Quantifying animal movements is necessary for answering a wide array of research questions in ecology and conservation biology. Consequently, ecologists have made considerable efforts to identify the best way to estimate an animal’s home range, and many methods of estimating home ranges have arisen over the past half century. Most of these methods fall into two distinct categories of estimators that have only recently been described in statistical detail: those that measure range distributions (methods such as Kernel Density Estimation that quantify the long-run behavior of a movement process that features restricted space use) and those that measure occurrence distributions (methods such as Brownian Bridge Movement Models and the Correlated Random Walk Library that quantify uncertainty in an animal movement path during a specific period of observation). In this paper, we use theory, simulations, and empirical analysis to demonstrate the importance of applying these two classes of space use estimators appropriately and distinctly. Conflating range and occurrence distributions can have serious consequences for ecological inference and conservation practice. For example, in most situations, home-range estimates quantified using occurrence estimators are too small, and this problem is exacerbated by ongoing improvements in tracking technology that enable more frequent and more accurate data on animal movements. We encourage researchers to use range estimators to estimate the area of home ranges and occurrence estimators to answer other questions in movement ecology, such as when and where an animal crosses a linear feature, visits a location of interest, or interacts with other animals. Open Research Statement Tracking data on Aepyceros melampus, Beatragus hunteri, Bycanistes bucinator, Cerdocyon thous, Eulemur rufifrons, Glyptemys insculpta, Gyps coprotheres, Madoqua guentheri, Ovis canadensis, Propithecus verreauxi, Sus scrofa, and Ursus arctos are publicly archived in the Dryad repository (Noonan et al. 2018; https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.v5051j2), as are data from Procapra gutturosa (Fleming et al. 2014a; https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.45157). Data on Panthera onca were taken from (Morato et al. 2018). Additional data are publicly archived in the Movebank repository under the following identifiers: Canis latrans, 8159699; Canis lupus, 8159399; Chrysocyon brachyurus, 18156143; Felis silvestris, 40386102; Gyps africanus, 2919708; Lepus europaeus, 25727477; Martes pennanti, 2964494; Panthera leo, 220229; Papio cynocephalus, 222027; Syncerus caffer, 1764627; Tapirus terrestris, 443607536; Torgos tracheliotus, 2919708; and Ursus americanus, 8170674.
A global standard for the identification of Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) was published 10 years ago to provide a unified set of criteria for identifying 'sites of significance for the global persistence of biodiversity'. We review the initiative's origins, the KBA identification process, characteristics of the current network, threats, policy uptake, private sector applications and future priorities. KBAs are identified using criteria with quantitative thresholds relating to threatened or geographically restricted species or ecosystems, ecological integrity, biological processes, or irreplaceability. These criteria can be applied in terrestrial, inland water, marine and subterranean environments, and to all taxonomic groups. A total of 16,596 KBAs covering 22.1 million km2 has been identified, with 29% of these sites in marine and 26% in freshwater ecosystems. KBAs range from 0.001 km2 to 712,457 km2 in extent, with a median size of 141 km2 and a mean of 1,364 km2. Most (63%) qualify due to the globally threatened species they support, with 48% being important for biological processes and 39% for geographically restricted species. KBAs have been identified for 18,365 qualifying species in total, of which 37% are plants and 32% are birds. The most prevalent threats are biological resource use (hunting, logging, fishing, etc., impacting 40.8% of sites with available data), unsustainable agriculture (40.7%), human intrusions and disturbance (38.4%) and natural systems modifications (water management and fire; 33.4%). KBAs are important for delivering ecosystem services to people, both locally and globally. KBAs have had widespread impact in informing protected area designation in all regions. In total, 10,054 sites (62%) are covered completely or partially by protected areas. Hence, KBAs are highly relevant to Target 3 (and other targets) in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, and to Sustainable Development Goals 14.5, 15.1, and 15.4. Indicators based on KBA data are therefore being used by the Convention on Biological Diversity and United Nations to track progress towards these targets. Many companies and financial institutions use KBAs to assess their exposure to nature-related risks and to identify opportunities for site-level, nature-positive actions. Future priorities include expanding and updating KBA assessments, and strengthening efforts to protect, conserve and safeguard these sites effectively.
Abstract The Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) includes a target to protect 30% of land by 2030, identifying other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) as complementary to Protected Areas (PAs). However, their contribution to conservation outcomes remains uncertain. Here we show the level of human pressure across the global OECM network and assess the impact of different governance mechanisms on deforestation and associated carbon emissions in the Peruvian Amazon from 2005 to 2021. We evaluate Indigenous Lands (ILs), Non-Timber Forest Product Concessions (NTCs), Logging Concessions (LCs), Mining Concessions (MCs), and PAs using statistical matching. Globally, OECMs show higher human pressure than strictly protected PAs, but similar levels to less strictly protected PAs. In the Peruvian Amazon, PAs are most effective at reducing deforestation (49–53% avoided), followed by NTCs and ILs (33% and 20%, respectively). In contrast, LCs and MCs are associated with increased deforestation (13% and 24%). These findings highlight the complementary role of OECMs and the effectiveness of different governance mechanisms in reducing deforestation and carbon emissions, informing efforts to achieve global biodiversity targets.
Coral reefs are vital social-ecological systems, but highly vulnerable to global change and local stressors. While conveying the urgency of existential threats is paramount, bleak outlooks can become self-reinforcing, limiting capacities to act. To counter this, experts working on coral reefs in diverse geographies imagined coral reef futures through a structured visioning process. The resulting visions offer alternatives aspiring to desirability, sustainability, and equity for coral reefs. These broaden the conversation on coral reef futures, enabling discussions beyond siloed conservation, traditional management tools, or pure techno-fixes. Concepts such as earth stewardship, biocultural revitalization, and anticipatory governance emerged as essential to sustaining human well-being and enabling the viability of future coral reef ecosystems before, during, and beyond social-ecological shocks. By fostering forward-thinking dialog, these visions and narratives constitute key stepping stones to reimagining desirable relationships between people and coral reefs and speak to both anticipatory and adaptive pathways toward desired change.
The lack of wildlife health (WH) surveillance systems leaves critical gaps in biodiversity conservation and One Health protection. Integrating rangers patrolling protected areas (PAs) into WH monitoring represents a cost-effective and scalable opportunity to address these gaps at key human-wildlife interfaces and nature strongholds. For the past 2.5 years, organizations across 4 countries have collaborated to pilot this integration. The approach involved establishing a practical definition of health event for rangers patrolling PAs, developing a referential form tailored for rangers to document these events, training key country actors to identify and record health events on this form, merging this form with local forms used by rangers to record other events of interest observed during their patrols (e.g., illegal logging), and training rangers to identify and document health events with the modified local form. We examined 4 case studies involving dozens of PAs in different countries with different languages and local partners. The recording of health events was supported by the Spatial Monitoring And Reporting Tool, SMART, which provides the modified form for rangers on mobile devices and enabled standardized recording of events. Currently, over 200 rangers across more than 50 PAs have been trained, and more than 1000 health events have been recorded. This provides early evidence that rangers could enhance WH monitoring and strengthen biodiversity conservation, ultimately fostering One Health. This initiative lays important groundwork for overcoming key barriers (e.g., lack of personnel and funding) to establishing functional WH surveillance systems in PAs. Still, specific data infrastructure, human resources, and institutional support are needed. It will be important to evaluate the limitations of ranger-collected data and align monitoring goals with the capabilities of rangers and data managers. Expansion to additional PAs is planned, alongside efforts to integrate ranger-collected data into multisectoral One Health frameworks.
