Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Sep 14;11(1):4461.
doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-18230-0.

Effectiveness of protected areas in conserving tropical forest birds

Affiliations

Effectiveness of protected areas in conserving tropical forest birds

Victor Cazalis et al. Nat Commun. .

Abstract

Protected areas (PAs) are the cornerstones of global biodiversity conservation efforts, but to fulfil this role they must be effective at conserving the ecosystems and species that occur within their boundaries. Adequate monitoring datasets that allow comparing biodiversity between protected and unprotected sites are lacking in tropical regions. Here we use the largest citizen science biodiversity dataset - eBird - to quantify the extent to which protected areas in eight tropical forest biodiversity hotspots are effective at retaining bird diversity. We find generally positive effects of protection on the diversity of bird species that are forest-dependent, endemic to the hotspots, or threatened or Near Threatened, but not on overall bird species richness. Furthermore, we show that in most of the hotspots examined this benefit is driven by protected areas preventing both forest loss and degradation. Our results provide evidence that, on average, protected areas contribute measurably to conserving bird species in some of the world's most diverse and threatened terrestrial ecosystems.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1. Regions covered by the present study (i.e. intersection between eight biodiversity hotspots and the “tropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forests” biome).
Acronyms as in Figs. 3 and 4: ATL (Atlantic Forest, N = 6760 checklists), AND (Tropical Andes, N = 17,758), TUM (Tumbes-Chocó-Magdalena, N = 1188), MES (Mesoamerica, N = 32,784), EAS (Eastern Afromontane, N = 1097), GHA (Western Ghats and Sri Lanka, N = 2646), IND (Indo-Burma, N = 2996), and SUN (Sundaland, N = 1548). More details in Supplementary Fig. 1.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2. Framework of the analyses performed to investigate the effectiveness of protected areas at retaining bird diversity.
Analysis I: effect of protected areas on bird diversity measured through four indices of bird species richness (all species, forest-dependent species, endemic species, threatened, and near threatened species). The asterisk indicates species of conservation concern. Analysis II: effects of protected areas on forest presence (IIa), local deforestation rates (IIa′), and on three measures of forest quality (canopy height, forest contiguity, and wilderness; IIb). Analysis III: effects of forest presence (IIIa), and of each of the three measures of forest quality and of the residual effect of protected areas (IIIb) on bird diversity.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3. Effect of protected areas on bird diversity per hotspot, for four bird diversity indices (analysis I).
a Overall species richness. b Forest-dependent species richness. c Endemic species richness. d Richness in threatened and Near Tthreatened species. Coefficients correspond to the estimates of GAM models; significance is given by the P value (***<0.001 < **<0.01 < *<0.05, see details in Supplementary Table 3) and the 95% confidence interval around GAM coefficients (vertical error bars). Hotspots: ATL (Atlantic Forest), AND (Tropical Andes), TUM (Tumbes-Chocó-Magdalena), MES (Mesoamerica), EAS (Eastern Afromontane), GHA (Western Ghats and Sri Lanka), IND (Indo-Burma), and SUN (Sundaland). Number of checklists per hotspot is specified below hotspots names; more detailed results in Supplementary Table 1.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4. Effects of protected areas on forest cover, and effects of forest cover on bird diversity, per hotspot.
Bars: effects of protected areas on forest presence (a analysis IIa) or on deforestation rates between 2000 and 2019 (b analysis IIa′); coefficients correspond to the estimates of GAM models; significance given by P value (***<0.001 < **<0.01 < *<0.05), and 95% confidence interval around GAM coefficients (vertical error bars). Feathers: colour represents the effect sign (blue: positive; red: negative; white: non-significant [P value > 0.05]) of forest presence on each of the bird diversity variables (All spp., overall species richness; For. Dep., richness in forest-dependent species; Endemic, richness in endemic species; Thr + NT, richness in threatened and Near Threatened species). Hotspots: ATL (Atlantic Forest), AND (Tropical Andes), TUM (Tumbes-Chocó-Magdalena), MES (Mesoamerica), EAS (Eastern Afromontane), GHA (Western Ghats and Sri Lanka), IND (Indo-Burma), and SUN (Sundaland). Number of checklists per hotspot is specified below hotspots names; more detailed results in Supplementary Table 1 and Supplementary Fig. 3.
Fig. 5
Fig. 5. Effects of protected areas on forest quality, and effects of forest quality on bird diversity, per hotspot.
Bars: effects of protected areas on forest quality (a canopy height; b forest contiguity; c wilderness; d protected area residuals; analysis IIb); coefficients correspond to the estimates of GAM models; significance given by P value (***<0.001 < **<0.01 < *<0.05), and 95% confidence interval around GAM coefficients (vertical error bars). Feathers: colour represents the effect sign (blue: positive; red: negative; white: non-significant [P value > 0.05]) of each habitat quality variable on each of the bird diversity variables (All spp., overall species richness; For. Dep., richness in forest-dependent species; Endemic, richness in endemic species; Thr + NT, richness in threatened and Near Threatened species). Hotspots: ATL (Atlantic Forest), AND (Tropical Andes), TUM (Tumbes-Chocó-Magdalena), MES (Mesoamerica), EAS (Eastern Afromontane), GHA (Western Ghats and Sri Lanka), and IND (Indo-Burma), SUN (Sundaland). Number of checklists per hotspot is specified below hotspots names (only forest checklists in this analysis); more detailed results in Supplementary Table 1 and Supplementary Fig. 3.

References

    1. UNEP-WCMC, IUCN & NGS Protected Planet Live Report 2020. (UNEP-WCMC, IUCN & NGS, 2020).
    1. IPBES. Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (eds Brondizio, E. S., Settele, J., Díaz, S. & Ngo, H. T.) (IPBES, 2019).
    1. SCBD. Aichi biodiversity targets. In: COP 10 Decision X/2: Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 (SCBD, 2010).
    1. Pimm SL, Jenkins CN, Li BV. How to protect half of earth to ensure it protects sufficient biodiversity. Sci. Adv. 2018;4:eaat2616. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Pressey RL, Visconti P, Ferraro PJ. Making parks make a difference: poor alignment of policy, planning and management with protected-area impact, and ways forward. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B. 2015;370:20140280. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types