Mixed effectiveness of global protected areas in resisting habitat loss.

Protected areas are the cornerstones of conservation efforts to mitigate the anthropogenic pressures driving biodiversity loss. Nations aim to protect 30% of Earth's land and water by 2030, yet the effectiveness of protected areas remains unclear. Here we analyze the performance of over 160,000 protected areas in resisting habitat loss at different spatial and temporal scales, using high-resolution data. We find that 1.14 million km2 of habitat, equivalent to three times the size of Japan, across 73% of protected areas, had been altered between 2003 and 2019. These protected areas experienced habitat loss due to the expansion of built-up land, cropland, pastureland, or deforestation. Larger and stricter protected areas generally had lower rates of habitat loss. While most protected areas effectively halted the expansion of built-up areas, they were less successful in preventing deforestation and agricultural conversion. Protected areas were 33% more effective in reducing habitat loss compared to unprotected areas, though their ability to mitigate nearby human pressures was limited and varied spatially. Our findings indicate that, beyond establishing new protected areas, there is an urgent need to enhance the effectiveness of existing ones to better prevent habitat loss and achieve the post-2020 global biodiversity goals.

Ability of new protected areas to counteract losses from downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement.

Protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD) is a common occurrence. Although PADDD is expected to weaken biodiversity protection, PADDD offsets and new unrelated protected areas (PAs) could help restore representation of biodiversity features to the reserve network affected by PADDD. Globally, we analyzed 16 territories with terrestrial PADDD and 4 territories with marine PADDD from 2011 to 2020. Our objective was to evaluate whether PADDD offsets and new PAs could restore the PAs, key biodiversity areas (KBAs), ecoregions, and threatened amphibian, mammal, bird, and reptile species ranges where PADDD had occurred. In our studied territories, offsets of PADDD were rare (enacted in 3 [19%] terrestrial territories and one [25%] marine territory). One territory had PADDD losses that were compensated fully by PADDD offsets in terms of area coverage and ecoregions represented. All other territories failed to achieve compensation goals. In territories affected by PADDD, PADDD offsets and new PAs partially restored area representation (63%) and KBA coverage (57%). However, only 38% of ecoregion representation and 20%, 33%, 31%, and 21% of threatened amphibian, mammal, bird, and reptile representation, respectively, were restored. Overall, we found a large shortfall in PADDD offsets, even when unrelated PAs were included in the calculus. There is an urgent need to expand PADDD offsets and PAs to advance biodiversity conservation and achieve the Global Biodiversity Framework's 30×30 target. Future planning of newly enacted conservation areas needs to prioritize biodiversity conservation and consider the purpose of restoring reserve networks affected by PADDD, rather than solely focusing on areal targets.

Capacidad de las áreas protegidas nuevas para contrarrestar las pérdidas por el cambio de categoría, la reducción de tamaño y la desclasificación Resumen La degradación, reducción y desclasificación de áreas protegidas (DRDAP) es un fenómeno común. Aunque se espera que la DRDAP debilite la protección de la biodiversidad, las compensaciones de la DRDAP y las nuevas áreas protegidas (AP) sin relación podrían ayudar a restaurar la representación de las características de la biodiversidad en la red de reservas afectadas por la DRDAP. Analizamos 16 territorios a nivel mundial con DRDAP terrestre y cuatro territorios con DRDAP marina entre 2011 y 2020. Nuestro objetivo era evaluar si las compensaciones de la DRDAP y las nuevas AP podrían restaurar las AP, las áreas clave para la biodiversidad (ACB), las ecorregiones y las áreas de distribución de especies amenazadas de anfibios, mamíferos, aves y reptiles donde se había producido la DRDAP. En nuestros territorios estudiados, las compensaciones de DRDAP fueron escasas (promulgadas en tres [19%] territorios terrestres y un [25%] territorio marino). Un territorio tuvo pérdidas de DRDAP que fueron compensadas totalmente por compensaciones de DRDAP en términos de cobertura de área y ecorregiones representadas. En los demás territorios no se alcanzaron los objetivos de compensación. En los territorios afectados por la DRDAP, las compensaciones de la DRDAP y las nuevas AP restauraron parcialmente la representación de la superficie (63%) y la cobertura de las ACB (57%). Sin embargo, sólo se restauró el 38% de la representación de la ecorregión y el 20%, 33%, 31% y 21% de la representación de anfibios, mamíferos, aves y reptiles amenazados, respectivamente. En general, encontramos un gran déficit en las compensaciones DRDAP, incluso cuando se incluyeron APs no relacionadas en el cálculo. Existe una necesidad urgente de ampliar las compensaciones DRDAP y las AP para avanzar en la conservación de la biodiversidad y alcanzar el objetivo 30x30 del Marco Global de Biodiversidad. La planificación futura de las áreas de conservación de nueva creación debe dar prioridad a la conservación de la biodiversidad y tener en cuenta el propósito de restaurar las redes de reservas afectadas por la DRDAP, en lugar de centrarse únicamente en objetivos de área.

Beak and feather disease virus detected in the endangered Red Goshawk (Erythrotriorchis radiatus).

We report the first detection and prevalence of Beak and feather disease virus (BFDV) in Australia's Red Goshawk (Erythrotriorchis radiatus). This is a new host for this pervasive pathogen amongst a growing list of non-psittacine species including birds of prey from the orders Accipitriformes (hawks, eagles, kites), Falconiformes (falcons and caracas), and Strigiformes (owls). The Red Goshawk is the first non-psittacine species listed as Endangered to be diagnosed with BFDV. We report an initial case of infection discovered post-mortem in a dead nestling and subsequent surveillance of birds from across northern Australia. We reveal BFDV prevalence rates in a wild raptor population for the first time, with detections in 25% (n = 7/28) of Red Goshawks sampled. Prevalence appears higher in juveniles compared to adults, although not statistically significant, but is consistent with studies of wild psittacines. BFDV genotypes were associated with the Loriinae (lorikeets, budgerigar, and fig parrots), Cacatuini (Cockatoos), and Polytelini (long-tailed parrots) tribes; species which are preyed upon by Red Goshawks. A positive BFDV status may be associated with lower body mass but small sample sizes precluded robust statistical analysis. We postulate the possible impacts of the virus on Red Goshawks and discuss future research priorities given these preliminary observations.

Assessing adequacy of citizen science datasets for biodiversity monitoring.

Tracking the state of biodiversity over time is critical to successful conservation, but conventional monitoring schemes tend to be insufficient to adequately quantify how species' abundances and distributions are changing. One solution to this issue is to leverage data generated by citizen scientists, who collect vast quantities of data at temporal and spatial scales that cannot be matched by most traditional monitoring methods. However, the quality of citizen science data can vary greatly. In this paper, we develop three metrics (inventory completeness, range completeness, spatial bias) to assess the adequacy of spatial observation data. We explore the adequacy of citizen science data at the species level for Australia's terrestrial native birds and then model these metrics against a suite of seven species traits (threat status, taxonomic uniqueness, body mass, average count, range size, species density, and human population density) to identify predictors of data adequacy. We find that citizen science data adequacy for Australian birds is increasing across two of our metrics (inventory completeness and range completeness), but not spatial bias, which has worsened over time. Relationships between the three metrics and seven traits we modelled were variable, with only two traits having consistently significant relationships across the three metrics. Our results suggest that although citizen science data adequacy has generally increased over time, there are still gaps in the spatial adequacy of citizen science for monitoring many Australian birds. Despite these gaps, citizen science can play an important role in biodiversity monitoring by providing valuable baseline data that may be supplemented by information collected through other methods. We believe the metrics presented here constitute an easily applied approach to assessing the utility of citizen science datasets for biodiversity analyses, allowing researchers to identify and prioritise regions or species with lower data adequacy that will benefit most from targeted monitoring efforts.

A horizon scan of global biological conservation issues for 2024.

We present the results of our 15th horizon scan of novel issues that could influence biological conservation in the future. From an initial list of 96 issues, our international panel of scientists and practitioners identified 15 that we consider important for societies worldwide to track and potentially respond to. Issues are novel within conservation or represent a substantial positive or negative step-change with global or regional extents. For example, new sources of hydrogen fuel and changes in deep-sea currents may have profound impacts on marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Technological advances that may be positive include benchtop DNA printers and the industrialisation of approaches that can create high-protein food from air, potentially reducing the pressure on land for food production.

Global governance for pandemic prevention and the wildlife trade.

Although ideas about preventive actions for pandemics have been advanced during the COVID-19 crisis, there has been little consideration for how they can be operationalised through governance structures within the context of the wildlife trade for human consumption. To date, pandemic governance has mostly focused on outbreak surveillance, containment, and response rather than on avoiding zoonotic spillovers in the first place. However, given the acceleration of globalisation, a paradigm shift towards prevention of zoonotic spillovers is warranted as containment of outbreaks becomes unfeasible. Here, we consider the current institutional landscape for pandemic prevention in light of ongoing negotiations of a so-called pandemic treaty and how prevention of zoonotic spillovers from the wildlife trade for human consumption could be incorporated. We argue that such an institutional arrangement should be explicit about zoonotic spillover prevention and focus on improving coordination across four policy domains, namely public health, biodiversity conservation, food security, and trade. We posit that this pandemic treaty should include four interacting goals in relation to prevention of zoonotic spillovers from the wildlife trade for human consumption: risk understanding, risk assessment, risk reduction, and enabling funding. Despite the need to keep political attention on addressing the current pandemic, society cannot afford to miss the opportunity of the current crisis to encourage institution building for preventing future pandemics.

Global assessment of the biodiversity safeguards of development banks that finance infrastructure.

Infrastructure development is a major driver of biodiversity loss globally. With upward of US$2.5 trillion in annual investments in infrastructure, the financial sector indirectly drives this biodiversity loss. At the same time, biodiversity safeguards (project-level biodiversity impact mitigation requirements) of infrastructure financiers can help limit this damage. The coverage and harmonization of biodiversity safeguards are important factors in their effectiveness and therefore warrant scrutiny. It is equally important to examine the extent to which these safeguards align with best-practice principles for biodiversity impact mitigation outlined in international policies, such as that of the International Union for Conservation of Nature. We assessed the biodiversity safeguards of public development banks and development finance institutions for coverage, harmonization, and alignment with best practice. We used Institute of New Structural Economics and Agence Française de Développement's global database to identify development banks that invest in high-biodiversity-footprint infrastructure and have over US$500 million in assets. Of the 155 banks, 42% (n = 65) had biodiversity safeguards. Of the existing safeguards, 86% (56 of 65) were harmonized with International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standard 6 (PS6). The IFC PS6 (and by extension the 56 safeguard policies harmonized with it) had high alignment with international best practice in biodiversity impact mitigation, whereas the remaining 8 exhibited partial alignment, incorporating few principles that clarify the conditions for effective biodiversity offsetting. Given their dual role in setting benchmarks and leveraging private finance, infrastructure financiers in development finance need to adopt best-practice biodiversity safeguards if the tide of global biodiversity loss is to be stemmed. The IFC PS6, if strengthened, can act as a useful template for other financier safeguards. The high degree of harmonization among safeguards is promising, pointing to a potential for diffusion of practices.

Evaluación mundial de las salvaguardas para la biodiversidad de los bancos del desarrollo que financian la infraestructura Resumen El desarrollo infraestructural es una de las causas principales de la pérdida mundial de biodiversidad. Con más de US$2.5 billones de inversión anual en la infraestructura, el sector financiero impulsa de forma indirecta esta pérdida. Al mismo tiempo, las salvaguardas para la biodiversidad (los requerimientos para la mitigación del impacto sobre la biodiversidad a nivel proyecto) de los financiadores de la infraestructura pueden ayudar a limitar este daño. La cobertura y armonización de estas salvaguardas son factores importantes en su efectividad y por lo tanto requieren de escrutinio. Es igual de importante examinar en qué medida se ajustan estas salvaguardas con los principios de mejores prácticas para mitigar el impacto sobre la biodiversidad esbozados en las políticas internacionales, como las de la UICN. Analizamos las salvaguardas para la biodiversidad de los bancos del desarrollo público y las instituciones de financiamiento para el desarrollo en cuanto a cobertura, armonización y ajuste con las mejores prácticas. Usamos las bases de datos mundiales del Institute of New Structural Economics y de la Agence Française de Développement para identificar los bancos del desarrollo que invierten en infraestructuras con una gran huella de biodiversidad y que tienen más de US$500 millones en activos. De los 155 bancos, el 42% % (n = 65) tenía salvaguardas para la biodiversidad. De éstas, el 86% (56 de 65) armonizaba con el Estándar de Desempeño 6 (PS6) de la Corporación Financiera Internacional (IFC). El PS6 de la IFC (y por extensión, las 56 salvaguardas que armonizan con él) tuvo un gran ajuste con las mejores prácticas internacionales para la mitigación del impacto sobre la biodiversidad, mientras que las ocho faltantes exhibieron un ajuste parcial, pues incorporaban pocos principios que clarificaban las condiciones de una compensación efectiva de biodiversidad. Ya que los financiadores de la infraestructura tienen un papel doble estableciendo referencias e impulsando el financiamiento privado, también necesitan adoptar las mejores prácticas para salvaguardar la biodiversidad si se desea detener la pérdida de biodiversidad mundial. El PS6 de la IFC, si se fortalece, puede fungir como una plantilla útil para los demás financiadores de las salvaguardas. La gran armonización entre las salvaguardas es prometedora y apunta hacia un potencial de difusión de las prácticas.

Retaining natural vegetation to safeguard biodiversity and humanity.

Global efforts to deliver internationally agreed goals to reduce carbon emissions, halt biodiversity loss, and retain essential ecosystem services have been poorly integrated. These goals rely in part on preserving natural (e.g., native, largely unmodified) and seminatural (e.g., low intensity or sustainable human use) forests, woodlands, and grasslands. To show how to unify these goals, we empirically derived spatially explicit, quantitative, area-based targets for the retention of natural and seminatural (e.g., native) terrestrial vegetation worldwide. We used a 250-m-resolution map of natural and seminatural vegetation cover and, from this, selected areas identified under different international agreements as being important for achieving global biodiversity, carbon, soil, and water targets. At least 67 million km2 of Earth's terrestrial vegetation (∼79% of the area of vegetation remaining) required retention to contribute to biodiversity, climate, soil, and freshwater conservation objectives under 4 United Nations' resolutions. This equates to retaining natural and seminatural vegetation across at least 50% of the total terrestrial (excluding Antarctica) surface of Earth. Retention efforts could contribute to multiple goals simultaneously, especially where natural and seminatural vegetation can be managed to achieve cobenefits for biodiversity, carbon storage, and ecosystem service provision. Such management can and should co-occur and be driven by people who live in and rely on places where natural and sustainably managed vegetation remains in situ and must be complemented by restoration and appropriate management of more human-modified environments if global goals are to be realized.

Retención de la vegetación natural para salvaguardar la biodiversidad y la humanidad Resumen Hoy en día hay muy poca integración de los esfuerzos mundiales para alcanzar los objetivos internacionales de reducción de las emisiones de carbono, impedimento de la pérdida de biodiversidad y conservación de los servicios ambientales esenciales. Estos objetivos dependen parcialmente de la conservación de los bosques, selvas y praderas naturales (por ejemplo, nativos y en su mayoría sin alteraciones) y seminaturales (por ejemplo, de uso humano sostenible o de baja intensidad). Obtuvimos de manera empírica objetivos espacialmente explícitos, cuantitativos y basados en áreas para la conservación de la vegetación terrestre natural y seminatural (por ejemplo, nativa) en todo el mundo para mostrar cómo unificar los objetivos internacionales. Usamos un mapa de 250 m de resolución de la cubierta vegetal natural y seminatural y, a partir de él, seleccionamos las áreas identificadas como importantes en diferentes acuerdos internacionales para alcanzar los objetivos globales de biodiversidad, carbono, suelo y agua. Al menos 67 millones de km2 de la vegetación terrestre de la Tierra (∼79% de la superficie de vegetación restante) requieren ser conservados para contribuir a los objetivos de conservación de la biodiversidad, el clima, el suelo y el agua dulce en virtud de cuatro de las resoluciones de las Naciones Unidas. Esto equivale a conservar la vegetación natural y seminatural en al menos el 50% de la superficie terrestre total de la Tierra (sin contar a la Antártida). Los esfuerzos de retención podrían contribuir a alcanzar múltiples objetivos simultáneamente, especialmente en donde la vegetación natural y seminatural puede gestionarse para lograr beneficios colaterales para la biodiversidad, el almacenamiento de carbono y la provisión de servicios ambientales. Esta gestión puede y debe ser impulsada y llevada a cabo por las personas que viven en y dependen de los lugares donde la vegetación natural y gestionada de forma sostenible permanece in situ y debe complementarse con la restauración y la gestión adecuada de entornos modificados por el hombre si se quieren alcanzar los objetivos globales.

A global biological conservation horizon scan of issues for 2023.

We present the results of our 14th horizon scan of issues we expect to influence biological conservation in the future. From an initial set of 102 topics, our global panel of 30 scientists and practitioners identified 15 issues we consider most urgent for societies worldwide to address. Issues are novel within biological conservation or represent a substantial positive or negative step change at global or regional scales. Issues such as submerged artificial light fisheries and accelerating upper ocean currents could have profound negative impacts on marine or coastal ecosystems. We also identified potentially positive technological advances, including energy production and storage, improved fertilisation methods, and expansion of biodegradable materials. If effectively managed, these technologies could realise future benefits for biological diversity.

Exploring the risks and benefits of flexibility in biodiversity offset location in a case study of migratory shorebirds.

Biodiversity offsets aim to counterbalance the residual impacts of development on species and ecosystems. Guidance documents explicitly recommend that biodiversity offset actions be located close to the location of impact because of higher potential for similar ecological conditions, but allowing greater spatial flexibility has been proposed. We examined the circumstances under which offsets distant from the impact location could be more likely to achieve no net loss or provide better ecological outcomes than offsets close to the impact area. We applied a graphical model for migratory shorebirds in the East Asian-Australasian Flyway as a case study to explore the problems that arise when incorporating spatial flexibility into offset planning. Spatially flexible offsets may alleviate impacts more effectively than local offsets; however, the risks involved can be substantial. For our case study, there were inadequate data to make robust conclusions about the effectiveness and equivalence of distant habitat-based offsets for migratory shorebirds. Decisions around offset placement should be driven by the potential to achieve equivalent ecological outcomes; however, when considering more distant offsets, there is a need to evaluate the likely increased risks alongside the potential benefits. Although spatially flexible offsets have the potential to provide more cost-effective biodiversity outcomes and more cobenefits, our case study showed the difficulty of demonstrating these benefits in practice and the potential risks that need to be considered to ensure effective offset placement.

Estudio de los riesgos y beneficios de la flexibilidad en la ubicación de compensación de la biodiversidad en el estudio de caso de aves costeras migratorias Resumen Las compensaciones de la biodiversidad buscan contrabalancear el impacto residual que tiene el desarrollo sobre las especies y los ecosistemas. Los documentos guía recomiendan explícitamente que las acciones de estas compensaciones estén ubicadas cerca del lugar del impacto debido al potencial elevado de que haya condiciones ecológicas similares, aunque ya hay propuestas de una mayor flexibilidad espacial. Analizamos las circunstancias bajo las cuales las compensaciones alejadas del lugar de impacto tendrían mayor probabilidad de lograr pérdidas netas nulas o de proporcionar mejores resultados ecológicos que las compensaciones cercanas al área de impacto. Aplicamos un modelo gráfico para las aves costeras migratorias en el corredor aéreo asiático-australasiático del este como estudio de caso para estudiar los problemas que surgen cuando se incorpora la flexibilidad espacial a la planeación de las compensaciones. Las compensaciones espacialmente flexibles pueden mitigar los impactos más efectivamente que las compensaciones locales; sin embargo, los riesgos que esto involucra pueden ser considerables. En nuestro estudio de caso hubo datos insuficientes para concluir contundentemente sobre la efectividad y equivalencia de las compensaciones basadas en los hábitats distantes para las aves costeras migratorias. Las decisiones en torno a la ubicación de las compensaciones deberían estar impulsadas por el potencial para obtener resultados ecológicos equivalentes; sin embargo, al considerar compensaciones más alejadas, existe la necesidad de evaluar el incremento probable de riesgos junto a los beneficios potenciales. Aunque las compensaciones espacialmente flexibles tienen el potencial para proporcionar resultados más rentables y más beneficios colaterales, nuestro estudio de caso mostró la dificultad para demostrar estos beneficios en la práctica y los riesgos potenciales que necesitan considerarse para asegurar una ubicación efectiva de las compensaciones.

Protected areas and the future of insect conservation.

Anthropogenic pressures are driving insect declines across the world. Although protected areas (PAs) play a prominent role in safeguarding many vertebrate species from human-induced threats, insects are not widely considered when designing PA systems or building strategies for PA management. We review the effectiveness of PAs for insect conservation and find substantial taxonomic and geographic gaps in knowledge. Most research focuses on the representation of species, and few studies assess threats to insects or the role that effective PA management can play in insect conservation. We propose a four-step research agenda to help ensure that insects are central in efforts to expand the global PA network under the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework.

Land-use and climate risk assessment for Earth's remaining wilderness.

Earth's wilderness areas are reservoirs of genetic information and carbon storage systems, and are vital to reducing extinction risks. Retaining the conservation value of these areas is fundamental to achieving global biodiversity conservation goals; however, climate and land-use risk can undermine their ability to provide these functions. The extent to which wilderness areas are likely to be impacted by these drivers has not previously been quantified. Using climate and land-use change during baseline (1971-2005) and future (2016-2050) periods, we estimate that these stressors within wilderness areas will increase by ca. 60% and 39%, respectively, under a scenario of high emission and land-use change (SSP5-RCP8.5). Nearly half (49%) of all wilderness areas could experience substantial climate change by 2050 under this scenario, potentially limiting their capacity to shelter biodiversity. Notable climate (>5 km year-1) and land-use (>0.25 km year-1) changes are expected to occur more rapidly in the unprotected wilderness, including the edges of the Amazonian wilderness, Northern Russia, and Central Africa, which support unique assemblages of species and are critical for the preservation of biodiversity. However, an alternative scenario of sustainable development (SSP1-RCP2.6) would attenuate the projected climate velocity and land-use instability by 54% and 6%, respectively. Mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and preserving the remaining intact natural ecosystems can help fortify these bastions of biodiversity.

Humid tropical vertebrates are at lower risk of extinction and population decline in forests with higher structural integrity.

Reducing deforestation underpins global biodiversity conservation efforts. However, this focus on retaining forest cover overlooks the multitude of anthropogenic pressures that can degrade forest quality and imperil biodiversity. We use remotely sensed indices of tropical rainforest structural condition and associated human pressures to quantify the relative importance of forest cover, structural condition and integrity (the cumulative effect of condition and pressures) on vertebrate species extinction risk and population trends across the global humid tropics. We found that tropical rainforests of high integrity (structurally intact and under low pressures) were associated with lower likelihood of species being threatened and having declining populations, compared with forest cover alone (without consideration of condition and pressures). Further, species were more likely to be threatened or have declining populations if their geographic ranges contained high proportions of degraded forest than if their ranges contained lower proportions of forest cover but of high quality. Our work suggests that biodiversity conservation policies to preserve forest integrity are now urgently required alongside ongoing efforts to halt deforestation in the hyperdiverse humid tropics.

The minimum land area requiring conservation attention to safeguard biodiversity.

Ambitious conservation efforts are needed to stop the global biodiversity crisis. In this study, we estimate the minimum land area to secure important biodiversity areas, ecologically intact areas, and optimal locations for representation of species ranges and ecoregions. We discover that at least 64 million square kilometers (44% of terrestrial area) would require conservation attention (ranging from protected areas to land-use policies) to meet this goal. More than 1.8 billion people live on these lands, so responses that promote autonomy, self-determination, equity, and sustainable management for safeguarding biodiversity are essential. Spatially explicit land-use scenarios suggest that 1.3 million square kilometers of this land is at risk of being converted for intensive human land uses by 2030, which requires immediate attention. However, a sevenfold difference exists between the amount of habitat converted in optimistic and pessimistic land-use scenarios, highlighting an opportunity to avert this crisis. Appropriate targets in the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework to encourage conservation of the identified land would contribute substantially to safeguarding biodiversity.

How to prioritize species recovery after a megafire.

Due to climate change, megafires are increasingly common and have sudden, extensive impacts on many species over vast areas, leaving decision makers uncertain about how best to prioritize recovery. We devised a decision-support framework to prioritize conservation actions to improve species outcomes immediately after a megafire. Complementary locations are selected to extend recovery actions across all fire-affected species' habitats. We applied our method to areas burned in the 2019-2020 Australian megafires and assessed its conservation advantages by comparing our results with outcomes of a site-richness approach (i.e., identifying areas that cost-effectively recover the most species in any one location). We found that 290 threatened species were likely severely affected and will require immediate conservation action to prevent population declines and possible extirpation. We identified 179 subregions, mostly in southeastern Australia, that are key locations to extend actions that benefit multiple species. Cost savings were over AU$300 million to reduce 95% of threats across all species. Our complementarity-based prioritization also spread postfire management actions across a wider proportion of the study area compared with the site-richness method (43% vs. 37% of the landscape managed, respectively) and put more of each species' range under management (average 90% vs. 79% of every species' habitat managed). In addition to wildfire response, our framework can be used to prioritize conservation actions that will best mitigate threats affecting species following other extreme environmental events (e.g., floods and drought).

Debido al cambio climático, los mega incendios son cada vez más comunes y tienen un impacto repentino y extenso sobre muchas especies en inmensas superficies, lo que deja a los tomadores de decisiones con incertidumbre sobre cuál es la mejor manera de priorizar la recuperación. Diseñamos un marco de apoyo a las decisiones para priorizar las acciones de conservación para mejorar los resultados para las especies inmediatamente después de un mega incendio. Para esto, se seleccionan localidades complementarias para extender las acciones de recuperación por todos los hábitats de las especies afectadas por el incendio. Aplicamos nuestro método a las áreas afectadas por los mega incendios de 2019-2020 en Australia y analizamos las ventajas de conservación del método mediante la comparación entre nuestros resultados y aquellos de un enfoque en la riqueza de especies (es decir, la identificación de las áreas que recuperan de manera rentable la mayor cantidad de especies en cualquier localidad única). Encontramos que 290 especies amenazadas estuvieron probablemente afectadas de manera severa y requerirán acciones inmediatas de conservación para prevenir la declinación poblacional y la posible eliminación. Identificamos 179 subregiones, la mayoría en el sureste de Australia, que son localidades clave para extender las acciones que benefician a muchas especies. El ahorro en los gastos fue de más de AU$300 millones para reducir el 95% de las amenazas para todas las especies. Nuestra priorización basada en la complementariedad también extendió las acciones de manejo posterior al incendio a una mayor proporción del área de estudio en comparación con el método de riqueza de especies (43% versus 37% del paisaje gestionado, respectivamente) y colocó más de la distribución de cada especie bajo manejo (en promedio 90% versus 79% del hábitat manejado de cada especie). Además de la respuesta a los incendios, nuestro marco puede usarse para priorizar las acciones de conservación que mitiguen de mejor manera las amenazas que afectan a las especies después de otros eventos ambientales extremos (p. ej., inundaciones y sequía).