Biodiversity of vertebrates in Argentina: patterns of richness, endemism and conservation status.

Optimising conservation efforts requires an accurate record of the extant species as well as their geographic distributions. Nevertheless, most current conservation strategies start from an incomplete biodiversity inventory. Argentina has an extraordinary diversity of species, however, until now an updated inventory of its fauna has not been carried out. In this context, the main objective of this work is to present the results of the first national inventory of vertebrate species. Experts from each major vertebrate taxonomic group assembled and compiled its respective inventory. The information gathered included taxonomic rank, conservation status, endemism and geographic distribution. Species richness and representativeness were calculated for each taxonomic group, distinguishing between native, endemic and exotic, for each Argentinian province. Our results show Argentina harbours 3,303 species: 574 marine fish, 561 freshwater fish, 177 amphibians, 450 reptiles, 1,113 birds, and 428 mammals. Native species constitute 98.1% of the total taxa. The results achieved were spatially represented showing a pattern of higher richness from north to south and from east to west. Species considered as threatened account for 17.8% and 15.2% are endemic. There are five Extinct species. These results provide key information on developing strategies and public policies at the national and provincial levels and constitute a tool for the management and conservation of biodiversity.

Identifying Priorities, Targets, and Actions for the Long-term Social and Ecological Management of Invasive Non-Native Species.

Formulating effective management plans for addressing the impacts of invasive non-native species (INNS) requires the definition of clear priorities and tangible targets, and the recognition of the plurality of societal values assigned to these species. These tasks require a multi-disciplinary approach and the involvement of stakeholders. Here, we describe procedures to integrate multiple sources of information to formulate management priorities, targets, and high-level actions for the management of INNS. We follow five good-practice criteria: justified, evidence-informed, actionable, quantifiable, and flexible. We used expert knowledge methods to compile 17 lists of ecological, social, and economic impacts of lodgepole pines (Pinus contorta) and American mink (Neovison vison) in Chile and Argentina, the privet (Ligustrum lucidum) in Argentina, the yellow-jacket wasp (Vespula germanica) in Chile, and grasses (Urochloa brizantha and Urochloa decumbens) in Brazil. INNS plants caused a greater number of impacts than INNS animals, although more socio-economic impacts were listed for INNS animals than for plants. These impacts were ranked according to their magnitude and level of confidence on the information used for the ranking to prioritise impacts and assign them one of four high-level actions-do nothing, monitor, research, and immediate active management. We showed that it is possible to formulate management priorities, targets, and high-level actions for a variety of INNS and with variable levels of available information. This is vital in a world where the problems caused by INNS continue to increase, and there is a parallel growth in the implementation of management plans to deal with them.

A quantitative global review of species population monitoring.

Species monitoring, defined here as the repeated, systematic collection of data to detect long-term changes in the populations of wild species, is a vital component of conservation practice and policy. We created a database of nearly 1200 schemes, ranging in start date from 1800 to 2018, to review spatial, temporal, taxonomic, and methodological patterns in global species monitoring. We identified monitoring schemes through standardized web searches, an online survey of stakeholders, in-depth national searches in a sample of countries, and a review of global biodiversity databases. We estimated the total global number of monitoring schemes operating at 3300-15,000. Since 2000, there has been a sharp increase in the number of new schemes being initiated in lower- and middle-income countries and in megadiverse countries, but a decrease in high-income countries. The total number of monitoring schemes in a country and its per capita gross domestic product were strongly, positively correlated. Schemes that were active in 2018 had been running for an average of 21 years in high-income countries, compared with 13 years in middle-income countries and 10 years in low-income countries. In high-income countries, over one-half of monitoring schemes received government funding, but this was less than one-quarter in low-income countries. Data collection was undertaken partly or wholly by volunteers in 37% of schemes, and such schemes covered significantly more sites and species than those undertaken by professionals alone. Birds were by far the most widely monitored taxonomic group, accounting for around half of all schemes, but this bias declined over time. Monitoring in most taxonomic groups remains sparse and uncoordinated, and most of the data generated are elusive and unlikely to feed into wider biodiversity conservation processes. These shortcomings could be addressed by, for example, creating an open global meta-database of biodiversity monitoring schemes and enhancing capacity for species monitoring in countries with high biodiversity. Article impact statement: Species population monitoring for conservation purposes remains strongly biased toward a few vertebrate taxa in wealthier countries.

Una Revisión Global Cuantitativa del Monitoreo Poblacional de Especies Resumen El monitoreo de especies, definido aquí como la recolección sistemática y repetida de datos para detectar cambios a largo plazo en las poblaciones de las especies silvestres, es un componente vital de la práctica y las políticas de la conservación. Generamos una base de datos de casi 1,200 esquemas, con un rango de fecha de inicio desde 1800 hasta 2018, para revisar los patrones espaciales, temporales, taxonómicos y metodológicos en el monitoreo global de especies. Identificamos los esquemas de monitoreo por medio de búsquedas estandarizadas en línea, una encuesta digital realizada a los actores, búsquedas a profundidad en una muestra de países y en una revisión global de las bases de datos sobre la biodiversidad. Estimamos el número total mundial de esquemas funcionales de monitoreo entre 3,300 y 15,000. Desde el 2000, ha habido un fuerte aumento en el número de esquemas nuevos que han iniciado en países de bajo o mediano ingreso y en países megadiversos, pero una disminución en los países de alto ingreso. El número total de esquemas de monitoreo en un país y su producto interno bruto per cápita tuvieron una correlación sólida y positiva. Los esquemas que estaban activos en 2018 lo habían estado en un promedio de 21 años en los países de alto ingreso, comparado con un promedio de 13 años en los países de mediano ingreso y de 10 años en los países de bajo ingreso. En los países de alto ingreso, más de la mitad de los esquemas de monitoreo recibieron financiamiento del gobierno, comparado con menos de un cuarto de los esquemas en los países de bajo ingreso. La recolección de datos se realizó parcial o totalmente por voluntarios en 37% de los esquemas, y dichos esquemas cubrieron significativamente más sitios y especies que aquellos realizados sólo por profesionales. Las aves fueron por mucho el grupo taxonómico más monitoreado, comprendiendo casi la mitad de todos los esquemas, pero este sesgo declinó con el tiempo. El monitoreo en la mayoría de los grupos taxonómicos todavía es disperso y descoordinado, y la mayoría de los datos generados son vagos y tienen poca probabilidad de alimentar procesos más amplios de conservación de biodiversidad. Estas deficiencias podrían abordarse, por ejemplo, creando una meta-base de datos globales abiertos de los esquemas de monitoreo de la biodiversidad y mejorando la capacidad para el monitoreo de especies en los países con alta biodiversidad.