Pinpointing and Preventing Imminent Extinctions
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Pinpointing and preventing imminent extinctions Taylor H. Rickettsa,b, Eric Dinersteina, Tim Boucherc, Thomas M. Brooksd, Stuart H. M. Butcharte, Michael Hoffmannd, John F. Lamoreuxf, John Morrisona, Mike Parrg, John D. Pilgrimd, Ana S. L. Rodriguesd, Wes Sechrestf,h, George E. Wallaceg, Ken Berlini, Jon Bielbyj, Neil D. Burgessa, Don R. Churchd, Neil Coxh, David Knoxd, Colby Loucksa, Gary W. Luckk, Lawrence L. Masterl, Robin Moorem, Robin Naidooa, Robert Ridgelyg, George E. Schatzn, Gavin Shireg, Holly Stranda, Wes Wettengela, and Eric Wikramanayakea aConservation Science Program, World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC 20037; cGlobal Priorities Group, The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA 22203; dCenter for Applied Biodiversity Science, Conservation International, Washington, DC 20036; eBirdLife International, Cambridge CB3 0NA, United Kingdom; fDepartment of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904; gAmerican Bird Conservancy, Washington, DC 20009; hBiodiversity Assessment Unit, World Conservation Union’s Species Survival Commission͞Conservation International’s Center for Applied Biodiversity Science, Washington, DC 20036; iSkadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher, and Flom, Washington, DC 20005; jInstitute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, Regent’s Park, London NW1 4RY, United Kingdom; kSchool of Environmental and Information Sciences, The Johnstone Centre, Charles Sturt University, Albury NSW 2640, Australia; lNatureServe, Arlington, VA 22209; mBiology Department, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620; and nMissouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis, MO 63166 Communicated by Paul R. Ehrlich, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, October 18, 2005 (received for review October 7, 2005) Slowing rates of global biodiversity loss requires preventing spe- places that meet these criteria as ‘‘sites’’ and to species that cies extinctions. Here we pinpoint centers of imminent extinction, trigger them as ‘‘trigger species.’’) Using the resulting data set, where highly threatened species are confined to single sites. we examine the taxonomic and geographic distributions of Within five globally assessed taxa (i.e., mammals, birds, selected trigger species and sites, and we compare them with the reptiles, amphibians, and conifers), we find 794 such species, three distributions of historical extinctions to examine shifts in times the number recorded as having gone extinct since 1500. extinction risk over time. We also determine protection status These species occur in 595 sites, concentrated in tropical forests, on of current sites, assess levels of surrounding human activity, islands, and in mountainous areas. Their taxonomic and geograph- and estimate the costs required to adequately conserve them. ical distribution differs significantly from that of historical extinc- These analyses are intended to complement and inform on- tions, indicating an expansion of the current extinction episode going efforts to conserve global biodiversity (5–10) by iden- beyond sensitive species and places toward the planet’s most tifying sites where urgent conservation action can help to biodiverse mainland regions. Only one-third of the sites are legally prevent species extinctions. protected, and most are surrounded by intense human develop- ment. These sites represent clear opportunities for urgent conser- Methods vation action to prevent species loss. We applied three criteria to identify sites. First, a site must contain at least one endangered or critically endangered species, biodiversity ͉ conservation ͉ protected area ͉ threatened species as listed on the 2004 World Conservation Union (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species (www.iucnredlist.org). A site cannot ecent human-induced extinction rates are 100-1,000 times be designated on the basis of unlisted or unevaluated species, Rthe geological background rate and are predicted to increase data deficient species, or vulnerable species. A site may be another 10-fold (1). In response, 188 countries have committed designated as the only suitable reintroduction site for a species to slowing global biodiversity loss (2). Over the long term, assessed as extinct in the wild; only two sites were triggered by achieving this ambitious goal requires broadscale, proactive this criterion. We adopted the taxonomy followed by the IUCN conservation to protect entire ecosystems before their compo- Red List at the species level and did not identify sites for nent species become threatened (3). Many species, however, are subspecies or subpopulations. already so endangered by human activities that they will likely Second, a site must (i) be the sole area where an endangered or disappear without immediate site-specific action. Preventing critically endangered species occurs, (ii) contain the overwhelm- these extinctions must be part of any global strategy to reduce ingly significant (more than Ϸ95% of the global population) known biodiversity loss. resident population of the species, or (iii) contain the overwhelm- Among the species of primary conservation concern are those ingly significant known population for one life-history segment that are both highly threatened and restricted to single locations. (e.g., breeding or nonbreeding) of the species. Less than 10% of all The sites containing such species represent the extremes of two sites were triggered by (ii), and only 15 sites (2 for migratory birds widely accepted principles for prioritizing conservation action: and 13 for breeding seabirds) were triggered by (iii). threat (i.e., the likelihood that the biodiversity in that site will be Third, a site must have a definable boundary, within which lost) and irreplaceability (i.e., the degree to which options for habitats, biological communities, or management issues share conservation are lost without the site) (4). With small popula- more in common with each other than they do with those in tions, extreme vulnerability to habitat destruction, and limited adjacent areas (e.g., a single lake, mountaintop, or forest frag- options for conservation, these species face imminent extinction ment). The boundary of the area was defined to correspond to in the absence of appropriate conservation action. Furthermore, the most practical conservation unit, including considerations of immediate requirements for their conservation are relatively contiguous habitat, management units, and the potential for straightforward; although a variety of conservation activities significant gene flow among populations. There was no explicit may eventually be needed, the obvious immediate goal is to size criterion for sites, but median size of sites for which size conserve habitat in their single remaining sites. To locate such species, we examine five major taxa for which global data are available (i.e., mammals, birds, selected rep- Conflict of interest statement: No conflicts declared. tiles, amphibians, and conifers) and identify sites that (i) Freely available online through the PNAS open access option. Abbreviation: IUCN, World Conservation Union. contain at least one highly threatened species, (ii) represent ECOLOGY essentially the sole area of occurrence for the species, and (iii), bTo whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected]. permit management as a discrete unit. (Hereafter, we refer to © 2005 by The National Academy of Sciences of the USA www.pnas.org͞cgi͞doi͞10.1073͞pnas.0509060102 PNAS ͉ December 20, 2005 ͉ vol. 102 ͉ no. 51 ͉ 18497–18501 Downloaded by guest on September 30, 2021 Fig. 1. Map of 595 sites of imminent species extinction. Yellow sites are either fully or partially contained within declared protected areas (n ϭ 203 and 87, respectively), and red sites are completely unprotected or have unknown protection status (n ϭ 257 and 48, respectively; see Methods). In areas of overlap, unprotected (red) sites are mapped above protected (yellow) sites to highlight the more urgent conservation priorities. information was available was 12,060 hectares. Although this site one of four levels of protection to describe their spatial overlap definition is not fully objective and repeatable, it balances with protected areas: fully protected, partially protected, not scientific objectivity with management practicality and follows protected, or unknown. We defined protection as management the methodology applied in studies in refs. 9–11. primarily for nature conservation, a definition that roughly Data on species’ threat were taken from the 2004 IUCN Red corresponds to categories I–IV in the IUCNЈs classification of List of Threatened Species (www.iucnredlist.org). To reduce protected areas (18). geographic biases, we limited our analyses to taxa that have been To assess geographical patterns among sites, we used a globally assessed by the IUCN Red List. Cycads, the only other geographic information system to assign sites to terrestrial globally assessed taxon, will likely be incorporated into the data ecoregions, biomes, biogeographic realms, islands, and moun- set next year. For reptiles, only three clades have been globally tainous areas. We defined ecoregions, biomes, and realms assessed (i.e., order Testudines, order Crocodylia, and family following Olson et al. (13) and mountainous areas following the Iguanidae), representing Ϸ4% of all reptile species (www. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (19). We defined islands as reptile-database.org). We do not claim these clades to be rep- landmasses smaller than Greenland and used ESRI vector map resentative of overall patterns of reptile