4.4 Article

A dark side of conservation biology: Protected areas fail in representing subterranean biodiversity

Journal

INSECT CONSERVATION AND DIVERSITY
Volume 16, Issue 5, Pages 674-683

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/icad.12666

Keywords

Alps; gap analysis; hydrographic basin; Natura 2000 Network; Pyrenees; subterranean species

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Biodiversity conservation is crucial in the 21st century, yet the subterranean biome is often overlooked in global biodiversity targets. Research shows that surface-protected area networks do not effectively protect subterranean biodiversity, highlighting the need for an urgent conservation plan within the European Biodiversity Strategy for 2030.
Biodiversity conservation is a central imperative of the 21st century. Subterranean ecosystems deliver critical nature's contributions to people and harbour a broad diversity of poorly understood specialised organisms. However, the subterranean biome is still largely overlooked in global biodiversity targets.We assessed how well subterranean biodiversity is represented in protected areas (Natura 2000 and Emerald networks) in two global hotspots of subterranean biodiversity (the Pyrenees and the Alps). For this, we used two comprehensive databases of terrestrial subterranean taxa, that is, leiodids (beetles) from the Pyrenees and spiders from the Alps, and identified priority areas in each region using both species richness and geographic rarity patterns.Our results show the incapacity of surface-protected area networks to represent subterranean biodiversity, as more than 70% and 90% of the identified priority areas (and 40% and 22% of the species) are not effectively covered by protected areas in the Pyrenees and the Alps, respectively.These findings call for developing an urgent plan for subterranean biodiversity conservation within the European Biodiversity Strategy for 2030.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available