In the face of accelerating species extinctions, map-based prioritization systems are increasingly useful to decide where to pursue conservation action most effectively. However, a number of seemingly inconsistent schemes have emerged, mostly focussing on endemism. Here we use global vertebrate distributions in terrestrial ecoregions to evaluate how continuous and categorical ranking schemes target and accumulate endangered taxa within the IUCN Red List, Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE), and EDGE of Existence programme. We employed total, endemic and threatened species richness and an estimator for richness-adjusted endemism as metrics in continuous prioritization, and WWF's Global200 and Conservation International's (CI) Hotspots in categorical prioritization. Our results demonstrate that all metrics target endangerment more efficiently than by chance, but each selects unique sets of top-ranking ecoregions, which overlap only partially, and include different sets of threatened species. Using the top 100 ecoregions as defined by continuous prioritization metrics, we develop an inclusive map for global vertebrate conservation that incorporates important areas for endemism, richness, and threat. Finally, we assess human footprint and protection levels within these areas to reveal that endemism sites are more impacted but have more protection, in contrast to high richness and threat ones. Given such contrasts, major efforts to protect global biodiversity must involve complementary conservation approaches in areas of unique species as well as those with highest diversity and threat.
展开▼
机译:面对物种灭绝的加速,基于地图的优先排序系统对于决定在哪里最有效地采取保护行动越来越有用。但是,出现了许多看似不一致的方案,主要集中在地方主义上。在这里,我们使用陆地生态区中的全球脊椎动物分布来评估连续和分类等级计划如何针对和累积IUCN红色名录,零灭绝联盟(AZE)和EDGE of Existence计划中的濒危生物分类。在连续优先排序中,我们采用了总的,地方性和受威胁物种的物种丰富度以及针对富裕度进行了调整的地方性的估算器,并在分类优先级中使用了WWF的Global200和自然保护国际(CI)热点。我们的结果表明,所有度量指标都比偶然事件更有效地针对了濒危物种,但是每个度量指标都选择了独特的顶级生态区集,这些生态区仅部分重叠,并且包括不同种类的受威胁物种。我们使用连续优先级度量标准定义的前100个生态区,为全球脊椎动物保护开发了一个包罗万象的地图,其中纳入了地方性,丰富性和威胁性的重要领域。最后,我们评估了这些区域内的人类足迹和保护水平,以发现地方性流行场所受到的影响更大,但与高致富性和威胁性场所相比却受到更多保护。鉴于这种对比,保护全球生物多样性的重大努力必须包括在独特物种以及具有最高多样性和威胁的物种领域采取补充性保护方法。
展开▼