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.     

The importance of agricultural lands for Himalayan birds in winter

The impacts of land‐use change on biodiversity in the Himalayas are poorly known, notwithstanding widespread deforestation and agricultural intensification in this highly biodiverse region. Although intact primary forests harbor many Himalayan birds during breeding, a large number of bird species use agricultural lands during winter. We assessed how Himalayan bird species richness, abundance, and composition during winter are affected by forest loss stemming from agriculture and grazing. Bird surveys along 12 elevational transects within primary forest, low‐intensity agriculture, mixed subsistence agriculture, and intensively grazed pastures in winter revealed that bird species richness and abundance were greatest in low‐intensity and mixed agriculture, intermediate in grazed pastures, and lowest in primary forest at both local and landscape scales; over twice as many species and individuals were recorded in low‐intensity agriculture than in primary forest. Bird communities in primary forests were distinct from those in all other land‐use classes, but only 4 species were unique to primary forests. Low‐, medium‐, and high‐intensity agriculture harbored 32 unique species. Of the species observed in primary forest, 80% had equal or greater abundance in low‐intensity agricultural lands, underscoring the value of these lands in retaining diverse community assemblages at high densities in winter. Among disturbed landscapes, bird species richness and abundance declined as land‐use intensity increased, especially in high‐intensity pastures. Our results suggest that agricultural landscapes are important for most Himalayan bird species in winter. But agricultural intensification—especially increased grazing—will likely result in biodiversity losses. Given that forest reserves alone may inadequately conserve Himalayan birds in winter, comprehensive conservation strategies in the region must go beyond protecting intact primary forests and ensure that low‐intensity agricultural lands are not extensively converted to high‐intensity pastures.     

Effect of Land Cover and Ecosystem Mapping on Ecosystem‐Risk Assessment in the Little Karoo,South Africa

Extinction‐risk assessments aim to identify biological diversity features threatened with extinction. Although largely developed at the species level, these assessments have recently been applied at the ecosystem level. In South Africa, national legislation provides for the listing and protection of threatened ecosystems. We assessed how land‐cover mapping and the detail of ecosystem classification affected the results of risk assessments that were based on extent of habitat loss. We tested 3 ecosystem classifications and 4 land‐cover data sets of the Little Karoo region, South Africa. Degraded land (in particular, overgrazed areas) was successfully mapped in just one of the land‐cover data sets. From <3% to 25% of the Little Karoo was classified as threatened, depending on the land‐cover data set and ecosystem classification applied. The full suite of threatened ecosystems on a fine‐scale map was never completely represented within the spatial boundaries of a coarse‐scale map of threatened ecosystems. Our assessments highlight the importance of land‐degradation mapping for the listing of threatened ecosystems. On the basis of our results, we recommend that when budgets are constrained priority be given to generating more‐detailed land‐cover data sets rather than more‐detailed ecosystem classifications for the assessment of threatened ecosystems. El Efecto de la Cobertura Terrestre y el Mapeo de Ecosistemas en la Valoración de Riesgos en los Ecosistemas en Little Karoo, Sudáfrica     

Thresholds of species loss in Amazonian deforestation frontier landscapes

In the Brazilian Amazon, private land accounts for the majority of remaining native vegetation. Understanding how land‐use change affects the composition and distribution of biodiversity in farmlands is critical for improving conservation strategies in the face of rapid agricultural expansion. Working across an area exceeding 3 million ha in the southwestern state of Rondônia, we assessed how the extent and configuration of remnant forest in replicate 10,000‐ha landscapes has affected the occurrence of a suite of Amazonian mammals and birds. In each of 31 landscapes, we used field sampling and semistructured interviews with landowners to determine the presence of 28 large and medium sized mammals and birds, as well as a further 7 understory birds. We then combined results of field surveys and interviews with a probabilistic model of deforestation. We found strong evidence for a threshold response of sampled biodiversity to landscape level forest cover; landscapes with <30–40% forest cover hosted markedly fewer species. Results from field surveys and interviews yielded similar thresholds. These results imply that in partially deforested landscapes many species are susceptible to extirpation following relatively small additional reductions in forest area. In the model of deforestation by 2030 the number of 10,000‐ha landscapes under a conservative threshold of 43% forest cover almost doubled, such that only 22% of landscapes would likely to be able to sustain at least 75% of the 35 focal species we sampled. Brazilian law requires rural property owners in the Amazon to retain 80% forest cover, although this is rarely achieved. Prioritizing efforts to ensure that entire landscapes, rather than individual farms, retain at least 50% forest cover may help safeguard native biodiversity in private forest reserves in the Amazon. Umbrales de Pérdida de Especies en los Paisajes Fronterizos de Deforestación en el Amazonas Ochoa‐Quintero     

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.     

Bird‐community responses to habitat creation in a long‐term,large‐scale natural experiment

Ecosystem function and resilience are compromised when habitats become fragmented due to land‐use change. This has led to national and international conservation strategies aimed at restoring habitat extent and improving functional connectivity (i.e., maintaining dispersal processes). However, biodiversity responses to landscape‐scale habitat creation and the relative importance of spatial and temporal scales are poorly understood, and there is disagreement over which conservation strategies should be prioritized. We used 160 years of historic post‐agricultural woodland creation as a natural experiment to evaluate biodiversity responses to habitat creation in a landscape context. Birds were surveyed in 101 secondary, broadleaf woodlands aged 10–160 years with ≥80% canopy cover and in landscapes with 0‐17% broadleaf woodland cover within 3000 m. We used piecewise structural equation modeling to examine the direct and indirect relationships between bird abundance and diversity, ecological continuity, patch characteristics, and landscape structure and quantified the relative conservation value of local and landscape scales for bird communities. Ecological continuity indirectly affected overall bird abundance and species richness through its effects on stand structure, but had a weaker influence (effect size near 0) on the abundance and diversity of species most closely associated with woodland habitats. This was probably because woodlands were rapidly colonized by woodland generalists in ≤10 years (minimum patch age) but were on average too young (median 50 years) to be colonized by woodland specialists. Local patch characteristics were relatively more important than landscape characteristics for bird communities. Based on our results, biodiversity responses to habitat creation depended on local‐ and landscape‐scale factors that interacted across time and space. We suggest that there is a need for further studies that focus on habitat creation in a landscape context and that knowledge gained from studies of habitat fragmentation and loss should be used to inform habitat creation with caution because the outcomes are not necessarily reciprocal.     

Future habitat loss and extinctions driven by land‐use change in biodiversity hotspots under four scenarios of climate‐change mitigation

Numerous species have been pushed into extinction as an increasing portion of Earth's land surface has been appropriated for human enterprise. In the future, global biodiversity will be affected by both climate change and land‐use change, the latter of which is currently the primary driver of species extinctions. How societies address climate change will critically affect biodiversity because climate‐change mitigation policies will reduce direct climate‐change impacts; however, these policies will influence land‐use decisions, which could have negative impacts on habitat for a substantial number of species. We assessed the potential impact future climate policy could have on the loss of habitable area in biodiversity hotspots due to associated land‐use changes. We estimated past extinctions from historical land‐use changes (1500–2005) based on the global gridded land‐use data used for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report and habitat extent and species data for each hotspot. We then estimated potential extinctions due to future land‐use changes under alternative climate‐change scenarios (2005–2100). Future land‐use changes are projected to reduce natural vegetative cover by 26‐58% in the hotspots. As a consequence, the number of additional species extinctions, relative to those already incurred between 1500 and 2005, due to land‐use change by 2100 across all hotspots ranged from about 220 to 21000 (0.2% to 16%), depending on the climate‐change mitigation scenario and biological factors such as the slope of the species–area relationship and the contribution of wood harvest to extinctions. These estimates of potential future extinctions were driven by land‐use change only and likely would have been higher if the direct effects of climate change had been considered. Future extinctions could potentially be reduced by incorporating habitat preservation into scenario development to reduce projected future land‐use changes in hotspots or by lessening the impact of future land‐use activities on biodiversity within hotspots.     

Benefits to poorly studied taxa of conservation of bird and mammal diversity on islands

Protected area delineation and conservation action are urgently needed on marine islands, but the potential biodiversity benefits of these activities can be difficult to assess due to lack of species diversity information for lesser known taxa. We used linear mixed effects modeling and simple spatial analyses to investigate whether conservation activities based on the diversity of well‐known insular taxa (birds and mammals) are likely to also capture the diversity of lesser known taxa (reptiles, amphibians, vascular land plants, ants, land snails, butterflies, and tenebrionid beetles). We assembled total, threatened, and endemic diversity data for both well‐known and lesser known taxa and combined these with physical island biogeography characteristics for 1190 islands from 109 archipelagos. Among physical island biogeography factors, island area was the best indicator of diversity of both well‐known and little‐known taxa. Among taxonomic factors, total mammal species richness was the best indicator of total diversity of lesser known taxa, and the combination of threatened mammal and threatened bird diversity was the best indicator of lesser known endemic richness. The results of other intertaxon diversity comparisons were highly variable, however. Based on our results, we suggest that protecting islands above a certain minimum threshold area may be the most efficient use of conservation resources. For example, using our island database, if the threshold were set at 10 km² and the smallest 10% of islands greater than this threshold were protected, 119 islands would be protected. The islands would range in size from 10 to 29 km² and would include 268 lesser known species endemic to a single island, along with 11 bird and mammal species endemic to a single island. Our results suggest that for islands of equivalent size, prioritization based on total or threatened bird and mammal diversity may also capture opportunities to protect lesser known species endemic to islands. Beneficios de los Taxa Poco Estudiados para la Conservación de la Diversidad de Aves y Mamíferos en Islas     

Trade‐Offs between Cattle Production and Bird Conservation in an Agricultural Frontier of the Gran Chaco of Argentina

Intensification of food production in tropical landscapes in the absence of land‐use planning can pose a major threat to biological diversity. Decisions on whether to spatially integrate or segregate lands for production and conservation depend in part on the functional relations between biological diversity and agricultural productivity. We measured diversity, density, and species composition of birds along a gradient of production intensification on an agricultural frontier of the Argentine Chaco, where dry tropical forests are cleared for cattle production. Bird species diversity in intact forests was higher than in any type of cattle‐production system. Bird species richness decreased nonlinearly as cattle yield increased. Intermediate‐intensity silvopastoral systems, those in which forest understory is selectively cleared to grow pastures of non‐native plants beneath the tree canopy, produced 80% of the mean cattle yield obtained in pastures on cleared areas and were occupied by 70–90% of the number of bird species present in the nearest forest fragments. Densities of >50% of bird species were significantly lower in open pastures than in silvopastoral systems. Therefore, intermediate‐intensity silvopastoral systems may have the greatest potential to sustain cattle yield and conserve a large percentage of bird species. However, compared with low‐intensity production systems, in which forest structure and extent were intact, intermediate‐intensity silvopastoral systems supported significantly fewer forest‐restricted bird species and fewer frugivorous birds. These data suggest that the integration of production and conservation through intermediate‐intensity silvopastoral systems combined with the protection of forest fragments may be required to maintain cattle yield, bird diversity, and conservation of forest‐restricted species in this agricultural frontier. Compromisos entre la Producción de Ganado y la Conservación de Aves en una Frontera Agrícola del Gran Chaco de Argentina     

The Silent Mass Extinction of Insect Herbivores in Biodiversity Hotspots

Abstract: Habitat loss is silently leading numerous insects to extinction. Conservation efforts, however, have not been designed specifically to protect these organisms, despite their ecological and evolutionary significance. On the basis of species–host area equations, parameterized with data from the literature and interviews with botanical experts, I estimated the number of specialized plant‐feeding insects (i.e., monophages) that live in 34 biodiversity hotspots and the number committed to extinction because of habitat loss. I estimated that 795,971–1,602,423 monophagous insect species live in biodiversity hotspots on 150,371 endemic plant species, which is 5.3–10.6 monophages per plant species. I calculated that 213,830–547,500 monophagous species are committed to extinction in biodiversity hotspots because of reduction of the geographic range size of their endemic hosts. I provided rankings of biodiversity hotspots on the basis of estimated richness of monophagous insects and on estimated number of extinctions of monophagous species. Extinction rates were predicted to be higher in biodiversity hotspots located along strong environmental gradients and on archipelagos, where high spatial turnover of monophagous species along the geographic distribution of their endemic plants is likely. The results strongly support the overall strategy of selecting priority conservation areas worldwide primarily on the basis of richness of endemic plants. To face the global decline of insect herbivores, one must expand the coverage of the network of protected areas and improve the richness of native plants on private lands.     

Relative Importance of the Area and Shape of Patches to the Diversity of Multiple Taxa

Abstract: Although enhancing reserve shape has been suggested as an alternative to enlarging nature reserves, the importance of reserve shape relative to reserve area remains unclear. Here we examined the relative importance of area and shape of forest patches to species richness, species composition, and species abundance (abundance of each species) for 3 taxa (33 birds, 41 butterflies, and 91 forest‐floor plants) in a fragmented landscape in central Hokkaido, northern Japan. We grouped the species according to their potential edge responses (interior‐, neutral‐, and edge‐species groups for birds and forest‐floor plants, woodland‐ and open‐land‐species groups for butterflies) and analyzed them separately. We used a shape index that was independent of area as an index of shape circularization. Hierarchical partitioning and variation partitioning revealed that patch area was generally more important than patch shape for species richness and species composition of birds and butterflies. For forest‐floor plants, effects of patch area and shape were small, whereas effects of local forest structure were large. Patch area and circularization generally increased abundances of interior species of birds and forest‐floor plants and woodland species of butterflies. Nevertheless, only patch circularization increased abundances of 1 woodland species of butterfly and 2 and 6 interior species of birds and forest‐floor plants, respectively. We did not find any significant interaction effects between patch area and shape. Our results suggest that although reserves generally should be large and circular, there is a trade‐off between patch area and shape, which should be taken into consideration when managing reserves.     

Biodiversity Loss in Latin American Coffee Landscapes: Review of the Evidence on Ants,Birds, and Trees

Abstract: Studies have documented biodiversity losses due to intensification of coffee management (reduction in canopy richness and complexity). Nevertheless, questions remain regarding relative sensitivity of different taxa, habitat specialists, and functional groups, and whether implications for biodiversity conservation vary across regions. We quantitatively reviewed data from ant, bird, and tree biodiversity studies in coffee agroecosystems to address the following questions: Does species richness decline with intensification or with individual vegetation characteristics? Are there significant losses of species richness in coffee‐management systems compared with forests? Is species loss greater for forest species or for particular functional groups? and Are ants or birds more strongly affected by intensification? Across studies, ant and bird richness declined with management intensification and with changes in vegetation. Species richness of all ants and birds and of forest ant and bird species was lower in most coffee agroecosystems than in forests, but rustic coffee (grown under native forest canopies) had equal or greater ant and bird richness than nearby forests. Sun coffee (grown without canopy trees) sustained the highest species losses, and species loss of forest ant, bird, and tree species increased with management intensity. Losses of ant and bird species were similar, although losses of forest ants were more drastic in rustic coffee. Richness of migratory birds and of birds that forage across vegetation strata was less affected by intensification than richness of resident, canopy, and understory bird species. Rustic farms protected more species than other coffee systems, and loss of species depended greatly on habitat specialization and functional traits. We recommend that forest be protected, rustic coffee be promoted, and intensive coffee farms be restored by augmenting native tree density and richness and allowing growth of epiphytes. We also recommend that future research focus on potential trade‐offs between biodiversity conservation and farmer livelihoods stemming from coffee production.     

Assessing strategies to reconcile agriculture and bird conservation in the temperate grasslands of South America

Globally, agriculture is the greatest source of threat to biodiversity, through both ongoing conversion of natural habitat and intensification of existing farmland. Land sparing and land sharing have been suggested as alternative approaches to reconcile this threat with the need for land to produce food. To examine which approach holds most promise for grassland species, we examined how bird population densities changed with farm yield (production per unit area) in the Campos of Brazil and Uruguay. We obtained information on biodiversity and crop yields from 24 sites that differed in agricultural yield. Density–yield functions were fitted for 121 bird species to describe the response of population densities to increasing farm yield, measured in terms of both food energy and profit. We categorized individual species according to how their population changed across the yield gradient as being positively or negatively affected by farming and according to whether the species’ total population size was greater under land‐sparing, land‐sharing, or an intermediate strategy. Irrespective of the yield, most species were negatively affected by farming. Increasing yields reduced densities of approximately 80% of bird species. We estimated land sparing would result in larger populations than other sorts of strategies for 67% to 70% of negatively affected species, given current production levels, including three threatened species. This suggests that increasing yields in some areas while reducing grazing to low levels elsewhere may be the best option for bird conservation in these grasslands. Implementing such an approach would require conservation and production policies to be explicitly linked to support yield increases in farmed areas and concurrently guarantee that larger areas of lightly grazed natural grasslands are set aside for conservation.     

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     

The Capacity of Australia's Protected‐Area System to Represent Threatened Species

Abstract: The acquisition or designation of new protected areas is usually based on criteria for representation of different ecosystems or land‐cover classes, and it is unclear how well‐threatened species are conserved within protected‐area networks. Here, we assessed how Australia's terrestrial protected‐area system (89 million ha, 11.6% of the continent) overlaps with the geographic distributions of threatened species and compared this overlap against a model that randomly placed protected areas across the continent and a spatially efficient model that placed protected areas across the continent to maximize threatened species’ representation within the protected‐area estate. We defined the minimum area needed to conserve each species on the basis of the species’ range size. We found that although the current configuration of protected areas met targets for representation of a given percentage of species’ ranges better than a random selection of areas, 166 (12.6%) threatened species occurred entirely outside protected areas and target levels of protection were met for only 259 (19.6%) species. Critically endangered species were among those with the least protection; 12 (21.1%) species occurred entirely outside protected areas. Reptiles and plants were the most poorly represented taxonomic groups, and amphibians the best represented. Spatial prioritization analyses revealed that an efficient protected‐area system of the same size as the current protected‐area system (11.6% of the area of Australia) could meet representation targets for 1272 (93.3%) threatened species. Moreover, the results of these prioritization analyses showed that by protecting 17.8% of Australia, all threatened species could reach target levels of representation, assuming all current protected areas are retained. Although this amount of area theoretically could be protected, existing land uses and the finite resources available for conservation mean land acquisition may not be possible or even effective for the recovery of threatened species. The optimal use of resources must balance acquisition of new protected areas, where processes that threaten native species are mitigated by the change in ownership or on‐ground management jurisdiction, and management of threatened species inside and outside the existing protected‐area system.     

Applying network theory to prioritize multispecies habitat networks that are robust to climate and land‐use change

Designing connected landscapes is among the most widespread strategies for achieving biodiversity conservation targets. The challenge lies in simultaneously satisfying the connectivity needs of multiple species at multiple spatial scales under uncertain climate and land‐use change. To evaluate the contribution of remnant habitat fragments to the connectivity of regional habitat networks, we developed a method to integrate uncertainty in climate and land‐use change projections with the latest developments in network‐connectivity research and spatial, multipurpose conservation prioritization. We used land‐use change simulations to explore robustness of species’ habitat networks to alternative development scenarios. We applied our method to 14 vertebrate focal species of periurban Montreal, Canada. Accounting for connectivity in spatial prioritization strongly modified conservation priorities and the modified priorities were robust to uncertain climate change. Setting conservation priorities based on habitat quality and connectivity maintained a large proportion of the region's connectivity, despite anticipated habitat loss due to climate and land‐use change. The application of connectivity criteria alongside habitat‐quality criteria for protected‐area design was efficient with respect to the amount of area that needs protection and did not necessarily amplify trade‐offs among conservation criteria. Our approach and results are being applied in and around Montreal and are well suited to the design of ecological networks and green infrastructure for the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services in other regions, in particular regions around large cities, where connectivity is critically low.     

A Small‐Scale Land‐Sparing Approach to Conserving Biological Diversity in Tropical Agricultural Landscapes

Two contrasting strategies have been proposed for conserving biological diversity while meeting the increasing demand for agricultural products: land sparing and land sharing production systems. Land sparing involves increasing yield to reduce the amount of land needed for agriculture, whereas land‐sharing agricultural practices incorporate elements of native ecosystems into the production system itself. Although the conservation value of these systems has been extensively debated, empirical studies are lacking. We compared bird communities in shade coffee, a widely practiced land‐sharing system in which shade trees are maintained within the coffee plantation, with bird communities in a novel, small‐scale, land‐sparing coffee‐production system (integrated open canopy or IOC coffee) in which farmers obtain higher yields under little or no shade while conserving an area of forest equal to the area under cultivation. Species richness and diversity of forest‐dependent birds were higher in the IOC coffee farms than in the shade coffee farms, and community composition was more similar between IOC coffee and primary forest than between shade coffee and primary forest. Our study represents the first empirical comparison of well‐defined land sparing and land sharing production systems. Because IOC coffee farms can be established by allowing forest to regenerate on degraded land, widespread adoption of this system could lead to substantial increases in forest cover and carbon sequestration without compromising agricultural yield or threatening the livelihoods of traditional small farmers. However, we studied small farms (<5 ha); thus, our results may not generalize to large‐scale land‐sharing systems. Furthermore, rather than concluding that land sparing is generally superior to land sharing, we suggest that the optimal approach depends on the crop, local climate, and existing land‐use patterns. Un Método para Reservar Tierras a Pequeña Escala para Conservar la Biodiversidad en Paisajes Agrícolas Tropicales     

A Matrix‐Calibrated Species‐Area Model for Predicting Biodiversity Losses Due to Land‐Use Change

Abstract: Application of island biogeography theory to prediction of species extinctions resulting from habitat loss is based on the assumption that the transformed landscape matrix is completely inhospitable to the taxa considered, despite evidence demonstrating the nontrivial influence of matrix on populations within habitat remnants. The island biogeography paradigm therefore needs refining to account for specific responses of taxa to the area of habitat “islands” and to the quality of the surrounding matrix. We incorporated matrix effects into island theory by partitioning the slope (z value) of species–area relationships into two components: γ, a constant, and σ, a measure of taxon‐specific responses to each component of a heterogeneous matrix. We used our matrix‐calibrated model to predict extinction and endangerment of bird species resulting from land‐use change in 20 biodiversity hotspots and compared these predictions with observed numbers of extinct and threatened bird species. We repeated this analysis with the conventional species–area model and the countryside species–area model, considering alternative z values of 0.35 (island) or 0.22 (continental). We evaluated the relative strength of support for each of the five candidate models with Akaike's information criterion (AIC). The matrix‐calibrated model had the highest AIC weight (w_i = 89.21%), which means the weight of evidence in support of this model was the optimal model given the set of candidate models and the data. In addition to being a valuable heuristic tool for assessing extinction risk, our matrix‐calibrated model also allows quantitative assessment of biodiversity benefits (and trade‐offs) of land‐management options in human‐dominated landscapes. Given that processes of secondary regeneration have become more widespread across tropical regions and are predicted to increase, our matrix‐calibrated model will be increasingly appropriate for practical conservation in tropical landscapes.     

Linkages between measures of biodiversity and community resilience in Pacific Island agroforests

Designing agroecosystems that are compatible with the conservation of biodiversity is a top conservation priority. However, the social variables that drive native biodiversity conservation in these systems are poorly understood. We devised a new approach to identify social–ecological linkages that affect conservation outcomes in agroecosystems and in social‐ecological systems more broadly. We focused on coastal agroforests in Fiji, which, like agroforests across other small Pacific Islands, are critical to food security, contain much of the country's remaining lowland forests, and have rapidly declining levels of native biodiversity. We tested the relationships among social variables and native tree species richness in agroforests with structural equation models. The models were built with data from ecological and social surveys in 100 agroforests and associated households. The agroforests hosted 95 native tree species of which almost one‐third were endemic. Fifty‐eight percent of farms had at least one species considered threatened at the national or international level. The best‐fit structural equation model (R² = 47.8%) showed that social variables important for community resilience—local ecological knowledge, social network connectivity, and livelihood diversity—had direct and indirect positive effects on native tree species richness. Cash‐crop intensification, a driver of biodiversity loss elsewhere, did not negatively affect native tree richness within parcels. Joining efforts to build community resilience, specifically by increasing livelihood diversity, local ecological knowledge, and social network connectivity, may help conservation agencies conserve the rapidly declining biodiversity in the region.     

Land‐Cover Change and Avian Diversity in the Conterminous United States

Abstract: Changes in land use and land cover have affected and will continue to affect biological diversity worldwide. Yet, understanding the spatially extensive effects of land‐cover change has been challenging because data that are consistent over space and time are lacking. We used the U.S. National Land Cover Dataset Land Cover Change Retrofit Product and North American Breeding Bird Survey data to examine land‐cover change and its associations with diversity of birds with principally terrestrial life cycles (landbirds) in the conterminous United States. We used mixed‐effects models and model selection to rank associations by ecoregion. Land cover in 3.22% of the area considered in our analyses changed from 1992 to 2001, and changes in species richness and abundance of birds were strongly associated with land‐cover changes. Changes in species richness and abundance were primarily associated with changes in nondominant types of land cover, yet in many ecoregions different types of land cover were associated with species richness than were associated with abundance. Conversion of natural land cover to anthropogenic land cover was more strongly associated with changes in bird species richness and abundance than persistence of natural land cover in nearly all ecoregions and different covariates were most strongly associated with species richness than with abundance in 11 of 17 ecoregions. Loss of grassland and shrubland affected bird species richness and abundance in forested ecoregions. Loss of wetland was associated with bird abundance in forested ecoregions. Our findings highlight the value of understanding changes in nondominant land cover types and their association with bird diversity in the United States.