Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorPlumptre, A.J.en_US
dc.contributor.authorBaisero, D.en_US
dc.contributor.authorBelote, R.T.en_US
dc.contributor.authorVázquez-Domínguez, E.en_US
dc.contributor.authorFaurby, S.en_US
dc.contributor.authorJȩdrzejewski, W.en_US
dc.contributor.authorKiara, Henry K.en_US
dc.contributor.authorKühl, H.en_US
dc.contributor.authorBenítez-López, A.en_US
dc.contributor.authorLuna-Aranguré, C.en_US
dc.contributor.authorVoigt, M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorWich, S.en_US
dc.contributor.authorWint, W.en_US
dc.contributor.authorGallego-Zamorano, J.en_US
dc.contributor.authorBoyd, C.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2021-04-27T13:08:29Zen_US
dc.date.available2021-04-27T13:08:29Zen_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10568/113569en_US
dc.titleWhere might we find ecologically intact communities?en_US
cg.authorship.typesCGIAR and developing country instituteen_US
cg.authorship.typesCGIAR and advanced research instituteen_US
dcterms.abstractConservation efforts should target the few remaining areas of the world that represent outstanding examples of ecological integrity and aim to restore ecological integrity to a much broader area of the world with intact habitat and minimal species loss while this is still possible. There have been many assessments of “intactness” in recent years but most of these use measures of anthropogenic impact at a site, rather than faunal intactness or ecological integrity. This paper makes the first assessment of faunal intactness for the global terrestrial land surface and assesses how many ecoregions have sites that could qualify as Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs – sites contributing significantly to the global persistence of biodiversity) based on their outstanding ecological integrity (under KBA Criterion C). Three datasets are combined on species loss at sites to create a new spatially explicit map of numbers of species extirpated. Based on this map it is estimated that no more than 2.9% of the land surface can be considered to be faunally intact. Additionally, using habitat/density distribution data for 15 large mammals we also make an initial assessment of areas where mammal densities are reduced, showing a further decrease in surface area to 2.8% of the land surface that could be considered functionally intact. Only 11% of the functionally intact areas that were identified are included within existing protected areas, and only 4% within existing KBAs triggered by other criteria. Our findings show that the number of ecoregions that could qualify as Criterion C KBAs could potentially increase land area up to 20% if their faunal composition was restored with the reintroduction of 1–5 species. Hence, if all necessary requirements are met in order to reintroduce species and regain faunal integrity, this will increase ecological integrity across much of the area where human impacts are low (human footprint ≤4). Focusing restoration efforts in these areas could significantly increase the area of the planet with full ecological integrity.en_US
dcterms.accessRightsOpen Accessen_US
dcterms.audienceScientistsen_US
dcterms.audienceAcademicsen_US
dcterms.bibliographicCitationPlumptre, A.J., Baisero, D., Belote, R.T., Vázquez-Domínguez, E., Faurby, S., Jȩdrzejewski, W., Kiara, H., Kühl, H., Benítez-López, A., Luna-Aranguré, C., Voigt, M., Wich, S., Wint, W., Gallego-Zamorano, J. and Boyd, C. 2021. Where might we find ecologically intact communities? Frontiers in Forests and Global Change 4: 626635.en_US
dcterms.extent626635en_US
dcterms.issued2021-04-15en_US
dcterms.languageenen_US
dcterms.licenseCC-BY-4.0en_US
dcterms.publisherFrontiers Media SAen_US
dcterms.subjectbiodiversityen_US
dcterms.subjectecologyen_US
dcterms.typeJournal Articleen_US
cg.subject.ilriBIODIVERSITYen_US
cg.contributor.affiliationBirdLife Internationalen_US
cg.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Cambridgeen_US
cg.contributor.affiliationWilderness Societyen_US
cg.contributor.affiliationCiudad Universitariaen_US
cg.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Gothenburgen_US
cg.contributor.affiliationInstituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Científicasen_US
cg.contributor.affiliationInternational Livestock Research Instituteen_US
cg.contributor.affiliationMax Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropologyen_US
cg.contributor.affiliationGerman Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Researchen_US
cg.contributor.affiliationEstación Biológica de Doñanaen_US
cg.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Kenten_US
cg.contributor.affiliationLiverpool John Moores Universityen_US
cg.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Amsterdamen_US
cg.contributor.affiliationEnvironmental Research Group Oxford Ltd.en_US
cg.contributor.affiliationRadboud University Nijmegenen_US
cg.contributor.affiliationInternational Union for Conservation of Natureen_US
cg.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2021.626635en_US
cg.isijournalISI Journalen_US
cg.subject.impactAreaEnvironmental health and biodiversityen_US
cg.subject.sdgSDG 15 - Life on landen_US
cg.creator.identifierHenry Kiara: 0000-0001-9578-1636en_US
cg.contributor.donorKBA Partnershipen_US
cg.contributor.donorDaniel K. Thorne Foundationen_US
cg.contributor.donorCambridge Conservation Initiativeen_US
cg.contributor.donorSwedish Research Councilen_US
cg.contributor.donorMinistry of Science, Innovation and Universities, Spainen_US
cg.reviewStatusPeer Reviewen_US
cg.howPublishedFormally Publisheden_US
cg.journalFrontiers in Forests and Global Changeen_US
cg.issn2624-893Xen_US
cg.volume4en_US


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record