Research Article: The geography of hotspots of rarity-weighted richness of birds and their coverage by Natura 2000

Date Published: April 5, 2017

Publisher: Public Library of Science

Author(s): Fábio Suzart de Albuquerque, Andrew Gregory, Csaba Moskát.

http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174179

Abstract

A major challenge for biogeographers and conservation planners is to identify where to best locate or distribute high-priority areas for conservation and to explore whether these areas are well represented by conservation actions such as protected areas (PAs). We aimed to identify high-priority areas for conservation, expressed as hotpots of rarity-weighted richness (HRR)–sites that efficiently represent species–for birds across EU countries, and to explore whether HRR are well represented by the Natura 2000 network. Natura 2000 is an evolving network of PAs that seeks to conserve biodiversity through the persistence of the most patrimonial species and habitats across Europe. This network includes Sites of Community Importance (SCI) and Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), where the latter regulated the designation of Special Protected Areas (SPA). Distribution maps for 416 bird species and complementarity-based approaches were used to map geographical patterns of rarity-weighted richness (RWR) and HRR for birds. We used species accumulation index to evaluate whether RWR was efficient surrogates to identify HRRs for birds. The results of our analysis support the proposition that prioritizing sites in order of RWR is a reliable way to identify sites that efficiently represent birds. HRRs were concentrated in the Mediterranean Basin and alpine and boreal biogeographical regions of northern Europe. The cells with high RWR values did not correspond to cells where Natura 2000 was present. We suggest that patterns of RWR could become a focus for conservation biogeography. Our analysis demonstrates that identifying HRR is a robust approach for prioritizing management actions, and reveals the need for more conservation actions, especially on HRR.

Partial Text

Although the natural rate of bird species loss is one species per century, in the last three decades 21 species have gone extinct, and currently 190 species worldwide are on the brink of extinction [1]. A key strategy to minimize species extinctions is to identify a group of sites that collectively represent all or most species in a small area. If the geographical distribution of individual species is known for most locations in a planning area, efficient sets of sites can be identified by spatial prioritization algorithms such as integer programming [2], by heuristic reserve-selection algorithms such as Marxan [3], C-Plan [4], Zonation [5], or by rarity-weighted richness (RWR, [6]). RWR is used to identify sites with both a relative rarity of species and overall richness [7]. RWR ranks sites from 0 (all species can be represented without the site) to +∞ (the site is indispensable to the goal of representing all species). These ranks reflect complementarity, i.e., how well the accumulation of sites jointly represents common and rare species with a small number of sites [8]. Stein et al [7] used biogeographical patterns of RWR to identify hotspots of rarity-weighted richness (HRR) across the United States. They concluded that identification of HRR has become an important tool for implementing conservation actions to selected areas (e.g. conserve imperiled species). Csuti et al. [9] and Albuquerque & Beier [8] provided comparisons of RWR solutions to solutions produced by richness, linear programing and simulated annealing (one of the most effective algorithms to identify priority areas for conservation) and observed that RWR represented biodiversity almost as effectively as sites identified by linear programing, and was more effective than species richness and simulated annealing approaches. Albuquerque and Beier [8] also suggested that RWR is suitable for prioritizing large datasets.

For all percentages of sites prioritized, Zonation and RWR solutions performed better than randomly selected sites (Fig 1). The mean SAI across percentage of species prioritized was 1.28, indicating that RWR solutions were better (closer to the true optimum) than Zonation. Species richness was a poor surrogate for HRR, as indicated by the species accumulation index (Fig 1).

This study investigated the relationship between the calculated rarity-weighted richness values for 50 x 50km cells in EU countries and the Natura 2000 coverage and identified Hot Spots of Rarity and Richness for birds by assessing the biogeographical distribution of RWR values. This study does not aim to criticize the effectiveness of the Natura 2000 network in reducing bird diversity loss in the Europe, but rather to provide a robust analysis of the importance of the Natura 2000 network in representing HRR in this region. Because a cell was tallied as protected if any portion of the cell was overlapped by SPAs or SCIs, the analyses may overestimate how well SPAs and Natura 2000 sites represent bird species.

 

Source:

http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174179

 

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments