| Literature DB >> 25714751 |
Cândida Gomes Vale1, Stuart L Pimm2, José Carlos Brito3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The world is undergoing exceptional biodiversity loss. Most conservation efforts target biodiversity hotspots at large scales. Such approach overlooks small-sized local hotspots, which may be rich in endemic and highly threatened species. We explore the importance of mountain rock pools (gueltas) as local biodiversity hotspots in the Sahara-Sahel. Specifically, we considered how many vertebrates (total and endemics) use gueltas, what factors predict species richness, and which gueltas are of most priority for conservation. We expected to provide management recommendations, improve local biodiversity conservation, and simultaneously contribute with a framework for future enhancement of local communities' economy. The identification of local hotspots of biodiversity is important for revaluating global conservation priorities. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPALEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25714751 PMCID: PMC4340953 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0118367
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Study area and the locations of the gueltas.
Example of two gueltas: A) Guelta Tartêga, and B) Guelta Garaouel. Black dashed line limits the surrounding area. Insets display location of Mauritania within the African context (top) and location of the surrounding area within Mauritania (bottom).
Sum of taxa (Σ) quantified in gueltas by taxonomic group and IUCN status.
| Σ Adrar | Σ Tagant | Σ Assaba | Σ Afollé | Σ Gueltas | Σ SA (%G) | Σ Mau (%G) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fishes | 2 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 7 (71) | 18 (28) |
| Amphibians | 2 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 7 | 7 (100) | 11 (64) |
| Reptiles | 5 | 16 | 17 | 10 | 24 | 41 (56) | 79 (30) |
| Mammals | 3 | 13 | 14 | 13 | 23 | 29 (79) | 78 (29) |
| Total | 12 | 34 | 42 | 29 | 59 | 86 (69) | 186 (32) |
| Mau Endemic | 2 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 7 | 9 (78) | 9 (78) |
| DD | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 (67) | 7 (29) |
| NE | 5 | 13 | 18 | 11 | 23 | 40 (58) | 69 (33) |
| LC | 6 | 18 | 21 | 15 | 33 | 40 (83) | 96 (34) |
| NT | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 (100) | 6 (17) |
| VU | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 (0) | 7 (0) |
| CR | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 (0) | 1 (0) |
Sum of taxa and endemic taxa (Mau Endemic) quantified in the surrounding area (SA) and in Mauritania (Mau), and percentage of those present in gueltas (%G). DD: Data deficient; NE: Not evaluated; LC: Least concern; NT: Near threatened; VU: Vulnerable; CR: Critically Endangered.
Fig 2Known distribution of endemic taxa of Mauritania observed in gueltas.
Measures of the predictors most related with the species richness in gueltas (GLZ).
| β | Std. Error | z value | Pr(>|z|) | AICc | ΔAIC | Wi | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AREA | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2.76 | 0.01 | |||
| NDVImax_avg | 0.00 | 0.00 | 6.15 | 0.00 | |||
| NDWI_Pavg | 6.70 | 1.60 | 4.19 | 0.00 | 379.87 | 0 | 0.23 |
| NDWI_Psd | 4.85 | 1.97 | 2.47 | 0.01 | |||
| NDWI_Smax | -3.16 | 0.69 | -4.57 | 0.00 |
Significance codes: p < 0.0001 ***;
p < 0.001 **;
p < 0.01 *.
NDVImax_avg: Maximum of the annual average of Normalized Difference Vegetation Index; NDWI_Pavg and NDWI_Psd: Annual average and standard deviation of the annual average of Normalized Difference Water Indexes of permanent water, respectively; and NDWI_Smax: Maximum of Normalized Difference Water Index of seasonal water.
Number and percentage of gueltas affected by each threat.
| Threats | Σ Gueltas (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| 2.3.1 | Nomadic grazing | 55 (80) |
| 2.3.2 | Small-holder grazing, ranching or farming | 24 (35) |
| 5.1.1 | Intentional use (species being assessed is the target) | 10 (14) |
| 5.4.1 | Intentional use: subsistence/small scale (species being assessed is the target) | 24 (35) |
| 7.2.1 | Abstraction of surface water (domestic use) | 56 (81) |
| 7.2.3 | Abstraction of surface water (agricultural use) | 21 (30) |
| 9.3.4 | Pollution: Type Unknown/Unrecorded | 51 (74) |
| 9.4 | Pollution: Garbage & solid waste | 23 (33) |
| 10.3 | Avalanches/landslides | 26 (38) |
| 11.2 | Droughts | 69 (100) |
| 11.3 | Temperature extremes | 69 (100) |
Codes follow the IUCN Threats Classification Scheme [30].
Fig 3Priority gueltas for conservation.
A) Ranking of conservation importance of gueltas taking into account the percentage of endemics and threats. Red dots represent priority gueltas for conservation (many endemics and threats); green dots represent important gueltas for conservation (many endemics and few threats) and black dots represent less important gueltas for conservation (few endemics). B) Location of all gueltas coloured by the importance for conservation.