Effectiveness of protected areas for vertebrates based on taxonomic and phylogenetic diversity

Establishing protected areas is the primary goal and tool for preventing irreversible biodiversity loss. However, the effectiveness of protected areas that target specific species has been questioned for some time because targeting key species for conservation may impair the integral regional pool of species diversity and phylogenetic and functional diversity are seldom considered. We assessed the efficacy of protected areas in China for the conservation of phylogenetic diversity based on the ranges and phylogenies of 2279 terrestrial vertebrates. Phylogenetic and taxonomic diversity were strongly and positively correlated, and only 12.1–43.8% of priority conservation areas are currently protected. However, the patterns and coverage of phylogenetic diversity were affected when weighted by species richness. These results indicated that in China, protected areas targeting high species richness protected phylogenetic diversity well overall but failed to do so in some regions with more unique or threatened communities (e.g., coastal areas of eastern China, where severely threatened avian communities were less protected). Our results suggest that the current distribution of protected areas could be improved, although most protected areas protect both taxonomic and phylogenetic diversity.     

Offsets and Conservation of the Species of the EU Habitats and Birds Directives

Biodiversity offsets are intended to achieve no net loss of biodiversity due to economic and human development. A variety of biodiversity components are addressed by offset policies. It is required that loss of protected species due to development be offset under the EU Habitats and Birds Directives in Europe. We call this type of offset a species‐equality offset because the offset pertains to the same species affected by the development project. Whether species equality can be achieved by offset design is unknown. We addressed this gap by reviewing derogation files (i.e., specific files that describe mitigation measures to ensure no net loss under the EU Habitats and Birds Directives) from 85 development projects in France (2009–2010). We collected information on type of effect (reversible vs. irreversible) and characteristics of affected and offset sites (i.e., types of species, total area). We analyzed how the type of effect and the affected‐site characteristics influenced the occurrence of offset measures. The proportion of species targeted by offset measures (i.e., offset species) increased with the irreversibility of the effect of development and the conservation status of the species affected by development (i.e., affected species). Not all effects on endangered species (International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List) were offset; on average, 82% of affected species would be offset. Twenty‐six percent of species of least concern were offset species. Thirty‐five percent of development projects considered all affected species in their offset measures. Species richness was much lower in offset sites than in developed sites even after offset proposals. For developed areas where species richness was relatively high before development, species richness at offset sites was 5–10 times lower. The species‐equality principle appears to have been applied only partially in offset policies, as in the EU directives. We suggest the application of this principle through offsets is highly important for the long‐term conservation of biodiversity in Europe. Compensaciones y Conservación de las Especies de las Directivas de Hábitats y Aves de la UE     

Combining geodiversity with climate and topography to account for threatened species richness

Understanding threatened species diversity is important for long‐term conservation planning. Geodiversity—the diversity of Earth surface materials, forms, and processes—may be a useful biodiversity surrogate for conservation and have conservation value itself. Geodiversity and species richness relationships have been demonstrated; establishing whether geodiversity relates to threatened species’ diversity and distribution pattern is a logical next step for conservation. We used 4 geodiversity variables (rock‐type and soil‐type richness, geomorphological diversity, and hydrological feature diversity) and 4 climatic and topographic variables to model threatened species diversity across 31 of Finland's national parks. We also analyzed rarity‐weighted richness (a measure of site complementarity) of threatened vascular plants, fungi, bryophytes, and all species combined. Our 1‐km² resolution data set included 271 threatened species from 16 major taxa. We modeled threatened species richness (raw and rarity weighted) with boosted regression trees. Climatic variables, especially the annual temperature sum above 5 °C, dominated our models, which is consistent with the critical role of temperature in this boreal environment. Geodiversity added significant explanatory power. High geodiversity values were consistently associated with high threatened species richness across taxa. The combined effect of geodiversity variables was even more pronounced in the rarity‐weighted richness analyses (except for fungi) than in those for species richness. Geodiversity measures correlated most strongly with species richness (raw and rarity weighted) of threatened vascular plants and bryophytes and were weakest for molluscs, lichens, and mammals. Although simple measures of topography improve biodiversity modeling, our results suggest that geodiversity data relating to geology, landforms, and hydrology are also worth including. This reinforces recent arguments that conserving nature's stage is an important principle in conservation.     

Selection of Multiple Umbrella Species for Functional and Taxonomic Diversity to Represent Urban Biodiversity

Surrogates, such as umbrella species, are commonly used to reduce the complexity of quantifying biodiversity for conservation purposes. The presence of umbrella species is often indicative of high taxonomic diversity; however, functional diversity is now recognized as an important metric for biodiversity and thus should be considered when choosing umbrella species. We identified umbrella species associated with high taxonomic and functional biodiversity in urban areas in Switzerland. We analyzed 39,752 individuals of 574 animal species from 96 study plots and 1397 presences of 262 plant species from 58 plots. Thirty‐one biodiversity measures of 7 taxonomic groups (plants, spiders, bees, ground beetles, lady bugs, weevils and birds) were included in within‐ and across‐taxa analyses. Sixteen measures were taxonomical (species richness and species diversity), whereas 15 were functional (species traits including mobility, resource use, and reproduction). We used indicator value analysis to identify umbrella species associated with single or multiple biodiversity measures. Many umbrella species were indicators of high biodiversity within their own taxonomic group (from 33.3% in weevils to 93.8% in birds), to a lesser extent they were indicators across taxa. Principal component analysis revealed that umbrella species for multiple measures of biodiversity represented different aspects of biodiversity, especially with respect to measures of taxonomic and functional diversity. Thus, even umbrella species for multiple measures of biodiversity were complementary in the biodiversity aspects they represented. Thus, the choice of umbrella species based solely on taxonomic diversity is questionable and may not represent biodiversity comprehensively. Our results suggest that, depending on conservation priorities, managers should choose multiple and complementary umbrella species to assess the state of biodiversity. Selección de Múltiples Especies Paraguas para la Diversidad Funcional y Taxonómica para Representar la Biodiversidad Urbana     

When all life counts in conservation

Conservation science involves the collection and analysis of data. These scientific practices emerge from values that shape who and what is counted. Currently, conservation data are filtered through a value system that considers native life the only appropriate subject of conservation concern. We examined how trends in species richness, distribution, and threats change when all wildlife count by adding so-called non-native and feral populations to the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List and local species richness assessments. We focused on vertebrate populations with founding members taken into and out of Australia by humans (i.e., migrants). We identified 87 immigrant and 47 emigrant vertebrate species. Formal conservation accounts underestimated global ranges by an average of 30% for immigrants and 7% for emigrants; immigrations surpassed extinctions in Australia by 52 species; migrants were disproportionately threatened (33% of immigrants and 29% of emigrants were threatened or decreasing in their native ranges); and incorporating migrant populations into risk assessments reduced global threat statuses for 15 of 18 species. Australian policies defined most immigrants as pests (76%), and conservation was the most commonly stated motivation for targeting these species in killing programs (37% of immigrants). Inclusive biodiversity data open space for dialogue on the ethical and empirical assumptions underlying conservation science.     

Seed plant phylogenetic diversity and species richness in conservation planning within a global biodiversity hotspot in eastern Asia

One of the main goals of conservation biology is to understand the factors shaping variation in biodiversity across the planet. This understanding is critical for conservation planners to be able to develop effective conservation strategies. Although many studies have focused on species richness and the protection of rare and endemic species, less attention has been paid to the protection of the phylogenetic dimension of biodiversity. We explored how phylogenetic diversity, species richness, and phylogenetic community structure vary in seed plant communities along an elevational gradient in a relatively understudied high mountain region, the Dulong Valley, in southeastern Tibet, China. As expected, phylogenetic diversity was well correlated with species richness among the elevational bands and among communities. At the community level, evergreen broad‐leaved forests had the highest levels of species richness and phylogenetic diversity. Using null model analyses, we found evidence of nonrandom phylogenetic structure across the region. Evergreen broad‐leaved forests were phylogenetically overdispersed, whereas other vegetation types tended to be phylogenetically clustered. We suggest that communities with high species richness or overdispersed phylogenetic structure should be a focus for biodiversity conservation within the Dulong Valley because these areas may help maximize the potential of this flora to respond to future global change. In biodiversity hotspots worldwide, we suggest that the phylogenetic structure of a community may serve as a useful measure of phylogenetic diversity in the context of conservation planning.     

Conservation Assessment of Southern South American Freshwater Ecoregions on the Basis of the Distribution and Genetic Diversity of Crabs from the Genus Aegla

Abstract:  We assessed the conservation priority of 18 freshwater ecoregions in southern South America on the basis of Aegla (genus of freshwater crabs) genetic diversity and distribution. Geographical distributions for 66 Aegla species were taken from the literature and plotted against ecoregions and main river basins of southern South America. Species richness and number of threatened and endemic species were calculated for each area. To assess taxonomic and phylogenetic diversity, we generated a molecular phylogeny based on DNA sequences for one nuclear (28S) and 4 mitochondrial (12S, 16S, COI, and COII) genes. All species richness and phylogenetic methods agreed, to a large extent, in their rankings of the importance of conservation areas, as indicated by the Spearman's rank correlation coefficient ( p < 0.01); nonetheless, some of the lowest correlations were observed between taxonomic and phylogenetic diversity indices. The 5 ecoregions of the Laguna dos Patos Basin (Eastern Brazil), Central Chile, South Brazilian Coast, Chilean Lakes, and Subtropical Potamic Axis (northern Argentina and southern Uruguay and Paraguay) had the highest biodiversity scores. Conservation of these regions will preserve the largest number of species and the greatest amount of genetic diversity within the South American freshwater Aegla fauna. Biodiversity across rivers and within areas was heterogeneously distributed in the ecoregions of Upper Paraná, Ribeira do Iguape, Upper Uruguay, and South Brazilian Coast (i.e., one river showed significantly more biodiversity than any other river from the same ecoregion), but homogeneously distributed in the other ecoregions. Hence, conservation plans in the former regions will potentially require less effort than plans in the latter regions.     

Priority areas for conservation of and research focused on terrestrial vertebrates

Effective conservation policies require comprehensive knowledge of biodiversity. However, knowledge shortfalls still remain, hindering possibilities to improve decision making and built such policies. During the last 2 decades, conservationists have made great efforts to allocate resources as efficiently as possible but have rarely considered the idea that if research investments are also strategically allocated, it would likely fill knowledge gaps while simultaneously improving conservation actions. Therefore, prioritizing areas where both conservation and research actions could be conducted becomes a critical endeavor that can further maximize return on investment. We used Zonation, a conservation planning tool and geographical distributions of amphibians, birds, mammals, and reptiles to suggest and compare priority areas for conservation and research of terrestrial vertebrates worldwide. We also evaluated the degree of human disturbance in both types of priority areas by describing the value of the human footprint index within such areas. The spatial concordance between priority conservation and research areas was low: 0.36% of the world's land area. In these areas, we found it would be possible to protect almost half of the currently threatened species and to gather information on nearly 42% of data-deficient (DD) species. We also found that 6199 protected areas worldwide are located in such places, although only 35% of them have strict conservation purposes. Areas of consensus between conservation and research areas represent an opportunity for simultaneously conserving and acquiring knowledge of threatened and DD species of vertebrates. Although the picture is not the most encouraging, joint conservation and research efforts are possible and should be fostered to save vertebrate species from our own ignorance and extinction.     

Biogeographical and Taxonomic Biases in Tropical Forest Fragmentation Research

Despite several decades of research on the effects of fragmentation and habitat change on biodiversity, there remain strong biases in the geographical regions and taxonomic species studied. The knowledge gaps resulting from these biases are of particular concern if the forests most threatened with modification are also those for which the effects of such change are most poorly understood. To quantify the nature and magnitude of such biases, we conducted a systematic review of the published literature on forest fragmentation in the tropics for the period 1980–2012. Studies included focused on any type of response of single species, communities, or assemblages of any taxonomic group to tropical forest fragmentation and on fragmentation‐related changes to forests. Of the 853 studies we found in the SCOPUS database, 64% were conducted in the Neotropics, 13% in Asia, 10% in the Afrotropics, and 5% in Australasia. Thus, although the Afrotropics is subject to the highest rates of deforestation globally, it was the most disproportionately poorly studied biome. Significant taxonomic biases were identified. Of the taxonomic groups considered, herpetofauna was the least studied in the tropics, particularly in Africa. Research examining patterns of species distribution was by far the most common type (72%), and work focused on ecological processes (28%) was rare in all biomes, but particularly in the Afrotropics and for fauna. We suggest research efforts be directed toward less‐studied biogeographic regions, particularly where the threat of forest fragmentation continues to be high. Increased research investment in the Afrotropics will be important to build knowledge of threats and inform responses in a region where almost no efforts to restore its fragmented landscapes have yet begun and forest protection is arguably most tenuous. Sesgos Biogeográficos y Taxonómicos en la Investigación de la Fragmentación de Bosques Tropicales     

Constraints of philanthropy on determining the distribution of biodiversity conservation funding

Caught between ongoing habitat destruction and funding shortfalls, conservation organizations are using systematic planning approaches to identify places that offer the highest biodiversity return per dollar invested. However, available tools do not account for the landscape of funding for conservation or quantify the constraints this landscape imposes on conservation outcomes. Using state‐level data on philanthropic giving to and investments in land conservation by a large nonprofit organization, we applied linear regression to evaluate whether the spatial distribution of conservation philanthropy better explained expenditures on conservation than maps of biodiversity priorities, which were derived from a planning process internal to the organization and return on investment (ROI) analyses based on data on species richness, land costs, and existing protected areas. Philanthropic fund raising accounted for considerably more spatial variation in conservation spending (r² = 0.64) than either of the 2 systematic conservation planning approaches (r² = 0.08–0.21). We used results of one of the ROI analyses to evaluate whether increases in flexibility to reallocate funding across space provides conservation gains. Small but plausible “tax” increments of 1–10% on states redistributed to the optimal funding allocation from the ROI analysis could result in gains in endemic species protected of 8.5–80.2%. When such increases in spatial flexibility are not possible, conservation organizations should seek to cultivate increased support for conservation in priority locations. We used lagged correlations of giving to and spending by the organization to evaluate whether investments in habitat protection stimulate future giving to conservation. The most common outcome at the state level was that conservation spending quarters correlated significantly and positively with lagged fund raising quarters. In effect, periods of high fund raising for biodiversity followed (rather than preceded) periods of high expenditure on land conservation projects, identifying one mechanism conservation organizations could explore to seed greater activity in priority locations. Our results demonstrate how limitations on the ability of conservation organizations to reallocate their funding across space can impede organizational effectiveness and elucidate ways conservation planning tools could be more useful if they quantified and incorporated these constraints.     

Bias in protected‐area location and its effects on long‐term aspirations of biodiversity conventions

To contribute to the aspirations of recent international biodiversity conventions, protected areas (PAs) must be strategically located and not simply established on economically marginal lands as they have in the past. With refined international commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity to target protected areas in places of “importance to biodiversity,” perhaps they may now be. We analyzed location biases in PAs globally over historic (pre‐2004) and recent periods. Specifically, we examined whether the location of protected areas are more closely associated with high concentrations of threatened vertebrate species or with areas of low agricultural opportunity costs. We found that both old and new protected areas did not target places with high concentrations of threatened vertebrate species. Instead, they appeared to be established in locations that minimize conflict with agriculturally suitable lands. This entrenchment of past trends has substantial implications for the contributions these protected areas are making to international commitments to conserve biodiversity. If protected‐area growth from 2004 to 2014 had strategically targeted unrepresented threatened vertebrates, >30 times more species (3086 or 2553 potential vs. 85 actual new species represented) would have been protected for the same area or the same cost as the actual expansion. With the land available for conservation declining, nations must urgently focus new protection on places that provide for the conservation outcomes outlined in international treaties.     

Global reforestation and biodiversity conservation

The loss of forest is a leading cause of species extinction, and reforestation is 1 of 2 established interventions for reversing this loss. However, the role of reforestation for biodiversity conservation remains debated, and lacking is an assessment of the potential contribution that reforestation could make to biodiversity conservation globally. We conducted a spatial analysis of overlap between 1,550 forest-obligate threatened species’ ranges and land that could be reforested after accounting for socioeconomic and ecological constraints. Reforestation on at least 43% (∼369 million ha) of reforestable area was predicted to potentially benefit threatened vertebrates. This is approximately 15% of the total area where threatened vertebrates occur. The greatest opportunities for conserving threatened vertebrate species are in the tropics, particularly Brazil and Indonesia. Although reforestation is not a substitute for forest conservation, and most of the area containing threatened vertebrates remains forested, our results highlight the need for global conservation strategies to recognize the potentially significant contribution that reforestation could make to biodiversity conservation. If implemented, reforestation of ∼369 million ha would also contribute substantially to climate-change mitigation, offering a way to achieve multiple sustainability commitments at once. Countries must now work to overcome key barriers (e.g., unclear revenue streams, high transaction costs) to investment in reforestation.     

Global gap analysis of cactus species and priority sites for their conservation

Knowing how much biodiversity is captured by protected areas (PAs) is important to meeting country commitments to international conservation agreements, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, and analyzing gaps in species coverage by PAs contributes greatly to improved locating of new PAs and conservation of species. Regardless of their importance, global gap analyses have been conducted only for a few taxonomic groups (e.g., mangroves, corals, amphibians, birds, mammals). We conducted the first global gap analysis for a complete specious plant group, the highly threatened Cactaceae. Using geographic distribution data of 1438 cactus species, we assessed how well the current PA network represents them. We also systematically identified priority areas for conservation of cactus species that met and failed to meet conservation targets accounting for their conservation status. There were 261 species with no coverage by PAs (gap species). A greater percentage of cacti species (18%) lacked protection than mammals (9.7%) and birds (5.6%), and also a greater percentage of threatened cacti species (32%) were outside protected areas than amphibians (26.5%), birds (19.9%), or mammals (16%). The top 17% of the landscape that best captured covered species represented on average 52.9% of species ranges. The priority areas for gap species and the unprotected portion of the ranges of species that only partially met their conservation target (i.e., partial gap) captured on average 75.2% of their ranges, of which 100 were threatened gap species. These findings and knowledge of the threats affecting species provide information that can be used to improve planning for cacti conservation and highlight the importance of assessing the representation of major groups, such as plants, in PAs to determining the performance of the current PA network.     

Intact Faunal Assemblages in the Modern Era

Abstract: In light of limited conservation funding, global conservation initiatives are increasingly focused on regions of the planet that have been identified as valuable on the basis of their species diversity, the vulnerability of resident species to extinction, or the perceived pristine nature of their ecosystems. Regions that have been resilient to high rates of extinction have not yet been systematically considered in conservation efforts. We used published range maps for 392 vertebrate species to compare historical and current species ranges. We used the results of the comparison to identify regions of the globe in which no known vertebrate species has been extirpated in the past 200 years. In 17 regions, no detectable vertebrate extinctions occurred in the past 200 years. In 6 other regions, reintroductions of species restored the full historic complement of vertebrate species. The effects of humans on a landscape, as measured by the human‐footprint index, although useful, was not a singularly good predictor of faunal intactness because more than 20% of intact land area was in heavily affected areas (50% of Earth's land area), and several regions where humans have had very little effect did not have intact faunas. Only 22% of intact land area was within protected‐area networks. High‐latitude areas were particularly underrepresented; they made up 3 of the 4 least‐protected areas in our analyses. Our results indicate that although protected areas are in some cases associated with the prevention of extinctions, there are many regions in which human activity coexists with intact vertebrate assemblages. In addition, our new approach for assessing the value of global regions for conservation identifies several regions that are not represented in other prioritization metrics.     

Prioritizing islands for the eradication of invasive vertebrates in the United Kingdom overseas territories

Invasive alien species are one of the primary threats to native biodiversity on islands worldwide. Consequently, eradicating invasive species from islands has become a mainstream conservation practice. Deciding which islands have the highest priority for eradication is of strategic importance to allocate limited resources to achieve maximum conservation benefit. Previous island prioritizations focused either on a narrow set of native species or on a small geographic area. We devised a prioritization approach that incorporates all threatened native terrestrial vertebrates and all invasive terrestrial vertebrates occurring on 11 U.K. overseas territories, which comprise over 2000 islands ranging from the sub‐Antarctic to the tropics. Our approach includes eradication feasibility and distinguishes between the potential and realistic conservation value of an eradication, which reflects the benefit that would accrue following eradication of either all invasive species or only those species for which eradication techniques currently exist. We identified the top 25 priority islands for invasive species eradication that together would benefit extant populations of 155 native species including 45 globally threatened species. The 5 most valuable islands included the 2 World Heritage islands Gough (South Atlantic) and Henderson (South Pacific) that feature unique seabird colonies, and Anegada, Little Cayman, and Guana Island in the Caribbean that feature a unique reptile fauna. This prioritization can be rapidly repeated if new information or techniques become available, and the approach could be replicated elsewhere in the world. Priorización de Islas para la Erradicación de Vertebrados Invasores en los Territorios Exteriores del Reino Unido     

Representation of critical natural capital in China

Traditional means of assessing representativeness of conservation value in protected areas depend on measures of structural biodiversity. The effectiveness of priority conservation areas at representing critical natural capital (CNC) (i.e., an essential and renewable subset of natural capital) remains largely unknown. We analyzed the representativeness of CNC‐conservation priority areas in national nature reserves (i.e., nature reserves under jurisdiction of the central government with large spatial distribution across the provinces) in China with a new biophysical‐based composite indicator approach. With this approach, we integrated the net primary production of vegetation, topography, soil, and climate variables to map and rank terrestrial ecosystems capacities to generate CNC. National nature reserves accounted for 6.7% of CNC‐conservation priority areas across China. Considerable gaps (35.2%) existed between overall (or potential) CNC representativeness nationally and CNC representation in national reserves, and there was significant spatial heterogeneity of representativeness in CNC‐conservation priority areas at the regional and provincial levels. For example, the best and worst representations were, respectively, 13.0% and 1.6% regionally and 28.9% and 0.0% provincially. Policy in China is transitioning toward the goal of an ecologically sustainable civilization. We identified CNC‐conservation priority areas and conservation gaps and thus contribute to the policy goals of optimization of the national nature reserve network and the demarcation of areas critical to improving the representativeness and conservation of highly functioning areas of natural capital. Moreover, our method for assessing representation of CNC can be easily adapted to other large‐scale networks of conservation areas because few data are needed, and our model is relatively simple.     

Spatial patterns of carbon,biodiversity, deforestation threat,and REDD+ projects in Indonesia

There are concerns that Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+) may fail to deliver potential biodiversity cobenefits if it is focused on high carbon areas. We explored the spatial overlaps between carbon stocks, biodiversity, projected deforestation threats, and the location of REDD+ projects in Indonesia, a tropical country at the forefront of REDD+ development. For biodiversity, we assembled data on the distribution of terrestrial vertebrates (ranges of amphibians, mammals, birds, reptiles) and plants (species distribution models for 8 families). We then investigated congruence between different measures of biodiversity richness and carbon stocks at the national and subnational scales. Finally, we mapped active REDD+ projects and investigated the carbon density and potential biodiversity richness and modeled deforestation pressures within these forests relative to protected areas and unprotected forests. There was little internal overlap among the different hotspots (richest 10% of cells) of species richness. There was also no consistent spatial congruence between carbon stocks and the biodiversity measures: a weak negative correlation at the national scale masked highly variable and nonlinear relationships island by island. Current REDD+ projects were preferentially located in areas with higher total species richness and threatened species richness but lower carbon densities than protected areas and unprotected forests. Although a quarter of the total area of these REDD+ projects is under relatively high deforestation pressure, the majority of the REDD+ area is not. In Indonesia at least, first‐generation REDD+ projects are located where they are likely to deliver biodiversity benefits. However, if REDD+ is to deliver additional gains for climate and biodiversity, projects will need to focus on forests with the highest threat to deforestation, which will have cost implications for future REDD+ implementation.     

The contribution of policy,law, management,research, and advocacy failings to the recent extinctions of three Australian vertebrate species

Extinctions typically have ecological drivers, such as habitat loss. However, extinction events are also influenced by policy and management settings that may be antithetical to biodiversity conservation, inadequate to prevent extinction, insufficiently resourced, or poorly implemented. Three endemic Australian vertebrate species—the Christmas Island pipistrelle (Pipistrellus murrayi), Bramble Cay melomys (Melomys rubicola), and Christmas Island forest skink (Emoia nativitatis)—became extinct from 2009 to 2014. All 3 extinctions were predictable and probably preventable. We sought to identify the policy, management, research, and other shortcomings that contributed to their extinctions or failed to prevent them. These included a lack within national environmental legislation and policy of explicit commitment to the prevention of avoidable extinctions, lack of explicit accountability, inadequate resources for conservation (particularly for species not considered charismatic or not of high taxonomic distinctiveness), inadequate biosecurity, a slow and inadequate process for listing species as threatened, recovery planning that failed to consider the need for emergency response, inability of researchers to identify major threatening factors, lack of public engagement and involvement in conservation decisions, and limited advocacy. From these 3 cases, we recommend: environmental policy explicitly seeks to prevent extinction of any species and provides a clear chain of accountability and an explicit requirement for public inquiry following any extinction; implementation of a timely and comprehensive process for listing species as threatened and for recovery planning; reservation alone not be assumed sufficient to maintain species; enhancement of biosecurity measures; allocation of sufficient resources to undertake actions necessary to prevent extinction; monitoring be considered a pivotal component of the conservation response; research provides timely identification of factors responsible for decline and of the risk of extinction; effective dissemination of research results; advocacy by an informed public for the recovery of threatened species; and public involvement in governance of the recovery process. These recommendations should be applicable broadly to reduce the likelihood and incidence of extinctions.     

Expanding Kenya's protected areas under the Convention on Biological Diversity to maximize coverage of plant diversity

Biodiversity is highly valuable and critically threatened by anthropogenic degradation of the natural environment. In response, governments have pledged enhanced protected‐area coverage, which requires scarce biological data to identify conservation priorities. To assist this effort, we mapped conservation priorities in Kenya based on maximizing alpha (species richness) and beta diversity (species turnover) of plant communities while minimizing economic costs. We used plant‐cover percentages from vegetation surveys of over 2000 plots to build separate models for each type of diversity. Opportunity and management costs were based on literature data and interviews with conservation organizations. Species richness was predicted to be highest in a belt from Lake Turkana through Mount Kenya and in a belt parallel to the coast, and species turnover was predicted to be highest in western Kenya and along the coast. Our results suggest the expanding reserve network should focus on the coast and northeastern provinces of Kenya, where new biological surveys would also fill biological data gaps. Meeting the Convention on Biological Diversity target of 17% terrestrial coverage by 2020 would increase representation of Kenya's plant communities by 75%. However, this would require about 50 times more funds than Kenya has received thus far from the Global Environment Facility.