| Literature DB >> 34429536 |
Martin Jung1, Andy Arnell2, Xavier de Lamo3, Shaenandhoa García-Rangel2, Matthew Lewis4,5, Jennifer Mark2, Cory Merow6, Lera Miles2, Ian Ondo7, Samuel Pironon7, Corinna Ravilious2, Malin Rivers8, Dmitry Schepaschenko4,9, Oliver Tallowin2, Arnout van Soesbergen2, Rafaël Govaerts7, Bradley L Boyle10, Brian J Enquist10, Xiao Feng11, Rachael Gallagher12, Brian Maitner10, Shai Meiri13, Mark Mulligan14, Gali Ofer13, Uri Roll15, Jeffrey O Hanson16, Walter Jetz17,18, Moreno Di Marco19, Jennifer McGowan20, D Scott Rinnan17,18, Jeffrey D Sachs21, Myroslava Lesiv4, Vanessa M Adams22, Samuel C Andrew23, Joseph R Burger24, Lee Hannah25, Pablo A Marquet26,27,28,29,30, James K McCarthy31, Naia Morueta-Holme32, Erica A Newman10, Daniel S Park33, Patrick R Roehrdanz25, Jens-Christian Svenning34,35, Cyrille Violle36, Jan J Wieringa37, Graham Wynne38, Steffen Fritz4, Bernardo B N Strassburg39,40,41,42, Michael Obersteiner4,43, Valerie Kapos2, Neil Burgess2, Guido Schmidt-Traub44, Piero Visconti45.
Abstract
To meet the ambitious objectives of biodiversity and climate conventions, the international community requires clarity on how these objectives can be operationalized spatially and how multiple targets can be pursued concurrently. To support goal setting and the implementation of international strategies and action plans, spatial guidance is needed to identify which land areas have the potential to generate the greatest synergies between conserving biodiversity and nature's contributions to people. Here we present results from a joint optimization that minimizes the number of threatened species, maximizes carbon retention and water quality regulation, and ranks terrestrial conservation priorities globally. We found that selecting the top-ranked 30% and 50% of terrestrial land area would conserve respectively 60.7% and 85.3% of the estimated total carbon stock and 66% and 89.8% of all clean water, in addition to meeting conservation targets for 57.9% and 79% of all species considered. Our data and prioritization further suggest that adequately conserving all species considered (vertebrates and plants) would require giving conservation attention to ~70% of the terrestrial land surface. If priority was given to biodiversity only, managing 30% of optimally located land area for conservation may be sufficient to meet conservation targets for 81.3% of the terrestrial plant and vertebrate species considered. Our results provide a global assessment of where land could be optimally managed for conservation. We discuss how such a spatial prioritization framework can support the implementation of the biodiversity and climate conventions.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34429536 DOI: 10.1038/s41559-021-01528-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nat Ecol Evol ISSN: 2397-334X Impact factor: 15.460