RESUMO
Reliable maps of species distributions are fundamental for biodiversity research and conservation. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) range maps are widely recognized as authoritative representations of species' geographic limits, yet they might not always align with actual occurrence data. In recent area of habitat (AOH) maps, areas that are not habitat have been removed from IUCN ranges to reduce commission errors, but their concordance with actual species occurrence also remains untested. We tested concordance between occurrences recorded in camera trap surveys and predicted occurrences from the IUCN and AOH maps for 510 medium- to large-bodied mammalian species in 80 camera trap sampling areas. Across all areas, cameras detected only 39% of species expected to occur based on IUCN ranges and AOH maps; 85% of the IUCN only mismatches occurred within 200 km of range edges. Only 4% of species occurrences were detected by cameras outside IUCN ranges. The probability of mismatches between cameras and the IUCN range was significantly higher for smaller-bodied mammals and habitat specialists in the Neotropics and Indomalaya and in areas with shorter canopy forests. Our findings suggest that range and AOH maps rarely underrepresent areas where species occur, but they may more often overrepresent ranges by including areas where a species may be absent, particularly at range edges. We suggest that combining range maps with data from ground-based biodiversity sensors, such as camera traps, provides a richer knowledge base for conservation mapping and planning.
Combinación de censos con fototrampas y mapas de extensión de la UICN para incrementar el conocimiento sobre la distribución de las especies Resumen Los mapas confiables de la distribución de las especies son fundamentales para la investigación y conservación de la biodiversidad. Los mapas de distribución de la Unión Internacional para la Conservación de la Naturaleza (UICN) están reconocidos como representaciones de autoridad de los límites geográficos de las especies, aunque no siempre se alinean con los datos actuales de su presencia. En los mapas recientes de área de hábitat (ADH), las áreas que no son hábitat han sido eliminadas de la distribución de la UICN para reducir los errores de comisión, pero su concordancia con la presencia actual de las especies tampoco ha sido analizada. Analizamos la concordancia entre la presencia registrada por los censos de fototrampas y pronosticamos la presencia a partir de los mapas de la UICN y de ADH de 510 especies de mamíferos de talla mediana a grande en 80 áreas de muestreo de fototrampas. Las cámaras detectaron sólo el 39% de las especies esperadas con base en la distribución de la UICN y los mapas de ADH en todas las áreas; el 85% de las disparidades con la UICN ocurrieron dentro de los 200 km a partir del borde de la distribución. Sólo el 4% de la presencia de las especies fue detectada por las cámaras ubicadas fuera de la distribución de la UICN. La probabilidad de disparidad entre las cámaras y la UICN fue significativamente mayor para los mamíferos de talla pequeña y para los especialistas de hábitat en las regiones Neotropical e Indomalaya y en áreas con doseles forestales más bajos. Nuestros hallazgos sugieren que los mapas de distribución y ADH pocas veces subrepresentan las áreas con presencia de las especies, pero con frecuencia pueden sobrerrepresentar la distribución al incluir áreas en donde las especies pueden estar ausentes, en particular los bordes de la distribución. Sugerimos que la combinación de los mapas de distribución con los sensores de biodiversidad en tierra, como las fototrampas, proporciona una base más rica de conocimiento para el mapeo y la planeación de la conservación.
RESUMO
Light pollution is a global phenomenon where anthropogenic light sources continue to grow unabated, affecting both social and ecological systems. This is leaving parks and protected areas as some of the last vestiges of naturally dark environments for protecting views of the night sky. Yet, even parks and protected areas have outdoor lighting. Alternative lighting practices are needed to reduce or prevent light pollution from within parks. However, making parks darker may not be desirable for some visitors if they believe it will reduce navigability, safety, or restrict how they recreate (e.g., requiring the use of red-light flashlights after dark and before dawn). How visitors will respond to alternative lighting practices that park managers can implement is still unknown. We used an on-site intercept survey at nine state and national park units in Utah, U.S., to investigate nighttime visitors' support or opposition to management actions to protect night sky quality and their interest in learning about topics related to night skies. Further, this study also segmented visitors into two groups: those 'dependent' on the dark sky as a resource and those whose activities did not depend on a dark sky. Defining what a 'dark sky dependent' visitor is, which has yet to be done in the literature, is a fundamental step to furthering night sky research and management efforts. Across nine parks and protected areas, 62% of nighttime visitors participated in dark sky dependent activities. Findings indicate broad support for management actions designed to improve night sky quality, with between 74% and 89% of all visitors supporting seven different management actions. There was stronger support from dark sky dependent visitors for some elements of alternative lighting practices, but there was still strong support for those who do not participate in dark sky dependent outdoor recreation. Additionally, between 57% and 75% of visitors were interested in learning more about topics related to night skies. This research indicates most visitors would welcome actions to preserve the quality of the rapidly dwindling naturally dark experiences offered by parks and protected areas.