News News

For a better production, agriculture areas need to recover at least 20% of natural habitat

International agreements aim to conserve 17% of Earth's land area by 2020 but include no area-based conservation targets within the working landscapes that support human needs through farming, ranching, and forestry. Through a review of country-level legislation, this study found that just 38% of countries have minimum area requirements for conserving native habitats within working landscapes. The study argues for increasing native habitats to at least 20% of working landscape area where it is below this minimum. Such target has benefits for food security, nature's contributions to people, and the connectivity and effectiveness of protected area networks in biomes in which protected areas are underrepresented. Other urgings of the review include maintaining native habitat at higher levels where it currently exceeds the 20% minimum, and a literature review shows that even more than 50% native habitat restoration is needed in particular landscapes. Including a >20% native habitats within working landscapes restoration target offers an unrivaled opportunity to simultaneously enhance biodiversity, food security and quality of life. The post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework is an opportune moment to include a minimum habitat restoration target for working landscapes that contributes to, but does not compete with, initiatives for expanding protected areas, the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021–2030) and the UN Sustainable Development Goals. informacion[at]ebd.csic.es: Garibaldi et al (2020) Working landscapes need at least 20% native habitat. Conserv Letter DOI: 10.1111/conl.12773


https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/conl.12773
Average (0 Votes)

Latest News Latest News

Back

Prioritization management tool for damaging alien species

Prioritization management tool for damaging alien species

Alien species can exert negative environmental and socio-economic impacts. Therefore, administrations from different sectors are trying to prevent further introductions, stop the spread of established species, and apply or develop programs to mitigate their impact, to contain the most harmful species, or to eradicate them if possible. Often it is not clear which of the numerous alien species are most important in terms of damage, and therefore, impact scoring systems have been developed to allow a comparison and thus prioritization of species. Here, the Generic Impact Scoring System (GISS) is presented, which relies on published evidence of environmental and socio-economic impact of alien species. A system of 12 impact categories, for environmental and socio-economic impact was developed, comprising all kinds of impacts that an alien species may exert. In each category, the intensity of impact is quantified by a six-level scale ranging from 0 (no impact detectable) to 5 (the highest impact possible). Such an approach, where impacts are grouped based on mechanisms for environmental impacts and receiving sectors for socio-economy, allows for cross-taxa comparisons and prioritization of the most damaging species. The GISS is simple and transparent, can be conducted with limited funds, and can be applied to a large number of alien species across taxa and environments. In a comparison with 22 other impact assessment methods, GISS appears to be the most broadly applicable system. informacion[at]ebd.csic.es: Nentwig et al (2016) The generic impact scoring system (GISS): a standardized tool to quantify the impacts of alien species. Environ Monit Assess Doi 10.1007/s10661-016-5321-4


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27129597