Mapping the planet's critical natural assets.

Sustaining the organisms, ecosystems and processes that underpin human wellbeing is necessary to achieve sustainable development. Here we define critical natural assets as the natural and semi-natural ecosystems that provide 90% of the total current magnitude of 14 types of nature's contributions to people (NCP), and we map the global locations of these critical natural assets at 2 km resolution. Critical natural assets for maintaining local-scale NCP (12 of the 14 NCP) account for 30% of total global land area and 24% of national territorial waters, while 44% of land area is required to also maintain two global-scale NCP (carbon storage and moisture recycling). These areas overlap substantially with cultural diversity (areas containing 96% of global languages) and biodiversity (covering area requirements for 73% of birds and 66% of mammals). At least 87% of the world's population live in the areas benefitting from critical natural assets for local-scale NCP, while only 16% live on the lands containing these assets. Many of the NCP mapped here are left out of international agreements focused on conserving species or mitigating climate change, yet this analysis shows that explicitly prioritizing critical natural assets and the NCP they provide could simultaneously advance development, climate and conservation goals.

People have shaped most of terrestrial nature for at least 12,000 years.

Archaeological and paleoecological evidence shows that by 10,000 BCE, all human societies employed varying degrees of ecologically transformative land use practices, including burning, hunting, species propagation, domestication, cultivation, and others that have left long-term legacies across the terrestrial biosphere. Yet, a lingering paradigm among natural scientists, conservationists, and policymakers is that human transformation of terrestrial nature is mostly recent and inherently destructive. Here, we use the most up-to-date, spatially explicit global reconstruction of historical human populations and land use to show that this paradigm is likely wrong. Even 12,000 y ago, nearly three quarters of Earth's land was inhabited and therefore shaped by human societies, including more than 95% of temperate and 90% of tropical woodlands. Lands now characterized as "natural," "intact," and "wild" generally exhibit long histories of use, as do protected areas and Indigenous lands, and current global patterns of vertebrate species richness and key biodiversity areas are more strongly associated with past patterns of land use than with present ones in regional landscapes now characterized as natural. The current biodiversity crisis can seldom be explained by the loss of uninhabited wildlands, resulting instead from the appropriation, colonization, and intensifying use of the biodiverse cultural landscapes long shaped and sustained by prior societies. Recognizing this deep cultural connection with biodiversity will therefore be essential to resolve the crisis.

Global modeling of nature's contributions to people.

The magnitude and pace of global change demand rapid assessment of nature and its contributions to people. We present a fine-scale global modeling of current status and future scenarios for several contributions: water quality regulation, coastal risk reduction, and crop pollination. We find that where people's needs for nature are now greatest, nature's ability to meet those needs is declining. Up to 5 billion people face higher water pollution and insufficient pollination for nutrition under future scenarios of land use and climate change, particularly in Africa and South Asia. Hundreds of millions of people face heightened coastal risk across Africa, Eurasia, and the Americas. Continued loss of nature poses severe threats, yet these can be reduced 3- to 10-fold under a sustainable development scenario.

Climate change, wine, and conservation.

Climate change is expected to impact ecosystems directly, such as through shifting climatic controls on species ranges, and indirectly, for example through changes in human land use that may result in habitat loss. Shifting patterns of agricultural production in response to climate change have received little attention as a potential impact pathway for ecosystems. Wine grape production provides a good test case for measuring indirect impacts mediated by changes in agriculture, because viticulture is sensitive to climate and is concentrated in Mediterranean climate regions that are global biodiversity hotspots. Here we demonstrate that, on a global scale, the impacts of climate change on viticultural suitability are substantial, leading to possible conservation conflicts in land use and freshwater ecosystems. Area suitable for viticulture decreases 25% to 73% in major wine producing regions by 2050 in the higher RCP 8.5 concentration pathway and 19% to 62% in the lower RCP 4.5. Climate change may cause establishment of vineyards at higher elevations that will increase impacts on upland ecosystems and may lead to conversion of natural vegetation as production shifts to higher latitudes in areas such as western North America. Attempts to maintain wine grape productivity and quality in the face of warming may be associated with increased water use for irrigation and to cool grapes through misting or sprinkling, creating potential for freshwater conservation impacts. Agricultural adaptation and conservation efforts are needed that anticipate these multiple possible indirect effects.

The Adaptation for Conservation Targets (ACT) framework: a tool for incorporating climate change into natural resource management.

As natural resource management agencies and conservation organizations seek guidance on responding to climate change, myriad potential actions and strategies have been proposed for increasing the long-term viability of some attributes of natural systems. Managers need practical tools for selecting among these actions and strategies to develop a tailored management approach for specific targets at a given location. We developed and present one such tool, the participatory Adaptation for Conservation Targets (ACT) framework, which considers the effects of climate change in the development of management actions for particular species, ecosystems and ecological functions. Our framework is based on the premise that effective adaptation of management to climate change can rely on local knowledge of an ecosystem and does not necessarily require detailed projections of climate change or its effects. We illustrate the ACT framework by applying it to an ecological function in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho, USA)--water flows in the upper Yellowstone River. We suggest that the ACT framework is a practical tool for initiating adaptation planning, and for generating and communicating specific management interventions given an increasingly altered, yet uncertain, climate.

Economic costs of achieving current conservation goals in the future as climate changes.

Conservation of biologically diverse regions has thus far been accomplished largely through the establishment and maintenance of protected areas. Climate change is expected to shift climate space of many species outside existing reserve boundaries. We used climate-envelope models to examine shifts in climate space of 11 species that are representative of the Mount Hamilton Project area (MHPA) (California, U.S.A.), which includes areas within Alameda, Santa Clara, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, and San Benito counties and is in the state's Central Coast ecoregion. We used Marxan site-selection software to determine the minimum area required as climate changes to achieve a baseline conservation goal equal to 80% of existing climate space for all species in the MHPA through 2050 and 2100. Additionally, we assessed the costs associated with use of existing conservation strategies (land acquisition and management actions such as species translocation, monitoring, and captive breeding) necessary to meet current species-conservation goals as climate changes. Meeting conservation goals as climate changes through 2050 required an additional 256,000 ha (332%) of protected area, primarily to the south and west of the MHPA. Through 2050 the total cost of land acquisition and management was estimated at US$1.67-1.79 billion, or 139-149% of the cost of achieving the same conservation goals with no climate change. To maintain 80% of climate space through 2100 required nearly 380,000 additional hectares that would cost $2.46-2.62 billion, or 209-219% of the cost of achieving the same conservation goals with no climate change. Furthermore, maintaining 80% of existing climate space within California for 27% of the focal species was not possible by 2100 because climate space for these species did not exist in the state. The high costs of conserving species as the climate changes-that we found in an assessment of one conservation project-highlights the need for tools that will aid in iterative goal setting given the uncertainty of the effects of climate change and adaptive management that includes new conservation strategies and consideration of the long-term economic costs of conservation.

U.S. natural resources and climate change: concepts and approaches for management adaptation.

Public lands and waters in the United States traditionally have been managed using frameworks and objectives that were established under an implicit assumption of stable climatic conditions. However, projected climatic changes render this assumption invalid. Here, we summarize general principles for management adaptations that have emerged from a major literature review. These general principles cover many topics including: (1) how to assess climate impacts to ecosystem processes that are key to management goals; (2) using management practices to support ecosystem resilience; (3) converting barriers that may inhibit management responses into opportunities for successful implementation; and (4) promoting flexible decision making that takes into account challenges of scale and thresholds. To date, the literature on management adaptations to climate change has mostly focused on strategies for bolstering the resilience of ecosystems to persist in their current states. Yet in the longer term, it is anticipated that climate change will push certain ecosystems and species beyond their capacity to recover. When managing to support resilience becomes infeasible, adaptation may require more than simply changing management practices--it may require changing management goals and managing transitions to new ecosystem states. After transitions have occurred, management will again support resilience--this time for a new ecosystem state. Thus, successful management of natural resources in the context of climate change will require recognition on the part of managers and decisions makers of the need to cycle between "managing for resilience" and "managing for change."

Climate change, habitat loss, protected areas and the climate adaptation potential of species in mediterranean ecosystems worldwide.

Mediterranean climate is found on five continents and supports five global biodiversity hotspots. Based on combined downscaled results from 23 atmosphere-ocean general circulation models (AOGCMs) for three emissions scenarios, we determined the projected spatial shifts in the mediterranean climate extent (MCE) over the next century. Although most AOGCMs project a moderate expansion in the global MCE, regional impacts are large and uneven. The median AOGCM simulation output for the three emissions scenarios project the MCE at the end of the 21(st) century in Chile will range from 129-153% of its current size, while in Australia, it will contract to only 77-49% of its current size losing an area equivalent to over twice the size of Portugal. Only 4% of the land area within the current MCE worldwide is in protected status (compared to a global average of 12% for all biome types), and, depending on the emissions scenario, only 50-60% of these protected areas are likely to be in the future MCE. To exacerbate the climate impact, nearly one third (29-31%) of the land where the MCE is projected to remain stable has already been converted to human use, limiting the size of the potential climate refuges and diminishing the adaptation potential of native biota. High conversion and low protection in projected stable areas make Australia the highest priority region for investment in climate-adaptation strategies to reduce the threat of climate change to the rich biodiversity of the mediterranean biome.

Expanding the global network of protected areas to save the imperiled mediterranean biome.

: Global goals established by the Convention on Biological Diversity stipulate that 10% of the world's ecological regions must be effectively conserved by 2010. To meet that goal for the mediterranean biome, at least 5% more land must be formally protected over the next few years. Although global assessments identify the mediterranean biome as a priority, without biologically meaningful analysis units, finer-resolution data, and corresponding prioritization analysis, future conservation investments could lead to more area being protected without increasing the representation of unique mediterranean ecosystems. We used standardized analysis units and six potential natural vegetation types stratified by 3 elevation zones in a global gap analysis that systematically explored conservation priorities across the mediterranean biome. The highest levels of protection were in Australia, South Africa, and California-Baja California (from 9-11%), and the lowest levels of protection were in Chile and the mediterranean Basin (<1%). Protection was skewed to montane elevations in three out of five regions. Across the biome only one of the six vegetation types--mediterranean shrubland--exceeded 10% protection. The remaining vegetation types--grassland, scrub, succulent dominated, woodland, and forest--each had <3% protection. To guard against biases in future protection efforts and ensure the protection of species characteristic of the mediterranean biome, we identified biodiversity assemblages with <10% protection and subject to >30% conversion and suggest that these assemblages be elevated to high-priority status in future conservation efforts.

Protecting biodiversity when money matters: maximizing return on investment.

BACKGROUND: Conventional wisdom identifies biodiversity hotspots as priorities for conservation investment because they capture dense concentrations of species. However, density of species does not necessarily imply conservation 'efficiency'. Here we explicitly consider conservation efficiency in terms of species protected per dollar invested. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We apply a dynamic return on investment approach to a global biome and compare it with three alternate priority setting approaches and a random allocation of funding. After twenty years of acquiring habitat, the return on investment approach protects between 32% and 69% more species compared to the other priority setting approaches. To correct for potential inefficiencies of protecting the same species multiple times we account for the complementarity of species, protecting up to three times more distinct vertebrate species than alternate approaches. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Incorporating costs in a return on investment framework expands priorities to include areas not traditionally highlighted as priorities based on conventional irreplaceability and vulnerability approaches.

Conserving biodiversity efficiently: what to do, where, and when.

Conservation priority-setting schemes have not yet combined geographic priorities with a framework that can guide the allocation of funds among alternate conservation actions that address specific threats. We develop such a framework, and apply it to 17 of the world's 39 Mediterranean ecoregions. This framework offers an improvement over approaches that only focus on land purchase or species richness and do not account for threats. We discover that one could protect many more plant and vertebrate species by investing in a sequence of conservation actions targeted towards specific threats, such as invasive species control, land acquisition, and off-reserve management, than by relying solely on acquiring land for protected areas. Applying this new framework will ensure investment in actions that provide the most cost-effective outcomes for biodiversity conservation. This will help to minimise the misallocation of scarce conservation resources.

Conservation easements: biodiversity protection and private use.

Conservation easements are one of the primary tools for conserving biodiversity on private land. Despite their increasing use, little quantitative data are available on what species and habitats conservation easements aim to protect, how much structural development they allow, or what types of land use they commonly permit. To address these knowledge gaps, we surveyed staff responsible for 119 conservation easements established by the largest nonprofit easement holder, The Nature Conservancy, between 1985 and 2004. Most easements (80%) aimed to provide core habitat to protect species or communities on-site, and nearly all were designed to reduce development. Conservation easements also allowed for a wide range of private uses, which may result in additional fragmentation and habitat disturbance. Some residential or commercial use, new structures, or subdivision of the property were permitted on 85% of sampled conservation easements. Over half (56%) allowed some additional buildings, of which 60% restricted structure size or building area. Working landscape easements with ranching, forestry, or farming made up nearly half (46%) of the easement properties sampled and were more likely than easements without these uses to be designated as buffers to enhance biodiversity in the surrounding area. Our results demonstrate the need for clear restrictions on building and subdivision in easements, research on the compatibility of private uses on easement land, and greater public understanding of the trade-offs implicit in the use of conservation easements for biodiversity conservation.

Conservation planning for ecosystem services.

Despite increasing attention to the human dimension of conservation projects, a rigorous, systematic methodology for planning for ecosystem services has not been developed. This is in part because flows of ecosystem services remain poorly characterized at local-to-regional scales, and their protection has not generally been made a priority. We used a spatially explicit conservation planning framework to explore the trade-offs and opportunities for aligning conservation goals for biodiversity with six ecosystem services (carbon storage, flood control, forage production, outdoor recreation, crop pollination, and water provision) in the Central Coast ecoregion of California, United States. We found weak positive and some weak negative associations between the priority areas for biodiversity conservation and the flows of the six ecosystem services across the ecoregion. Excluding the two agriculture-focused services-crop pollination and forage production-eliminates all negative correlations. We compared the degree to which four contrasting conservation network designs protect biodiversity and the flow of the six services. We found that biodiversity conservation protects substantial collateral flows of services. Targeting ecosystem services directly can meet the multiple ecosystem services and biodiversity goals more efficiently but cannot substitute for targeted biodiversity protection (biodiversity losses of 44% relative to targeting biodiversity alone). Strategically targeting only biodiversity plus the four positively associated services offers much promise (relative biodiversity losses of 7%). Here we present an initial analytical framework for integrating biodiversity and ecosystem services in conservation planning and illustrate its application. We found that although there are important potential trade-offs between conservation for biodiversity and for ecosystem services, a systematic planning framework offers scope for identifying valuable synergies.

Responses of grassland production to single and multiple global environmental changes.

In this century, increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are expected to cause warmer surface temperatures and changes in precipitation patterns. At the same time, reactive nitrogen is entering natural systems at unprecedented rates. These global environmental changes have consequences for the functioning of natural ecosystems, and responses of these systems may feed back to affect climate and atmospheric composition. Here, we report plant growth responses of an ecosystem exposed to factorial combinations of four expected global environmental changes. We exposed California grassland to elevated CO2, temperature, precipitation, and nitrogen deposition for five years. Root and shoot production did not respond to elevated CO2 or modest warming. Supplemental precipitation led to increases in shoot production and offsetting decreases in root production. Supplemental nitrate deposition increased total production by an average of 26%, primarily by stimulating shoot growth. Interactions among the main treatments were rare. Together, these results suggest that production in this grassland will respond minimally to changes in CO2 and winter precipitation, and to small amounts of warming. Increased nitrate deposition would have stronger effects on the grassland. Aside from this nitrate response, expectations that a changing atmosphere and climate would promote carbon storage by increasing plant growth appear unlikely to be realized in this system.

Convergence across biomes to a common rain-use efficiency.

Water availability limits plant growth and production in almost all terrestrial ecosystems. However, biomes differ substantially in sensitivity of aboveground net primary production (ANPP) to between-year variation in precipitation. Average rain-use efficiency (RUE; ANPP/precipitation) also varies between biomes, supposedly because of differences in vegetation structure and/or biogeochemical constraints. Here we show that RUE decreases across biomes as mean annual precipitation increases. However, during the driest years at each site, there is convergence to a common maximum RUE (RUE(max)) that is typical of arid ecosystems. RUE(max) was also identified by experimentally altering the degree of limitation by water and other resources. Thus, in years when water is most limiting, deserts, grasslands and forests all exhibit the same rate of biomass production per unit rainfall, despite differences in physiognomy and site-level RUE. Global climate models predict increased between-year variability in precipitation, more frequent extreme drought events, and changes in temperature. Forecasts of future ecosystem behaviour should take into account this convergent feature of terrestrial biomes.