oga e g oups,
also hese su oga ed laye s we e as e ized o he same esolu ion o 50
km ×50 km. While some o hese su oga ed laye s ine i ably would
o e lap in space, such as KBAs and PAs, hey a e spa ially sepa a ed
enough, and a e selec ed based on di e en c i e ia wi h di e en in-
e p e a ions ha hey would allow meaning ul compa isons.
2.3. Su ogacy analyses
In o de o assess he e ec i eness o ap o s as su oga es o p io i y
a eas o biodi e si y and ecosys em conse a ion, we used he spa ial
conse a ion planning so wa e Zona ion .4 (Moilanen e al., 2014).
Zona ion p oduces balanced anking o conse a ion p io i ies o e a
s udy landscape by i e a i ely emo ing he landscape uni o leas
conse a ion alue while accoun ing o he emaining dis ibu ions o
ea u es (Moilanen e al., 2005). The emo al ule o landscape uni s
chosen he e was he addi i e bene i unc ion, as his has been ecom-
mended as he mos obus unc ion when unning su ogacy analyses
(Di Minin and Moilanen, 2014; Moilanen e al., 2014). Essen ially, by
assigning a weigh >0 o he su oga e ea u es, and a weigh o ze o o
he su oga ed ea u es, he algo i hm iden i ies he key p io i y a eas
o he su oga e ea u es and simul aneously calcula es he dis ibu ion
co e age emaining o each su oga ed ea u e a each s ep o he
i e a ion. In ou case, ac oss all he zona ion uns (see de ails below), we
assigned an equal weigh o one o all su oga e ea u es, and a weigh o
ze o o all su oga ed ea u es. We se up six di e en zona ion uns, in
each he su oga e g oup consis ed in u n in ap o s only, all o he non-
ap o bi d species, as well as ou ap o sub-g oups: Hawks and eagles,
alcons, owls, ul u es. The se o su oga ed ea u es was ins ead he
A. San angeli and M. Gi a dello
Ecological Indica o s 124 (2021) 107434
3
same ac oss he six uns and consis ed on one laye o he KBAs, one o
he wilde ness a eas, one o all PAs (including all six ca ego ies o PAs
as de ined by IUCN) and one o he s ic ly PAs (IUCN ca ego ies I o
IV), and one laye o each o he 816 e es ial eco egions. The zona-
ion ou come consis s o maps o he p io i y anking as well as pe o -
mance cu es ha de ine he co e age o each o he su oga ed ea u es
o each p opo ion o he landscape i ually p o ec ed acco ding o he
p io i y anking ob ained om he su oga e ea u es. Tha is, how much
each su oga ed ea u e is co e ed when p io i y a eas o he su oga e
ea u es a e p o ec ed a a de ined le el, e.g. om p o ec ing only he
op 5% iden i ied p io i ies o su oga es o much mo e. Thus, in o de
o expose he di e ences in he su ogacy po en ial o he six di e en
su oga e g oups, we show he pe o mance cu es o hese in ela ion o
each o he su oga ed ea u es. We also closely highligh di e ences in
su ogacy po en ial when he op anked 5, 17 and 30% o he landscape
is p o ec ed based on p io i ies sough by conside ing in u n each o he
six su oga e g oups.
3. Resul s
The ep esen a ion o PAs (o e all as well as only he s ic PAs) and
KBAs was gene ally simila , o sligh ly lowe (co e age loss by abou 1
o 3%) when p io i ies a e iden i ied using ap o s as compa ed o all
o he non- ap o bi ds (Figs. 1 and 2). Con e sely, ap o s in gene al
pe o med simila ly o sligh ly be e (by 1% inc ease in co e age) han
all o he non- ap o bi ds in ep esen ing wilde ness a eas, bu la gely
wo se (co e age loss by up o 9%) in ep esen ing eco egions (Figs. 1
and 2). Measu able di e ences in su ogacy pe o mance be ween he
ou g oups o ap o s a e e iden , wi h alcons ou pe o ming all o he
ap o and also non- ap o g oups in ep esen ing PAs and especially
wilde ness a eas.
4. Discussion
We show ha he co e age o impo an biodi e si y (i.e. PAs and
KBAs) a eas is ma ginally lowe (loss in co e age o abou 1 o 3%) when
p io i ies a e iden i ied using all ap o s as compa ed o using all o he
a ian non- ap o species. O e all, his loss in ep esen a ion a ied ac-
co ding o he su oga ed g oup, being highes , when conside ing
s ic ly PAs and especially eco egions (up o 9% ep esen a ion loss
when using ap o s). Con e sely, ap o p io i ies allow a simila o
sligh ly highe co e age o wilde ness a eas compa ed o p io i ies
iden i ied using all o he non- ap o bi d species. In e es ingly, he
su ogacy po en ial e ec i eness a ied g ea ly among he di e en
ap o g oups. Falcons had a pa icula ly high po en ial in ep esen ing
PAs and wilde ness a eas, equaling o la gely su passing he ep esen-
a ion po en ial p o ided by all ap o s and all o he bi ds.
The inding ha conse a ion p io i y a eas iden i ied based on all
ap o s aid he co e age o impo an biodi e si y a eas a almos he
same e iciency as when using all o he non- ap o bi d species can ha e
p ac ical implica ions. This sugges s ha i may be possible o use he
limi ed numbe (n =557) o ap o species, which a e well known and
o en wi h dedica ed moni o ing and esea ch p og ams (Bu ield,
2008), o iden i y impo an biodi e si y a eas globally ins ead o using
all o he o e 10 000 a ian species. In a local s udy, Se gio e al., (2006)
ound ha a ne wo k o p o ec ed a eas was mos e icien in achie ing
biodi e si y co e age when based on ap o s as compa ed o species a
lowe ophic le els. Tha s udy was based on six su oga e species, o
Fig. 1. Zona ion pe o mance cu es ep esen ing he inc ease in co e age o each biodi e si y a ea (Y-axis in each o he 5 panels) as he hypo he ical p opo ion o
landscape p o ec ed inc eases (X-axis). Each panel shows he pe o mance in co e ing each o he i e biodi e si y a eas (IUCN PAs, IUCN s ic ly p o ec ed a eas
ca ego ies I o IV, key biodi e si y a eas, wilde ness a eas and he wo lds eco egions) by each o he six su oga e g oups conside ed: Non- ap o bi d species, all
ap o s combined, hawks and eagles, ul u es, alcons and owls.
A. San angeli and M. Gi a dello
Ecological Indica o s 124 (2021) 107434
4
which one is a hawk (Accipi e gen ilis) and he o he s a e owls. Ano he
simila s udy ound he same hawk species o pe o m well in indica ing
a eas o high biodi e si y, also ou pe o ming an owl species (S ix
U alensis; Bu gas e al., 2014). Ou esul s, while bea ing in mind he
di e ences in he app oach, seem o pa ly align o hose om ea lie
s udies, pa icula ly wi h ega ds o he su ogacy pe o mance o hawks
and eagles, and alcons. We show ha alcons in pa icula ou pe o m
all o he ap o s and non ap o bi ds in ep esen ing PAs o e all, and
also he s ic ly PAs when he op 5% p io i ies a e conside ed. Global
alcon ichness and conse a ion p io i y a eas a e s ongly biased o-
wa ds highly p oduc i e egions in he opics (Buechley e al., 2019).
These a eas, being o en unde se e e p essu es om an h opogenic
ac i i ies, also include a la ge numbe o PAs, which may explain hei
inc eased co e age when p io i ies a e se based on alcons as compa ed
o o he g oups.
Falcons in pa icula , bu also o he g oups o diu nal ap o s,
including hawks and eagles, and ul u es, we e ound o ou pe o m all
o he non- ap o bi ds and owls in ep esen ing wilde ness a eas. This
esul may likely s em om he long-his o y o pe secu ion, pa icula ly
on diu nal ap o s (Thiollay, 2006; Ama e al., 2012; Pohja-Myk a e al.,
2012), ha may ha e shaped hei p e e ence owa ds he mos p is ine,
emo e and wild places le on Ea h. A he same ime, in ac ecosys ems
may also o e wide nes ing and o aging esou ces, wi h an o e all
la ge ca ying capaci y o hese en i onmen s compa ed o mo e
deg aded ones (Wa son e al., 2018), he eby suppo ing la ge pop-
ula ions o diu nal ap o s compa ed o o he g oups.
Rap o s in gene al pe o med wo se han all o he non- ap o species
in ep esen ing he wo ld’s eco egions. This inding may s em om he
ac ha eco egions a e homogeneously sca e ed ac oss he globe,
he e o e a la ge se o su oga e species wi h di e en li e-his o ies,
ecology and biogeog aphy, such as he non- ap o ca ego y in his
s udy, makes i mo e likely o ep esen wide egions globally as
compa ed o a na ow selec ion o su oga e species (La sen e al.,
2012), such as ap o s. This asse ion is also suppo ed by ou inding
showing ha owls pe o m bes among all ap o g oups in ep esen ing
eco egions. Owls ichness is among he mos widely dis ibu ed globally
o all he ou ap o g oups (Buechley e al., 2019), which may allow
his g oup o co e mos o he eco egions.
This is he i s a emp o quan i y he su ogacy po en ial o ap o s
a a global scale. Simila analyses ha e been conduc ed a he global
le el using he wo ld’s ca ni o es (Di Minin e al., 2016). The esul s
om such global analyses should hus be in e p e ed wi h cau ion, as
hey can highligh b oad pa e ns ha need o be con i med locally o
egionally using highe - esolu ion da a. Fo example, he e we used a
a he coa se esolu ion o 50 km ×50 km. While his esolu ion may
educe omission e o s (when he species is mis akenly hough o be
absen ) in he dis ibu ion da a, i may s ill su e om commission e -
o s (when he species is mis akenly hough o be p esen ). Beyond he
local s udies which a e al eady a ailable (Se gio e al., 2006, 2008;
Bu gas e al., 2014; Di Minin and Moilanen, 2014), i will be hus
impo an o pe o m su ogacy analyses o he ype p esen ed he e a
he na ional o egional le el and by conside ing a b oade axonomic
di e si y, including non-a ian species. This can be possible by ha -
nessing he unp eceden ed in o ma ion on species ecology, li e-his o y
and biogeog aphy ha is now made a ailable hanks o ci izen science
p og ams and open da a pla o ms such as e-bi d and Global Biodi e si y
In o ma ion Facili y (Fink e al., 2020; GBIF.o g, 2020).
Fig. 2. Rep esen a ion o he i e biodi e si y a eas (IUCN PAs, IUCN s ic ly p o ec ed a ea ca ego ies I o IV, key biodi e si y a eas, wilde ness a eas and he wo lds
eco egions) by each o he six su oga e g oups conside ed (non- ap o bi d species, all ap o s combined, hawks and eagles, ul u es, alcons and owls) when 5, 17
and 30% o a hypo he ical landscape would be p o ec ed. Please no e he change in scale o he y-axis be ween he panels.
A. San angeli and M. Gi a dello
Ecological Indica o s 124 (2021) 107434
5
5. Conclusions
Unde a pe asi e sho age o knowledge on species ecology and
dis ibu ion, and a lack o esou ces o moni o ing and conse a ion,
good su oga es o biodi e si y can help o p io i ise a eas o conse -
a ion and p e en ing species ex inc ion. Rap o s, and pa icula ly al-
cons, pe o m ela i ely well in ep esen ing PAs and especially
wilde ness a eas, bu a e ela i ely poo su oga es o KBAs and eco -
egions. As such, we cau ion on he use o ap o s as global su oga es o
wide biodi e si y, as hei ep esen a ion pe o mance clea ly a ies
based on he g oup o ap o s and he ype o conse a ion a ea
conside ed.
CRediT au ho ship con ibu ion s a emen
A. San angeli: Concep ualiza ion, Me hodology, In es iga ion,
Visualiza ion, W i ing - o iginal d a , W i ing - e iew & edi ing. M.
Gi a dello: Concep ualiza ion, Me hodology, W i ing - e iew &
edi ing.
Decla a ion o Compe ing In e es
The au ho s decla e ha hey ha e no known compe ing inancial
in e es s o pe sonal ela ionships ha could ha e appea ed o in luence
he wo k epo ed in his pape .
Acknowledgemen s
AS was suppo ed by he Academy o Finland (g an n. 307909), he
Jane ja Aa os E kon S¨
a¨
a i¨
o, Finnish Minis y o he En i onmen . We
also hank M. Romano and an anonymous e iewe o hei aluable
commen s ha helped imp o e his wo k.
Re e ences
Ama , A., Cou , I.R., Da ison, M., Downing, S., G imshaw, T., Pick o d, T., Raw, D.,
2012. Linking nes his o ies, emo ely sensed land use da a and wildli e c ime
eco ds o explo e he impac o g ouse moo managemen on pe eg ine alcon
popula ions. Biol. Conse . 145, 86–94.
Bi dLi e In e na ional, 2019. Digi al bounda ies o Key Biodi e si y A eas om he Wo ld
Da abase o Key Biodi e si y A eas. Sep embe 2019 Ve sion, A ailable a : h p://
www.keybiodi e si ya eas.o g/si e/ eques gis.
Bi dLi e In e na ional and Na u eSe e, 2015. Bi d species dis ibu ion maps o he
wo ld. Ve sion 4.0. Bi dLi e In e na ional, Camb idge, UK and Na u eSe e,
A ling on, USA.
Buechley, E.R., San angeli, A., Gi a dello, M., Nea e-Clegg, M.H.C., Oleya , D.,
McClu e, C.J.W., S
¸eke cio˘
glu, Ç.H., 2019. Global ap o esea ch and conse a ion
p io i ies: opical ap o s all p ey o knowledge gaps. Di e s. Dis ib. 25, 856–869.
Bu ield, I.J., 2008. The conse a ion s a us and ends o ap o s and owls in Eu ope.
Ambio 37, 401–407.
Bu gas, D., Byholm, P., Pa kkima, T., 2014. Rap o s as su oga es o biodi e si y along a
landscape g adien . 51, 786-794.
Ca o, T., 2010. Conse a ion by p oxy: indica o , umb ella, keys one, lagship, and o he
su oga e species. Island P ess, USA.
Di Minin, E., Moilanen, A., 2014. Imp o ing he su ogacy e ec i eness o cha isma ic
mega auna wi h well-su eyed axonomic g oups and habi a ypes. J. Appl. Ecol.
51, 281–288.
Di Minin, E., Slo ow, R., Hun e , L.T.B., Mon esino Pouzols, F., Toi onen, T., Ve bu g, P.
H., Leade -Williams, N., Pe acca, L., Moilanen, A., 2016. Global p io i ies o
na ional ca ni o e conse a ion unde land use change. Sci. Rep. 6, 23814.
Don´
aza , J.A., Co ´
es-A izanda, A., e al., 2016. Roles o ap o s in a changing wo ld:
om lagships o p o ide s o key ecosys em se ices. A deola 63, 181–234.
Dudley, N., 2008. Guidelines o applying p o ec ed a ea managemen ca ego ies. IUCN,
Gland, Swi ze land.
Fink, D., Aue , T., e al., 2020. eBi d S a us and T ends, Da a Ve sion: 2018. Co nell Lab
o O ni hology, I haca, New Yo k.
GBIF.o g, 2020. GBIF Home Page. A ailable om: h ps://www.gbi .o g.
La sen, F.W., Blad , J., Balm o d, A., Rahbek, C., 2012. Bi ds as biodi e si y su oga es:
will supplemen ing bi ds wi h o he axa imp o e e ec i eness? J. Appl. Ecol. 49,
349–356.
Las o he Wild Da a Ve sion 2, 2005. Global Human Foo p in Da ase (Geog aphic).
Wildli e Conse a ion (WCS) and Cen e o In e na ional Ea h Science In o ma ion
Ne wo k (CIESIN).
McClu e, C.J.W., Wes ip, J.R.S., e al., 2018. S a e o he wo ld’s ap o s: dis ibu ions,
h ea s, and conse a ion ecommenda ions. Biol. Conse . 227, 390–402.
McGowan, J., Beaumon , L.J., e al., 2020. Conse a ion p io i iza ion can esol e he
lagship species conund um. Na . Commun. 11, 994.
Moilanen, A., F anco, A.M.A., Ea ly, R.I., Fox, R., Win le, B., Thomas, C.D., 2005.
P io i izing mul iple-use landscapes o conse a ion: me hods o la ge mul i-
species planning p oblems. P oc. Royal Soc. B Biol. Sci. 272, 1885–1891.
Moilanen, A., Mon esino Pouzols, F., Melle , L., Veach, V., A ponen, A., Lepp¨
anen, J.,
Kujala H., 2014. Zona ion e sion 4 Use manual. C-BIG Conse a ion Biology
In o ma ics G oup, Depa men o Biosciences, Uni e si y o Helsinki, Helsinki.
Mon esino Pouzols, F., Toi onen, T., e al., 2014. Global p o ec ed a ea expansion is
comp omised by p ojec ed land-use and pa ochialism. Na u e 516, 383–386.
Newbold, T., Hudson, L.N., e al., 2015. Global e ec s o land use on local e es ial
biodi e si y. Na u e 520, 45–50.
Olson, D.M., Dine s ein, E., e al., 2001. Te es ial eco egions o he wo lds: a new map
o li e on Ea h. Bioscience 51, 933–938.
Pohja-Myk a, M., Vuo isalo, T., Myk a, S., 2012. O ganized pe secu ion o bi ds o p ey
in Finland: his o ical and popula ion biological pe spec i es. O nis Fennica 89, 1–19.
Rehbein, J.A., Wa son, J.E.M., Lane, J.L., Son e , L.J., Ven e , O., A kinson, S.C., Allan, J.
R., 2020. Renewable ene gy de elopmen h ea ens many globally impo an
biodi e si y a eas. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 3040–3051.
San angeli, A., Gi a dello, M., Buechley, E., Bo ha, A., Di Minin, E., Moilanen, A., 2019a.
P io i y a eas o conse a ion o Old Wo ld ul u es. Conse . Biol. 33, 1056–1065.
San angeli, A., Gi a dello, M., Buechley, E., Eklund, J., Phipps, W.L., 2019b. Na iga ing
spaces o implemen ing ap o esea ch and conse a ion unde a ying le els o
iolence and go e nance in he Global Sou h. Biol. Conse . 239, 108212.
San angeli, A., Gi a dello, M., Buechley, E., Bo ha, A., Di Minin, E., Moilanen A., 2020.
Impo ance o complemen a y app oaches o e icien ul u e conse a ion: eply o
E a e al. Conse a ion Biology 34, 1308-1310.
Se gio, F., Ca o, T., B own, D., Clucas, B., Hun e , J., Ke chum, J., McHugh, K.,
Hi aldo, F., 2008. Top p eda o s as conse a ion ools: ecological a ionale,
assump ions, and e icacy. Annu. Re . Ecol. E ol. Sys . 39, 1–19.
Se gio, F., New on, I., Ma chesi, L., Ped ini, P., 2006. Ecologically jus i ied cha isma:
p ese a ion o op p eda o s deli e s biodi e si y conse a ion. J. Appl. Ecol. 43,
1049–1055.
Thiollay, J.M., 2006. The decline o ap o s in Wes A ica: long- e m assessmen and he
ole o p o ec ed a eas. Ibis 148, 240–254.
Wa son, J.E.M., Dudley, N., Segan, D.B., Hockings, M., 2014. The pe o mance and
po en ial o p o ec ed a eas. Na u e 515, 67–73.
Wa son, J. E. M., E ans, T., O. e al., 2018. The excep ional alue o in ac o es
ecosys ems. Na . Ecol. E ol. 2, 599-610.
Wa son, J.E.M., Ven e , O., 2017. A global plan o na u e conse a ion. Na u e 550,
48–49.
Whi ake , R.J., A aújo, M.B., Jepson, P., Ladle, R.J., Wa son, J.E.M., Willis, K.J., 2005.
Conse a ion biogeog aphy: assessmen and p ospec . Di e s. Dis ib. 11, 3–23.
A. San angeli and M. Gi a dello