改进重要植物区的应用,保护受威胁的栖息地:乌干达案例研究

IF 2.8 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION Conservation Science and Practice Pub Date : 2024-10-17 DOI:10.1111/csp2.13246
Sophie L. Richards, James Kalema, Samuel Ojelel, Jenny Williams, Iain Darbyshire
{"title":"改进重要植物区的应用,保护受威胁的栖息地:乌干达案例研究","authors":"Sophie L. Richards,&nbsp;James Kalema,&nbsp;Samuel Ojelel,&nbsp;Jenny Williams,&nbsp;Iain Darbyshire","doi":"10.1111/csp2.13246","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Important Plant Areas (IPAs) are a successful method of identifying priority areas for plant conservation. Assessment of IPAs, however, often relies on criteria related to species, while incorporation of habitats has been less consistent. Using Uganda as a case study, we test the application of the threatened habitat criterion—criterion C. We identified nationally threatened habitats using Red List of Ecosystems criteria and assess, for the first time, how differing application of thresholds under IPA criterion C can influence IPA network outcomes. Eleven threatened habitats were identified, with declines switching from predominantly forest to savanna types after the mid-20th century. Significantly, we found current IPA guidance on use of criterion C needlessly limits the number of sites that qualify as IPAs. The “five best sites” IPA threshold is reserved for countries where quantitative data is unavailable; however, the application of the relevant percentage-based thresholds to quantitative data largely generated fewer than five IPAs, comparably limiting conservation opportunities identified. We recommend, therefore, that the “five best” threshold is available for application on both qualitative and quantitative data. This will bolster the value of IPAs in conserving and restoring threatened and ecologically important habitats under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.</p>","PeriodicalId":51337,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Science and Practice","volume":"6 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/csp2.13246","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Improving the application of Important Plant Areas to conserve threatened habitats: A case study of Uganda\",\"authors\":\"Sophie L. Richards,&nbsp;James Kalema,&nbsp;Samuel Ojelel,&nbsp;Jenny Williams,&nbsp;Iain Darbyshire\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/csp2.13246\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Important Plant Areas (IPAs) are a successful method of identifying priority areas for plant conservation. Assessment of IPAs, however, often relies on criteria related to species, while incorporation of habitats has been less consistent. Using Uganda as a case study, we test the application of the threatened habitat criterion—criterion C. We identified nationally threatened habitats using Red List of Ecosystems criteria and assess, for the first time, how differing application of thresholds under IPA criterion C can influence IPA network outcomes. Eleven threatened habitats were identified, with declines switching from predominantly forest to savanna types after the mid-20th century. Significantly, we found current IPA guidance on use of criterion C needlessly limits the number of sites that qualify as IPAs. The “five best sites” IPA threshold is reserved for countries where quantitative data is unavailable; however, the application of the relevant percentage-based thresholds to quantitative data largely generated fewer than five IPAs, comparably limiting conservation opportunities identified. We recommend, therefore, that the “five best” threshold is available for application on both qualitative and quantitative data. This will bolster the value of IPAs in conserving and restoring threatened and ecologically important habitats under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51337,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Conservation Science and Practice\",\"volume\":\"6 11\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/csp2.13246\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Conservation Science and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/csp2.13246\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conservation Science and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/csp2.13246","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

重要植物区(IPA)是确定植物保护优先区域的一种成功方法。然而,对重要植物区的评估往往依赖于与物种相关的标准,而将生境纳入评估范围的做法则不太一致。我们以乌干达为案例,测试了受威胁栖息地标准(标准 C)的应用情况。我们使用生态系统红色名录标准确定了国家级受威胁栖息地,并首次评估了 IPA 标准 C 下不同阈值的应用如何影响 IPA 网络的结果。我们确定了 11 个受威胁的栖息地,20 世纪中叶以后,这些栖息地的衰退从主要是森林类型转变为热带稀树草原类型。值得注意的是,我们发现目前关于使用标准 C 的 IPA 指南不必要地限制了有资格成为 IPA 的地点数量。五个最佳地点 "的《近期行动计划》阈值是为无法获得定量数据的国家保留的;然而,将基于百分比的相关阈值应用于定量数据时,产生的《近期行动计划》大多少于五个,从而限制了已确定的保护机会。因此,我们建议将 "五个最佳 "阈值同时应用于定性和定量数据。这将提高《昆明-蒙特利尔全球生物多样性框架》中保护和恢复受威胁和重要生态栖息地的 IPA 的价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Improving the application of Important Plant Areas to conserve threatened habitats: A case study of Uganda

Important Plant Areas (IPAs) are a successful method of identifying priority areas for plant conservation. Assessment of IPAs, however, often relies on criteria related to species, while incorporation of habitats has been less consistent. Using Uganda as a case study, we test the application of the threatened habitat criterion—criterion C. We identified nationally threatened habitats using Red List of Ecosystems criteria and assess, for the first time, how differing application of thresholds under IPA criterion C can influence IPA network outcomes. Eleven threatened habitats were identified, with declines switching from predominantly forest to savanna types after the mid-20th century. Significantly, we found current IPA guidance on use of criterion C needlessly limits the number of sites that qualify as IPAs. The “five best sites” IPA threshold is reserved for countries where quantitative data is unavailable; however, the application of the relevant percentage-based thresholds to quantitative data largely generated fewer than five IPAs, comparably limiting conservation opportunities identified. We recommend, therefore, that the “five best” threshold is available for application on both qualitative and quantitative data. This will bolster the value of IPAs in conserving and restoring threatened and ecologically important habitats under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Conservation Science and Practice
Conservation Science and Practice BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
6.50%
发文量
240
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Motivating residents to volunteer for urban waterway restoration: A segmentation approach Impact of drought and development on the effectiveness of beehive fences as elephant deterrents over 9 years in Kenya Quantifying public support for culling crown-of-thorns starfish (Acanthaster spp.) on the Great Barrier Reef Development of an assay for the detection of the federally threatened Florida eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon couperi) using soil eDNA
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1