Comparing multiple species distribution proxies and different quantifications of the human footprint map, implications for conservation

Di Marco, Moreno, Rondinini, Carlo, Boitani, Luigi and Murray, Kris A. (2013) Comparing multiple species distribution proxies and different quantifications of the human footprint map, implications for conservation. Biological Conservation, 165 203-211. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2013.05.030


Author Di Marco, Moreno
Rondinini, Carlo
Boitani, Luigi
Murray, Kris A.
Title Comparing multiple species distribution proxies and different quantifications of the human footprint map, implications for conservation
Journal name Biological Conservation   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 0006-3207
1873-2917
Publication date 2013-09
Year available 2013
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1016/j.biocon.2013.05.030
Open Access Status Not yet assessed
Volume 165
Start page 203
End page 211
Total pages 9
Place of publication Amsterdam, Netherlands
Publisher Elsevier BV
Language eng
Abstract Anthropogenic threats drive species to extinction and are the focus of extinction risk analyses and conservation planning. Threats are often quantified through higher level proxies, such as the human footprint (HF). We tested the effects that multiple methods of representing species' distribution and different quantifications of a HF map have on threat measurement, and how these influence conservation decisions. We quantified the magnitude of HF for 901 Southeast Asian mammals according to several methods. We ranked the species according to the measured HF value, and produced priority lists of top-impacted species. The different representations of species' distribution caused significant disagreement in HF calculations. HF values were on average lower when calculated in species' suitable habitat or occurrence points in comparison to the whole geographic range. Biases were non-linear and dependent on distal factors, such as the proportion of suitable habitat within species' range and species' habitat specialism. Using different HF quantifications also yielded disagreement, with 2-56% difference observed in species membership among priority lists. Threatened species were best predicted, and significantly placed in the top-ranking, when measuring their proportion of range exposed to high levels of HF. We thus show that the HF extent, not only its average value, determines species extinction risk. A well-framed global conservation strategy must address the quantification of human impact on biodiversity. The selection of quantification methods has implications for how such impact is evaluated. Improving techniques to quantify biodiversity threats will enhance the effectiveness of extinction risk analyses and conservation decisions.
Keyword Extinction risk
Human impact
IUCN Red List
Species distribution
Suitable habitat
Threatened mammal species
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Provisional Code
Institutional Status Non-UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collection: School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management Publications
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 7 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 7 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Mon, 01 Aug 2016, 13:31:09 EST by System User on behalf of Learning and Research Services (UQ Library)