cris.boxmetadata.label.title
Low-cost strategies for protecting ecosystem services and biodiversity
cris.boxmetadata.label.dateissued
01 browse.startsWith.months.january 2018
cris.boxmetadata.label.accesslevel
metadata only access
cris.boxmetadata.label.resourcetype
journal article
cris.boxmetadata.label.authors
Manhães A.
Loyola R.
Mazzochini G.
Ganade G.
Oliveira-Filho A.
Carvalho A.
cris.boxmetadata.label.publisher
Elsevier Ltd.
cris.boxmetadata.label.abstract
The selection of priority areas for nature conservation must balance the costs and benefits of conserving biodiversity, protecting ecosystem services, and permitting human activities or resource use. In this study, we selected priority areas for conservation in a seasonally dry tropical forest in Brazil and analyzed changes in the protection of ecosystem services and the conservation of plant biodiversity upon excluding areas with high opportunity costs (e.g., where income would be lost if natural areas were protected) and high population density. We identified two types of protected areas: sustainable use (SU) and strict protection (SP). Plant biodiversity (181 species) and supporting services (water balance, net primary productivity, and soil fertility) were used to determine the optimal locations of both types of protected areas. Provisioning services (water supply, fodder, and genetic resources) were used to determine SU priority areas, while regulating services (water purification, carbon storage, and erosion prevention) were used to determine SP areas. The selection of lowly populated or costly areas was associated with a small decrease in the representation of biodiversity (4% loss in SP and 6% loss in SU) and a large decrease in the representation of supporting (36% loss in SP and 31% loss in SU), regulating (41% loss in SP), and provisioning services (7% loss in SU). Our results reveal that selecting priority areas with low population density and low opportunity costs would decrease the overall representation of ecosystem services in protected areas but would still improve the cost efficiency of biodiversity conservation efforts.
cris.boxmetadata.label.citationstartpage
187
cris.boxmetadata.label.citationendpage
194
cris.boxmetadata.label.volume
217
cris.boxmetadata.label.language
English
cris.boxmetadata.label.ocdeknowledgeArea
Conservación de la Biodiversidad
cris.boxmetadata.label.subjects
cris.boxmetadata.label.doi
cris.boxmetadata.label.scopusidentifier
2-s2.0-85033589616
cris.boxmetadata.label.source
Biological Conservation
cris.boxmetadata.label.containerissn
0006-3207
cris.boxmetadata.label.sponsor
We are thankful to Sebastian Villasante to give the opportunity to participate in the InVEST course training and to Stacie Wolny for helping with the ecosystem services modeling. We thank Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES, grant number 124527/2014-00 ) for providing the Post Doctoral scholarship to A. Manhães and the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq, grant number 147969/2010-7 ) for providing the Ph.D. scholarship to G. Mazzochini. We also thank Nathália Machado for helping with the Zonation software and Bernardo Flores for the valuable review and comments of the manuscript. Funding: This work was supported by the CNPq [grant numbers 308532/2014-7 , 400672/2013-8 , 562597/2010-7 ] and the O Boticário Group Foundation for Nature Protection [grant number PROG_0008_2013 ]. This paper is a contribution of the INCT in Ecology, Evolution and Biodiversity Conservation founded by MCTIC/CNPq/FAPEG (grant number 465610/2014-5 ).
peru-layout.shadow-copies
Directorio de Producción Científica
Scopus