ArticlePDF Available

Do biodiversity hotspots match with rodent conservation hotspots?

Authors:
Giovanni Amori at Italian National Research Council
Giovanni Amori
Spartaco Gippoliti at Società Italiana per la Storia della Fauna "Giuseppe Altobello"
Spartaco Gippoliti
  • Società Italiana per la Storia della Fauna "Giuseppe Altobello"
Luca Luiselli at Rivers State University of Science and Technology
Luca Luiselli
Download full-text PDF
Read full-text
Download citation

Abstract and Figures

Biodiversity hotspots are used widely to designate priority regions for conservation efforts. It is unknown, however, whether the current network of hotspots adequately represents globally threatened taxonomic diversity for whole plant and animal groups. We used a mammalian group traditionally neglected in terms of conservation efforts, the rodents, in order to test whether biodiversity hotspots match the current distribution of threatened taxa (genera and species). Significantly higher numbers of threatened rodent genera and species fell within biodiversity hotspots; nonetheless over 25% of the total threatened genera and species did not occur in any biodiversity hotspot. This was particularly true for the Australian region, where 100% of the threatened genera and species fell outside biodiversity hotspots, with many threatened taxa found in Papua-New Guinea. We suggest to officially including Papua New Guinea among biodiversity hotspots for rodents, and also the steppic/semidesert areas of central Asia. KeywordsBiodiversity hotspots–Rodentia–Conservation–Papua New Guinea
Figures - uploaded by Spartaco Gippoliti
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by Spartaco Gippoliti
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Spartaco Gippoliti
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Spartaco Gippoliti on Nov 10, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
COMMENT
Do biodiversity hotspots match with rodent conservation
hotspots?
Giovanni Amori •Spartaco Gippoliti •Luca Luiselli
Received: 12 January 2011 / Accepted: 24 July 2011 / Published online: 12 August 2011
ÓSpringer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011
Abstract Biodiversity hotspots are used widely to designate priority regions for
conservation efforts. It is unknown, however, whether the current network of hotspots
adequately represents globally threatened taxonomic diversity for whole plant and
animal groups. We used a mammalian group traditionally neglected in terms of con-
servation efforts, the rodents, in order to test whether biodiversity hotspots match the
current distribution of threatened taxa (genera and species). Significantly higher num-
bers of threatened rodent genera and species fell within biodiversity hotspots; none-
theless over 25% of the total threatened genera and species did not occur in any
biodiversity hotspot. This was particularly true for the Australian region, where 100%
of the threatened genera and species fell outside biodiversity hotspots, with many
threatened taxa found in Papua-New Guinea. We suggest to officially including Papua
New Guinea among biodiversity hotspots for rodents, and also the steppic/semidesert
areas of central Asia.
Keywords Biodiversity hotspots Rodentia Conservation Papua New Guinea
Introduction
In modern conservation biology, the concept of biodiversity hotspots has been used for
designating the biologically richest, most diverse in terms of endemic taxa, and most
threatened reservoirs of plant and animal life on earth (e.g., Myers 1998; Myers et al. 2000).
Indeed, primary natural habitats are reduced to 10% of their original coverage in the
G. Amori (&)
CNR, Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Viale dell’Universita
`32, 00185 Rome, Italy
e-mail: giovanni.amori@uniroma1.it
S. Gippoliti
Italian Institute of Anthropology, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, 00185 Rome, Italy
L. Luiselli
Centre of Environmental Studies, Demetra s.r.l., via Olona 7, 00198 Rome, Italy
123
Biodivers Conserv (2011) 20:3693–3700
DOI 10.1007/s10531-011-0131-z
biodiversity hotspots (Myers et al. 2000). A total of 25 hotspots have been identified (Myers
et al. 2000), with their number subsequently revised by Stuart et al. (2004). These regions
include a majority of the threatened fauna and flora worldwide (Myers et al. 2000; Stuart
et al. 2004). The concept of biodiversity hotspots has become critical also for funding in
conservation biology research (for instance by such agencies as the World Bank;
see http://www.biodiversityhotspots.org/xp/hotspots/afromontane/pages/conservation.aspx;
accessed on 07 January 2011) (Bode et al. 2008; Bottrill et al. 2008; Carwardine et al. 2008).
Because biodiversity hotspots were selected on the basis of a few taxonomic groups (e.g.,
butterflies, 35% of all vertebrate species, 44% of vascular plants; see Myers 1998; Myers
et al. 2000), it is possible that, despite successive integrations (Stuart et al. 2004), some
groups are under-represented in terms of threatened genera/species within biodiversity
hotspots. This may be especially true for those taxa that traditionally have been overlooked
by conservation biology literature. Among mammals, rodents are the most numerous in
terms of species richness, but the least known in terms of conservation issues (Amori and
Gippoliti 2000,2001,2003).
In this study, we analyze whether the biodiversity hotspots defined as in Myers et al.
(2000) and Stuart et al. (2004) sufficiently encompass the whole of the threatened rodent
diversity of the world (Amori and Gippoliti 2001). We explore this issue both globally and
regionally.
Materials and methods
Biodiversity hotspots were selected according to Myers et al. (2000) and Stuart et al.
(2004); threatened rodent diversity was evaluated at both genus and species levels, using
the database in Amori and Gippoliti (2001). According to this database, we considered
‘threatened’ each genus having all extant species listed as Critically Endangered, Endan-
gered or Vulnerable level by IUCN (2010). Rodent nomenclature follows Wilson and
Reeder (2005).
For each zoogeographical region (i.e., Nearctic, Neotropical, Palearctic, Afrotropical,
Oriental, and Australian (=Australasian)), we considered whether the distribution range of
each threatened genus coincided, at least partially, with one or more of the biodiversity
hotspots. If so, we considered that a given threatened genus was covered by at least one
biodiversity hotspot; otherwise, that threatened genus was considered disjunct from hot-
spots. Chi-squared tests were used to explore whether, either globally or regionally, the
frequency of threatened genera inside and outside biodiversity hotspots differed signifi-
cantly. Alpha was assessed at 5%.
Results
The list of threatened genera falling within biodiversity hotspots is given in Table 1,
whereas the list of those falling outside biodiversity hotspots is given in Table 2. Despite a
statistically greater number of threatened genera within biodiversity hotspots (v
2
=11.57,
df =1, P\0.00067), 28.6% of the total threatened genera (n=63) did not co-occur with
any biodiversity hotspot (Fig. 1a). Similar trends were observed for threatened species:
significantly more species were covered by biodiversity hotspots (v
2
=15.69, df =1,
3694 Biodivers Conserv (2011) 20:3693–3700
123
Table 1 List of threatened rodent genera included inside biodiversity hotspots as defined by Myers et al.
(2000) and Stuart et al. (2004)
Region Hotspot Threatened
genera
List of the
threatened
genera
Number of
species in
each genus
Family
Nearctic California floristic province 0 0
Neotropical MesoAmerica 1 Zygogeomys 1 Geomyidae
Caribbean Podomys 5 Muridae
Mesocapromys 4 Capromyidae
Isolobodon 1 Capromyidae
Plagiodontia 1 Capromyidae
Geocapromys 2 Capromyidae
513
Choco/Darien west Equador Anotomys 1 Muridae
Scolomys 2 Cricetidae
23
Tropical Andes 1 Dinomys 1 Dinomyidae
Brazil’s Cerrado 0 0
Brazil’s Atlantic Forest Abrawayaomys 1 Muridae
Chaetomys 1 Echimyidae
Phaenomys 1 Muridae
Rhagomys 1 Muridae
44
Central Chile 1 Chinchilla 2 Chinchillidae
Palearctic Mediterranean Basin 1 Myomimus 3 Gliridae
Caucasus 1 Selevinia 1 Gliridae
Afrotropical West African forests Leimacomys 1 Muridae
Lamottemys 1 Muridae
Myosciurus 1 Sciuridae
33
Eastern Arc 1 Pedetes 2 Pedetidae
Madagascar Gymnuromys 1 Nesomyidae
Hypogeomys 1 Nesomyidae
22
Succulent Karoo 0 0 0
Cape Florisitc province 1 Mystromys 1 Nesomyidae
Horn of Africa Muriculus 1 Muridae
Horn of Africa Megadendromus 1 Muridae
Horn of Africa Ammodillus 1 Muridae
Horn of Africa Nilopegamys 1 Muridae
Oriental Western Ghats and
Sri Lanka
000
Indo-Burma Biswamoyopterus 1 Sciuridae
Biodivers Conserv (2011) 20:3693–3700 3695
123
P\0.0001), but a considerable portion of the total (29.3%, n=92) did not coincide with
any biodiversity hotspot (Fig. 1b).
Exploring these issues by zoogeographical region, a complex pattern appears for
both threatened genera (Fig. 2a) and species (Fig. 2b). Significantly more threatened
genera (v
2
=31.5, df =5, P\0.0001) and more species (v
2
=46.00, df =5,
P\0.0001) were covered by biodiversity hotspots. However, closer inspection of the
data revealed that for both genera and species the biodiversity hotspots included the
great majority of threatened rodent taxa in four zoogeographical region, but not in
the Australian region where 100% of threatened taxa were outside biodiversity hotspots
(Fig. 2).
Table 1 continued
Region Hotspot Threatened
genera
List of the
threatened
genera
Number of
species in
each genus
Family
Trogopterus 1 Sciuridae
Vernaya 1 Muridae
33
South-Central China Cardiocranius 1 Dipodidae
Eozapus 1 Dipodidae
Euchoreutes 1 Dipodidae
Chetocauda 1 Gliridae
44
Sundaland 0 0 0
Wallacea Eropeplus 1 Muridae
Hyosciurus 2 Sciuridae
Melasmothrix 1 Muridae
Tateomys 2 Muridae
Komodomys 1 Muridae
Paulamys 1 Muridae
Papagomys 3 Muridae
711
Philippines Abditomys 1 Muridae
Anonymomys 1 Muridae
Archboldomys 2 Muridae
Crateromys 4 Muridae
Limnomys 1 Muridae
Palawanomys 1 Muridae
Triphomys 1 Muridae
711
Australian Polynesia/Micronesia 0 0 0
New Caledonia 0 0 0
South-west Australia 0 0 0
New Zealand 0 0 0
3696 Biodivers Conserv (2011) 20:3693–3700
123
Discussion
Our study provides evidence that biodiversity hotspots fail to capture all of the threa-
tened rodent diversity throughout the world, and that, although this is a somewhat minor
point for Neotropical, Palearctic, Afrotropical and Oriental regions (because indeed the
great majority of threatened taxa fall into biodiversity hotspots), the same is not true as
for the Australian region. Surprisingly, all threatened taxa of this region fell outside
biodiversity hotspots, thus showing that the current designation of Australian region
hotspots is totally inadequate for highlighting threatened rodent diversity. This is due to
the fact that most of the Australian-region threatened rodents inhabit the Papua-New
Guinea forests (e.g., Macruromys, Mayermys, Microhydromys, Neohydromys, and
Pseudohydromys; see Amori and Gippoliti, 2001), which are not listed among the
Table 2 List of threatened rodent genera with range falling outside the biodiversity hotspots as defined by
Myers et al. (2000) and Stuart et al. (2004)
Region Outside hotspots Threatened
genera
List of the
threatened
genera
Number of
species in
each genus
Family
Nearctic 0 0 0 0 0
Neotropical NE Argentina, Brazil,
Bolivia
Kunsia 2 Muridae
Argentina (Mendoza
province)
Tympanoctomys 1 Octodontidae
Galapagos islands Nesoryzomys 2 Muridae
35
Palearctic Japan 1 Glirulus 1 Gliridae
Afrotropical Senegambia, Mali,
Mauritania
1Felovia 1 Ctenodactyilidae
11
Oriental Pakistan, India Eupetaurus 1 Sciuridae
Okinawa, Amami,
Tokuno-shima
islands
Tokudaia 3 Muridae
24
Australian Papua-New Guinea Macruromys 1 Muridae
Papua-New Guinea Mayermys 1 Muridae
Papua-New Guinea Microhydromys 2 Muridae
Papua-New Guinea Neohydromys 1 Muridae
Papua-New Guinea Pseudohydromys 2 Muridae
Solomon Islands Solomys 4 Muridae
North and Eastern
Australia
Xeromys 1 Muridae
Franklin Islands Leporillus 1 Muridae
813
Biodivers Conserv (2011) 20:3693–3700 3697
123
biodiversity hotspots (Myers et al. 2000; Stuart et al. 2004). Recent overviews of
worldwide distribution of threatened mammals (Schipper et al. 2008) and even of
threatened vertebrates (Hoffmann et al. 2010) showed a better match with designated
biodiversity hotspots (Schipper et al. 2008) than in our rodent case. Thus, rodents seem
to represent a peculiar case for conservation biologists, especially because of the
unusually high number of endemic genera on islands of the Australian region, particu-
larly New Guinean islands (Amori et al. 2008). We therefore suggest officially including
Papua New Guinea among biodiversity hotspots at least for rodent conservation research.
Otherwise, it is possible that conservation efforts may be overlooked for the threatened
rodent fauna of this region, with potentially negative consequences for the continued
survival of these animals in the coming decades. In addition, we suggest using the
threatened rodent genera currently excluded from biodiversity hotspots in order to
identify and designate new hotspots for conservation. In this regard, attention should be
paid also to the steppe/semidesert areas of central Asia, which in part enter only
Fig. 1 Comparison of number of genera (a) and number of species (b) of threatened rodents inside and
outside biodiversity hotspots as defined by Myers et al. (2000) and Stuart et al. (2004). For statistical details,
see the text
3698 Biodivers Conserv (2011) 20:3693–3700
123
currently designated hotspots but house important threatened rodent taxa (Amori and
Gippoliti 2001).
References
Amori G, Gippoliti S (2000) What do mammalogists want to save? Ten years of mammalian conservation
biology. Biodiv Conserv 9:785–793
Amori G, Gippoliti S (2001) Identifying priority ecoregions for rodent conservation at the genus level. Oryx
35:158–165
Amori G, Gippoliti S (2003) A higher-taxon approach to rodent conservation priorities for the 21st century.
Anim Biodiv Conserv 26(2):1–18
Amori G, Gippoliti S, Helgen KM (2008) Diversity, distribution, and conservation of endemic island
rodents. Quat Int 182:6–15
Fig. 2 Comparison of number of
genera (a) and number of species
(b) of threatened rodents inside
and outside biodiversity hotspots
as defined by Myers et al. (2000)
and Stuart et al. (2004) divided
by geographic region. For
statistical details, see the text
Biodivers Conserv (2011) 20:3693–3700 3699
123
Bode M, Wilson KA, Brooks TA, Turner WA, Mittermeier RA, McBride MF, Underwood EC, Possingham
HP (2008) Cost-effective global conservation spending is robust to taxonomic group. Proc Nat Acad
Sci USA 105:6498–6501
Bottrill MC, Joseph LN, Carwardine J, Bode M, Cook C, Game ET, Grantham E, Kark S, Linke S,
McDonald-Madden E, Pressey RL, Walker S, Wilson KA, Possingham HP (2008) Is conservation
triage just smart decision making? Trends Ecol Evol 23:649–654
Carwardine J, Wilson KA, Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR, Naidoo R, Iwamura T, Hajkowicz SA, Possingham HP
(2008) Cost-effective priorities for global mammal conservation. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA
105:11446–11450
Hoffmann M et al (2010) The impact of conservation on the status of the world’s vertebrates. Science
330:1503–1509
IUCN (2010) IUCN red list of threatened species. Version 2010.3. http://www.iucnredlist.org
Myers N (1998) Global biodiversity priorities and expanded conservation policies. In: Mace GM, Balmford
A, Ginsberg JR (eds) Conservation in a changing world. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
pp 273–285
Myers N, Mittermaier RA, Mittermaier CG, da Fonseca GAB, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for
conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858
Schipper J et al (2008) The status of the world’s land and marine mammals: diversity, threat, and knowl-
edge. Science 322:225–230
Stuart W, Vivero Po JL, Spawls S, Shimelis A, Kelbessa E (2004) Ethiopian highlands. In: Mittermeier RA,
Gil PR, Hoffmann M, Pilgrim J, Brooks T, Mittermeier CG, Lamoreux J, da Fonseca GAB (eds)
Hotspots revisited. CEMEX, Mexico, pp 262–273
Wilson DE, Reeder DR (2005) Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference, 3rd
edn. John Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore
3700 Biodivers Conserv (2011) 20:3693–3700
123
... Secondly, complacency arises because of the general mindset that owing to their generally high reproductive rates and wide distributions, rodents are adaptable and therefore need no immediate conservation attention (Breed 1979, Amori & Gippoliti 2001, Lidicker et al. 2007, Breed & Leigh 2011. But, on the contrary, the discovery of extinct taxa like N. magnus reinforces the observation that these animals are environmentally sensitive and susceptible to extinction (see also Breed & Ford 2007, Lidicker et al. 2007, Amori et al. 2011. It is possible that N. magnus had a limited geographical distribution as it has not yet been identified in any coeval fossil deposits outside the Broken River region (e.g., Mount Etna region), (see Hocknull 2005, Hocknull et al. 2007) which do host other contemporaneous taxa like C. yirratji and N. longicaudatus (Cramb 2012). ...
... It is possible that N. magnus had a limited geographical distribution as it has not yet been identified in any coeval fossil deposits outside the Broken River region (e.g., Mount Etna region), (see Hocknull 2005, Hocknull et al. 2007) which do host other contemporaneous taxa like C. yirratji and N. longicaudatus (Cramb 2012). This could suggest that N. magnus was more susceptible to extinction than taxa with wider geographical distributions (see Amori et al. 2011). Finally, at least across the mid-late Holocene, it has been clear that the largerbodied species of Notomys were more susceptible to extinction relative to smaller-bodied species (Fig. 6) (Alhajeri 2021, see also Griffiths 1980). ...
View
... Our findings indicate a deficiency in the protection of non-volant small mammal biodiversity, particularly evident in areas lacking prior conservation efforts. Notably, studies reveal that significant proportions of threatened rodent species reside outside recognized hotspots, emphasizing the inadequacy of existing conservation strategies (Amori et al., 2011). In the case of the Altiplano-Puna Bioregion, its entire extent belongs to a hotspot, our results point conservation efforts protect small areas that do not cover the relevant areas for the conservation of non-volant small mammals. ...
View
... Analyses of CHSR have been criticised because they fail to capture all species that are at high risk of being lost (i.e., Amori et al., 2011). Here, we circumvented this problem by performing separate analyses of CHSR for species with different forms of rarity, as measures based on rarity are often more effective for conservation planning (Perrin and Waldren, 2020). ...
How do intrinsic and extrinsic causes interact in the extinction vulnerability of South American savanna shrub and tree species?
Article
Full-text available
  • May 2023
  • J ENVIRON MANAGE
Although a growing body of literature recognises the importance of rarity for biodiversity conservation, it is unclear how the interaction of different forms of rarity, extrinsic causes of extinction, and protection affect species’ vulnerability. Here we addressed the extinction vulnerability of 2203 shrub and tree species of the South American savanna (SAS). For this, species were attributed a form of rarity, a synergistic risk index (SRI), and a protection index (PI). The SRI combines three extrinsic causes of extinction (climate hazard, fire frequency, and human footprint). The PI is the ratio between the number of a species occurrences within protected areas and the total number of occurrences in the SAS. By combining the SRI and PI, we classified common and rare species into five vulnerability classes. Some regions of the SAS show high values of climate hazard, fire frequency, human footprint, and SRI. Each extrinsic cause of extinction is differently distributed across the SAS and shows no or low spatial congruence with the SRI. Many species show a low ratio of occurrences within PAs, which in combination with high SRI results in high vulnerability to extinction. Surprisingly, the number of common species in the higher vulnerability classes is higher than of rare species. Common and rare species in different vulnerability classes occur in somewhat different locations across the SAS and mainly constitute spatially incongruent centres with high species richness. Given our results, we propose that strategies for the effective conservation of SAS species are challenging and must be carefully designed.
View
... Therefore, conservation plans made based on the FD of all mammalian species may fail to protect the FD of Rodentia and Chiroptera. A previous study also indicated that Rodentia may be neglected in terms of conservation efforts [67]. Interestingly, the spatial patterns of FD and SR hotspots are more similar for mammalian species when removing species of Rodentia and Chiroptera (Figures 1a and 4a). ...
Geographical Patterns in Functional Diversity of Chinese Terrestrial Vertebrates
Article
Full-text available
  • Nov 2022
  • Diversity
Identifying priority regions is essential for effectively protecting biodiversity. China is one of the world’s megabiodiversity countries, but its biodiversity is seriously threatened by anthropogenic forces. Many studies have identified priority regions in China for conserving biodiversity. However, most of these studies focused on plants and mainly relied on metrics such as species richness. A comprehensive assessment of functional diversity hotspots of Chinese terrestrial vertebrates is still lacking. In this study, we collected distribution information and functional traits of terrestrial Chinese vertebrates. We calculated functional richness and identified hotspots. Then, we assessed the overlap between functional hotspots and hotspots identified based on species richness. We found that the mountains in southern China harbor the most hotspots. Southwestern China is the most important region for biodiversity conservation, as it harbors functional diversity and species richness hotspots of multiple taxa. Mismatches between functional diversity and species richness hotspots were found in all taxa. Moreover, the locations of functional hotspots are different among taxa, even within taxonomic units. For example, the functional diversity patterns of Rodentia, Chiroptera and other mammalian taxa are different. These results highlight the importance of considering distinct groups separately in conservative actions.
View
... Suggested modifications to conservation priorities. Amori and Gippoliti (2003) have emphasized the importance of considering taxonomic rank in rodent conservation, and Amori et al. (2011) have supported the generally accepted importance of biodiversity hotspots (regions of high species diversity) in setting conservation priorities. From the perspective of rodent conservation, we argue instead for a habitat-based approach that focuses on the conservation of functional ecosystems, as advocated by Hafner et al. (1998). ...
Estado de conservación de los roedores de las familias Geomyidae y Heteromyidae de México
Article
Full-text available
  • Jun 2014
Mexico is considered a mammal diversity hotspot, and most conservation efforts involving mammals focus on large and charismatic species. Herein, we provide an assessment of the conservation status of species that are often overlooked in conservation programs, Mexican rodents of the families Geomyidae (pocket gophers) and Heteromyidae (pocket mice and kangaroo rats). Based on distributional maps and recent systematic studies, a taxonomic and biogeographical distributional checklist was made. The conservation lists of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and the Mexican Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales were used to identify 8 geomyid species, and 8 species and 27 subspecies of heteromyids as endangered. Major threats to their conservation are change in land use, destruction of habitat and a lack of knowledge about their current distribution and population trends.
View
... This is particularly true for rodents, which remain among the most neglected mammalian groups (Amori et al. 2008 ), although islands maintain an enormous and largely irreplaceable heritage of rodent biological diversity (Ceballos and Brown 1995 , Amori et al. 2008 ). Indeed, at least 36 island endemic rodent species became extinct in the last 500 years (MacPhee and Fleming 1999 ), and also a recent study demonstrated that some islands (particularly Papua New Guinea) were crucial conservation hotspots for rodents (Amori et al. 2011b ). Hence, in this paper, we analyze some of the ecological correlates of threatened endemic island rodents worldwide , i.e., a taxon ' s body mass and the size of the islands where it lives. ...
Ecological correlates of threatened endemic island rodents
Article
  • Feb 2012
Some of the ecological correlates of threatened endemic island rodents across 31 main islands/archipelagos worldwide are studied. Overall, there were 83 entirely endemic genera and 197 endemic species, with the number of both endemic genera and species positively correlating with (log) island size. Twenty-seven rodent genera, and 49 species, endemic to islands, are threatened with extinction, with the Oriental region housing the highest numbers of endemic threatened taxa. There was a signifi cant positive relationship between (log) island size and number of threatened endemic species. The number of endemic species per island was also signifi cantly positively correlated with the number of threatened species per island. A logit model revealed that the probability of the presence of at least one threatened endemic species was 0 % for islands below 1560 km 2 , and 80 % for islands sized about 3120 km 2 . The mean body weight of endemic threatened taxa increased signifi cantly with increases of (log) island size (r = 0.144, n = 12, p = 0.0096), and was particularly high in the Caribbean islands. Our study indirectly supported the notion that species linked to habitat fragments ( = islands of remnant habitat) are more prone to extinction than species able to traverse suboptimal habitats ( = seas of unsuitable habitat). Our results also demonstrated that the number of threatened endemic species per island was dependent on the total number of endemic species in each island, thus showing that tropical islands may be more prone to include assemblages of threatened endemic rodent species than temperate islands. Endemic species inhabiting islands of about 1500 km 2 are of immediate conservation concern because of their high probability of becoming extinct in the years to come, given that their counterparts from even smaller islands are already extinct since decades or hundreds of years ago.
View
... c T. cristatus, v L. vulgaris, h L. helveticus, a M. alpestris but if such data are available at broader scales, it would be possible to identify priority areas in which conservation actions could be launched (Naidoo et al. 2006). This idea connects with the identification of hotspots where smaller geographic areas are delineated to protect threatened species (Mittermeier et al. 2004; Cadotte and Davies 2010; Amori et al. 2011). ...
Newt decline in Western Europe: Highlights from relative distribution changes within guilds
Article
Full-text available
  • Oct 2012
The recent increase in the number of monitoring schemes has formed the basis for high quality distribution atlases. This provides the opportunity of estimating global and specific decline patterns across regional and national borders. In this framework, this study focused on four sympatric newt species—including the great crested newt (Triturus cristatus), an Annex 2 European Habitats Directive species, over six geographic areas (five countries) in Western Europe. A relative comparison of distribution maps across time is used here and is based on more than twelve thousands occupied grid cells. It benefits from the definition of a guild, as these species are simultaneously detectable in wetlands. T. cristatus and the alpine newt (Mesotriton alpestris) were the most and the least threatened newt species, respectively, whereas the palmate (Lissotriton helveticus) and smooth newt (Lissotriton vulgaris) had an intermediate decline level at both coarse and fine grain resolutions. However, regional variations across Europe and scale effects were also found. On one hand, these results show that T. cristatus is not only regionally threatened but suffers from a global decline in Western Europe. On another hand, the results indicate that patterns of decline are not uniform within Europe and that species often considered as common and not threatened are, in fact, declining more than others. Finally, the proposed methodology, i.e. using guilds to assess relative decline, would be useful as a complement to other standardized methods in correctly advising conservation managers and policy makers, particularly for species with more subtle declines.
View
Support for rodent ecology and conservation to advance zoonotic disease research
Article
Full-text available
Aim To explore global patterns in spatial aggregations of species richness, vulnerability and data deficiency for Rodentia and Eulipotyphla. To evaluate the adequacy of existing protected area (PA) network for these areas. To provide a focus for local conservation initiatives. Location Global. Methods Total species, globally threatened (GT) species, and Data Deficient (DD) species richness were calculated for a 1° resolution grid. Correspondence analyses between global species richness against GT species richness were performed. To assess PA network adequacy, a correspondence analysis was conducted to identify areas of high richness and GT species richness that have poor protection. Results Six hotspots were identified for GT eulipotyphlans, encompassing 40% of GT species. Three of these contain higher numbers of GT species than would be expected based on their overall species richness. Ten priority regions were identified for GT rodents, which together contain 34% of all GT species. Six contain higher numbers of GT rodent species than would be expected based on their overall species richness. For DD species, 15% of DD eulipotyphlans were represented within three priority regions, whereas 18 were identified for rodents, capturing 53% of all DD species. Areas containing lower numbers of protected GT eulipotyphlan species than expected include Mexico; Cameroonian Highlands; Albertine Rift; Tanzania; Kenya; Ethiopia; western Asia; India; and Sri Lanka. Areas containing lower numbers of protected GT rodent species than expected are Borneo, Sumatra and Sulawesi. Five eulipotyphlans and 44 rodents have ranges which fall completely outside of PAs. Main conclusion Rodentia and Eulipotyphla priority regions should be considered separately to one another and to other mammals. This analysis approach allows us to pinpoint and delineate geographical areas which represent key regions at a global level for rodents and eulipotyphlans, in order to facilitate conservation, field research and capacity building at a local level.
View
A higher-taxon approach to rodent conservation priorities for the 21st century [Aproximación a nivel de suprataxón de las prioridades de conservación de roedores en el siglo XXI]
Article
Full-text available
  • Jan 2003
Although rodents are not considered among the most threatened mammals, there is ample historical evidence concerning the vulnerability to extinction of several rodent phylogenetic lineages. Owing to the high number of species, poor taxonomy and the lack of detailed information on population status, the assessment of threat status according to IUCN criteria has still to be considered arbitrary in some cases. Public appreciation is scarce and tends to overlook the ecological role and conservation problems of an order representing about 41 percent of mammalian species. We provide an overview of the most relevant information concerning the conservation status of rodents at the genus, subfamily, and family level. For species-poor taxa, the importance of distinct populations is highlighted and a splitter approach in taxonomy is adopted. Considering present constraints, strategies for the conservation of rodent diversity must rely mainly on higher taxon and hot-spot approaches. A clear understanding of phyletic relationships among difficult groups -such as Rattus, for instance- is an urgent goal. Even if rodent taxonomy is still unstable, high taxon approach is amply justified from a conservation standpoint as it offers a more subtle overview of the world terrestrial biodiversity than that offered by large mammals. Of the circa 451 living rodent genera, 126 (27,9 %), representing 168 living species, deserve conservation attention according to the present study. About 76 % of genera at risk are monotypic, confirming the danger of losing a considerable amount of phylogenetic distinctiveness.
View
Diversity, distribution, and conservation of endemic island rodents
Article
Full-text available
  • May 2008
  • QUATERN INT
Rodents on islands are usually thought of by conservationists mainly in reference to invasive pest species, which have wrought considerable ecological damage on islands around the globe. However, almost one in five of the world's nearly 2300 rodent species is an island endemic, and insular rodents suffer from high rates of extinction and endangerment. Rates of Quaternary extinction and current threat are especially high in the West Indies and the species-rich archipelagos of Southeast Asia. Rodent endemism reaches its most striking levels on large or remote oceanic islands, such as Madagascar, the Caribbean, the Ryukyu Islands, the oceanic Philippines, Sulawesi, the Galapagos, and the Solomon Islands, as well as on very large land-bridge islands, especially New Guinea. While conservation efforts in the past and present have focused mainly on charismatic mammals (such as birds and large mammals), efforts specifically targeted toward less conspicuous animals (such as insular rodents) may be necessary to stem large numbers of extinctions in the near future.
View
The Status of the World's Land and Marine Mammals: Diversity, Threat, and Knowledge
Article
Full-text available
  • Oct 2008
  • SCIENCE
Knowledge of mammalian diversity is still surprisingly disparate, both regionally and taxonomically. Here, we present a comprehensive assessment of the conservation status and distribution of the world's mammals. Data, compiled by 1700+ experts, cover all 5487 species, including marine mammals. Global macroecological patterns are very different for land and marine species but suggest common mechanisms driving diversity and endemism across systems. Compared with land species, threat levels are higher among marine mammals, driven by different processes (accidental mortality and pollution, rather than habitat loss), and are spatially distinct (peaking in northern oceans, rather than in Southeast Asia). Marine mammals are also disproportionately poorly known. These data are made freely available to support further scientific developments and conservation action.
View
Identifing priority ecoregions for rodent conservation at the genus level
Article
Full-text available
  • Apr 2001
  • ORYX
Rodents account for 40 per cent of living mammal species. Nevertheless, despite an increased interest in biodiversity conservation and their high species richness, Rodentia are often neglected by conservationists. We attempt for the first time a world-wide evaluation of rodent conservation priorities at the genus level. Given the low popularity of the order, we considered it desirable to discuss identified priorities within the framework of established biodiversity priority areas of the world. Two families and 62 genera are recognized as threatened. Our analyses highlight the Philippines, New Guinea, Sulawesi, the Caribbean, China temperate forests and the Atlantic Forest of south-eastern Brazil as the most important (for their high number of genera) ‘threat-spots’ for rodent conservation. A few regions, mainly drylands, are singled out as important areas for rodent conservation but are not generally recognized in global biodiversity assessments. These are the remaining forests of Togo, extreme ‘western Sahel’, the Turanian and Mongolian-Manchurian steppes and the desert of the Horn of Africa. Resources for conservation must be allocated first to recognized threat spots and to those restricted-range genera which may depend on species-specific strategies for their survival.
View
What do mammalogists want to save? Ten years of mammalian conservation biology
Article
Full-text available
  • Jan 2000
Recent upsurge of interest in biological diversity requests that resources for conservation be allocated to taxonomic groups and geographic areas of greater priority, independent of the attractiveness of individual species. The aim of this paper is to assess if contributed papers on four of the most important international conservation journals in the last ten years reflect our increasing concern for threatened mammals. Our results show that some orders receive disproportionally more attention than predicted by their absolute number and percentage of threatened species. The Nearctic and Palearctic Regions are far more studied than other like, for instance, the Oriental Region, which are badly neglected considering their higher rates of endangered and endemic mammals. Furthermore, it was found that among many orders most of the species covered in contributed papers are not presently considered threatened by IUCN. Our work highlights the need of assessing conservation priorities at least at continental level and of devoting more resources to research in tropical countries.
View
The Impact of Conservation on the Status of the World's Vertebrates
Article
Full-text available
  • Dec 2010
Using data for 25,780 species categorized on the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List, we present an assessment of the status of the world's vertebrates. One-fifth of species are classified as Threatened, and we show that this figure is increasing: On average, 52 species of mammals, birds, and amphibians move one category closer to extinction each year. However, this overall pattern conceals the impact of conservation successes, and we show that the rate of deterioration would have been at least one-fifth again as much in the absence of these. Nonetheless, current conservation efforts remain insufficient to offset the main drivers of biodiversity loss in these groups: agricultural expansion, logging, overexploitation, and invasive alien species. Yes Yes
View
The Impact of Conservation on the Status of the World’s Vertebrates
Article
Full-text available
  • Oct 2010
  • SCIENCE
Assessing Biodiversity Declines Understanding human impact on biodiversity depends on sound quantitative projection. Pereira et al. (p. 1496 , published online 26 October) review quantitative scenarios that have been developed for four main areas of concern: species extinctions, species abundances and community structure, habitat loss and degradation, and shifts in the distribution of species and biomes. Declines in biodiversity are projected for the whole of the 21st century in all scenarios, but with a wide range of variation. Hoffmann et al. (p. 1503 , published online 26 October) draw on the results of five decades' worth of data collection, managed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature Species Survival Commission. A comprehensive synthesis of the conservation status of the world's vertebrates, based on an analysis of 25,780 species (approximately half of total vertebrate diversity), is presented: Approximately 20% of all vertebrate species are at risk of extinction in the wild, and 11% of threatened birds and 17% of threatened mammals have moved closer to extinction over time. Despite these trends, overall declines would have been significantly worse in the absence of conservation actions.
View
View
View
The Impact of Conservation on the Status of the World’s Vertebrates
Article
  • Jan 2010
Using data for 25,780 species categorized on the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List, we present an assessment of the status of the world's vertebrates. One-fifth of species are classified as Threatened, and we show that this figure is increasing: On average, 52 species of mammals, birds, and amphibians move one category closer to extinction each year. However, this overall pattern conceals the impact of conservation successes, and we show that the rate of deterioration would have been at least one-fifth again as much in the absence of these. Nonetheless, current conservation efforts remain insufficient to offset the main drivers of biodiversity loss in these groups: agricultural expansion, logging, overexploitation, and invasive alien species.
View