Implications for conservation assessment from flux in the botanical record over 20 years in southwest Ghana.

At best, conservation decisions can only be made using the data available at the time. For plants and especially in the tropics, natural history collections remain the best available baseline information upon which to base conservation assessments, in spite of well-documented limitations in their taxonomic, geographic, and temporal coverage. We explore the extent to which changes to the plant biological record over 20 years have changed our conception of the conservation importance of 931 plant taxa, and 114 vegetation samples, recorded in forest reserves of the southwest Ghana biodiversity hotspot. 36% of species-level assessments changed as a result of new distribution data. 12% of species accepted in 2016 had no assessment in 1996: of those, 20% are new species publications, 60% are new records for SW Ghana, and 20% are taxonomic resolutions. Apparent species ranges have increased over time as new records are made, but new species publications are overwhelmingly of globally rare species, keeping the balance of perceived rarity in the flora constant over 20 years. Thus, in spite of considerable flux at the species record level, range size rarity scores calculated for 114 vegetation samples of the reserves in 1996 and 2016 are highly correlated with each other: r(112) = 0.84, p < .0005, and showed no difference in mean score over 20 years: paired t(113) = -0.482, p = .631. This consistency in results at the area level allows for worthwhile conservation priority setting over time, and we argue is the better course of action than taking no action at all.

The intermediate disturbance hypothesis applies to tropical forests, but disturbance contributes little to tree diversity.

The intermediate disturbance hypothesis (IDH) predicts local species diversity to be maximal at an intermediate level of disturbance. Developed to explain species maintenance and diversity patterns in species-rich ecosystems such as tropical forests, tests of IDH in tropical forest remain scarce, small-scale and contentious. We use an unprecedented large-scale dataset (2504 one-hectare plots and 331,567 trees) to examine whether IDH explains tree diversity variation within wet, moist and dry tropical forests, and we analyse the underlying mechanism by determining responses within functional species groups. We find that disturbance explains more variation in diversity of dry than wet tropical forests. Pioneer species numbers increase with disturbance, shade-tolerant species decrease and intermediate species are indifferent. While diversity indeed peaks at intermediate disturbance levels little variation is explained outside dry forests, and disturbance is less important for species richness patterns in wet tropical rain forests than previously thought.

Bioquality Hotspots in the Tropical African Flora.

Identifying areas of high biodiversity is an established way to prioritize areas for conservation [1-3], but global approaches have been criticized for failing to render global biodiversity value at a scale suitable for local management [4-6]. We assembled 3.1 million species distribution records for 40,401 vascular plant species of tropical Africa from sources including plot data, herbarium databases, checklists, and the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) and cleaned the records for geographic accuracy and taxonomic consistency. We summarized the global ranges of tropical African plant species into four weighted categories of global rarity called Stars. We applied the Star weights to summaries of species distribution data at fine resolutions to map the bioquality (range-restricted global endemism) of areas [7]. We generated confidence intervals around bioquality scores to account for the remaining uncertainty in the species inventory. We confirm the broad significance of the Horn of Africa, Guinean forests, coastal forests of East Africa, and Afromontane regions for plant biodiversity but also reveal the variation in bioquality within these broad regions and others, particularly at local scales. Our framework offers practitioners a quantitative, scalable, and replicable approach for measuring the irreplaceability of particular local areas for global biodiversity conservation and comparing those areas within their global and regional context.