Date of this Version
11-2021
Document Type
Article
Abstract
International and national initiatives aim to conserve at least 30% of lands and waters by 2030. To safeguard biodiversity, conservation actions must be distributed in places that represent ecosystem and species diversity. Various methods of prioritizing sites for conservation have been used in local and global assessments. However, the performance and consequences of alternative methods are usually unknown. Such comparisons are needed to confidently implement national and international conservation initiatives. Here, we compared four widely-used methods of prioritizing sites in the contiguous United States for conserving species of mammals, birds, amphibians, and reptiles. Specifically, we calculated and mapped species richness, rarity-weighted richness, and two complementarity-based prioritizations (additive benefit function [ABF] and core area zonation [CAZ] in the software Zonation). We compared maps derived from these alternatives with respect to spatial locations and overlap, patch size distributions of the top-30% priorities, and existing ownership and protected-area status. We used species-accumulation curves across ranked priorities to evaluate performance of methods and compared results at 30% total area. Mapped locations and patch sizes of the highest priorities varied by taxonomic class and method of prioritization. Complementarity-based methods (ABF and CAZ) more efficiently represented species than methods based on richness or rarity-weighted richness, especially for taxa with higher beta diversity (amphibians). ABF and CAZ methods also resulted in greater conservation opportunity for the top 30% of priorities compared to maps of richness. Area-based conservation targets, such as the “30 by 30” initiative, must distribute limited resources in ways that safeguard all species. Our results show that spatial locations and configuration, performance, and conservation opportunity vary among prioritization methods and taxonomic classes.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.
Recommended Citation
Belote, R. Travis; Barnett, Kevin; Dietz, Matthew S.; Burkle, Laura; Jenkins, Clinton; Dreiss, Lindsay; Aycrigg, Jocelyn L.; and Aplet, Gregory H., "Options for prioritizing sites for biodiversity conservation with implications for “30 by 30”" (2021). Department of Earth and Environment. 163.
https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/earth_environment_fac/163
Rights Statement
In Copyright - Non-Commmercial Use Permitted. URI: http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/
This Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. In addition, no permission is required from the rights-holder(s) for non-commercial uses. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s).