{"title":"确定优先保育区域,以促进连通性及减轻人为干扰的影响。","authors":"Edmond Sacre, Ulf Bergström, Charlotte Berkström","doi":"10.1111/cobi.70083","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>As nations seek to expand protected area (PA) networks to cover 30% of land and seas by 2030 (30×30), there is an urgent need for systematic conservation planning and spatial prioritization that considers the broad range of ecological and socioeconomic factors influencing the persistence of biodiversity. A remaining challenge in spatial prioritization is identifying areas that not only contribute to ecological connectivity but also are vulnerable to isolation and connectivity decline caused by anthropogenic disturbance. We devised an approach to assess PA networks and prioritize areas for conservation action and applied it to the Swedish coastal Baltic Sea area as an example. We developed connectivity models for 16 key fish species to identify habitats that provide the greatest contributions to maintaining network connectivity. We then incorporated spatial data on anthropogenic disturbance into the connectivity models to identify habitats for which human activities may hinder dispersal and recruitment, making them vulnerable to local population declines. We assessed the adequacy of the marine protected area (MPA) network in protecting these biodiversity features. Using spatial prioritization with explicit objectives to protect these biodiversity features, we then identified important areas for future protection. Although the Swedish MPA network provided a reasonable level of protection for these key habitats, their protection in stricter MPA categories (International Union for Conservation of Nature categories Ia, Ib, and II) was poor. Expanding the MPA network from its current coverage (10.5% of the study area) to 11%, the mean protection level across features increased from 25% to 48%. Expanding to 15% coverage increased mean protection across features to over 90%. Our approach to conservation planning incorporated not only biodiversity data (e.g., habitats and connectivity) but also the pressures these elements of biodiversity are susceptible to from human activities.</p>","PeriodicalId":10689,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Biology","volume":" ","pages":"e70083"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Identifying priority areas for conservation to promote connectivity and mitigate the impacts of anthropogenic disturbance.\",\"authors\":\"Edmond Sacre, Ulf Bergström, Charlotte Berkström\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/cobi.70083\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>As nations seek to expand protected area (PA) networks to cover 30% of land and seas by 2030 (30×30), there is an urgent need for systematic conservation planning and spatial prioritization that considers the broad range of ecological and socioeconomic factors influencing the persistence of biodiversity. A remaining challenge in spatial prioritization is identifying areas that not only contribute to ecological connectivity but also are vulnerable to isolation and connectivity decline caused by anthropogenic disturbance. We devised an approach to assess PA networks and prioritize areas for conservation action and applied it to the Swedish coastal Baltic Sea area as an example. We developed connectivity models for 16 key fish species to identify habitats that provide the greatest contributions to maintaining network connectivity. We then incorporated spatial data on anthropogenic disturbance into the connectivity models to identify habitats for which human activities may hinder dispersal and recruitment, making them vulnerable to local population declines. We assessed the adequacy of the marine protected area (MPA) network in protecting these biodiversity features. Using spatial prioritization with explicit objectives to protect these biodiversity features, we then identified important areas for future protection. Although the Swedish MPA network provided a reasonable level of protection for these key habitats, their protection in stricter MPA categories (International Union for Conservation of Nature categories Ia, Ib, and II) was poor. Expanding the MPA network from its current coverage (10.5% of the study area) to 11%, the mean protection level across features increased from 25% to 48%. Expanding to 15% coverage increased mean protection across features to over 90%. Our approach to conservation planning incorporated not only biodiversity data (e.g., habitats and connectivity) but also the pressures these elements of biodiversity are susceptible to from human activities.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10689,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Conservation Biology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e70083\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Conservation Biology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.70083\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conservation Biology","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.70083","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
Identifying priority areas for conservation to promote connectivity and mitigate the impacts of anthropogenic disturbance.
As nations seek to expand protected area (PA) networks to cover 30% of land and seas by 2030 (30×30), there is an urgent need for systematic conservation planning and spatial prioritization that considers the broad range of ecological and socioeconomic factors influencing the persistence of biodiversity. A remaining challenge in spatial prioritization is identifying areas that not only contribute to ecological connectivity but also are vulnerable to isolation and connectivity decline caused by anthropogenic disturbance. We devised an approach to assess PA networks and prioritize areas for conservation action and applied it to the Swedish coastal Baltic Sea area as an example. We developed connectivity models for 16 key fish species to identify habitats that provide the greatest contributions to maintaining network connectivity. We then incorporated spatial data on anthropogenic disturbance into the connectivity models to identify habitats for which human activities may hinder dispersal and recruitment, making them vulnerable to local population declines. We assessed the adequacy of the marine protected area (MPA) network in protecting these biodiversity features. Using spatial prioritization with explicit objectives to protect these biodiversity features, we then identified important areas for future protection. Although the Swedish MPA network provided a reasonable level of protection for these key habitats, their protection in stricter MPA categories (International Union for Conservation of Nature categories Ia, Ib, and II) was poor. Expanding the MPA network from its current coverage (10.5% of the study area) to 11%, the mean protection level across features increased from 25% to 48%. Expanding to 15% coverage increased mean protection across features to over 90%. Our approach to conservation planning incorporated not only biodiversity data (e.g., habitats and connectivity) but also the pressures these elements of biodiversity are susceptible to from human activities.
期刊介绍:
Conservation Biology welcomes submissions that address the science and practice of conserving Earth's biological diversity. We encourage submissions that emphasize issues germane to any of Earth''s ecosystems or geographic regions and that apply diverse approaches to analyses and problem solving. Nevertheless, manuscripts with relevance to conservation that transcend the particular ecosystem, species, or situation described will be prioritized for publication.