Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Defining critical habitat for plant species with poor occurrence knowledge and identification of critical habitat networks

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We applied spatial distribution and reserve selection modeling to identify critical habitat network for 50 critically endangered plant species of Uzbekistan. We created maps of relative habitat suitability, converted them into maps of species critical habitat, and the latter served as input to the spatial conservation prioritization program Zonation. Although all studied species were extremely rare, the extent of their predicted critical habitat ranged from 2.6 to 15,508 km2 and did not correlate with the number of occurrence records. It appears that the extent of the threatened species predicted suitable area is an indicator of whether the species rarity is inherent due to vary narrow ecological niche or caused solely by anthropogenic activity. This has important conservation implications. Imperiled species from the first category are less amenable (if at all) to such conservation actions as trans- or relocation (i.e. there is no alternative to protecting the last remaining populations). Species from the second group can potentially grow in many more locations than they currently occupy, and therefore, for these species, translocation can be the most appropriate strategy when their last remaining locations are degraded or can not be protected for whatever reason. Based on results of nature reserve design that utilized SDM-predicted maps for 50 imperiled species, we recommend adding new areas to the existing network of protected areas to cover critical habitats of highly threatened plant species. The highest priority for adding have the territories harboring critical habitat of disproportionally high number of imperiled species, and we found that they all are concentrated in the eastern part of Uzbekistan.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The used data will be provided on request.

References

  • Anderson RP, Gonzalez I Jr (2011) Species-specific tuning increases robustness to sampling bias in models of species distributions: an implementation with Maxent. Ecol Model 222:2796–2811

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choe H, Thorne JH, Huber PR, Lee D, Quinn JF (2018) Assessing shortfalls and complementary conservation areas for national plant biodiversity in South Korea. PLoS ONE 13:e0190754

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuesta F, Peralvo M, Merino-Viteri A et al (2017) Priority areas for biodiversity conservation in mainland Ecuador. Neotrop Biodivers 3:93–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiedler PL, Laven RD (1996) Selecting reintroduction sites. In: Falk DA, Millar CI, Olwell M (eds) Restoring diversity: strategies for reintroduction of endangered plants. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 157–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer G, Nachtergaele F, Prieler S, van Velthuizen HT, Verelst L, Wiberg D (2008) Global agro-ecological zones assessment for agriculture (GAEZ 2008): IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria and FAO, Rome, Italy

  • Greenwald DN, Suckling KF, Pimm SL (2012) Critical habitat and the role of peer review in government decisions. Bioscience 62:686–690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall LS, Krausman PR, Morrison ML (1997) The habitat concept and a plea for standard terminology. Wildl Soc Bull 25:173–182

    Google Scholar 

  • Hernandez PA, Graham CH, Master LL, Albert DL (2006) The effect of sample size and species characteristics on performance of different species distribution modeling methods. Ecography 29:773–785

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hijmans RJ, Cameron SE, Parra JL, Jones PG, Jarvis A (2005) Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int J Climatol 25:1965–1978

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huenneke LF (1991) Ecological implications of genetic variation in plant populations. In: Falk DA, Holsinger KE (eds) Genetics and conservation of rare plants. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 31–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Khasanov FO (2019) The red data book of the Republic of Uzbekistan 2019, vol 1. Plants and Fungi Chinor ENK, Tashkent

  • Kremen C, Cameron A, Moilanen A, Phillips SJ, Thomas CD, Beentje H, Dransfield J, Fisher BL, Glaw F, Good TC (2008) Aligning conservation priorities across taxa in Madagascar with high-resolution planning tools. Science 320:222–226

  • Lehtomäki J, Moilanen A (2013) Methods and workflow for spatial conservation prioritization using Zonation. Environ Model Softw 47:128–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manish K, Pandit MK (2019) Identifying conservation priorities for plant species in the Himalaya in current and future climates: a case study from Sikkim Himalaya, India. Biol Conserv 233:176–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moilanen A, Franco AMA, Early RI et al (2005) Prioritizing multiple-use landscapes for conservation: methods for large multi-species planning problems. Proc R Soc B-Biol Sci 272:1885–1891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moilanen A, Kujala H, Leathwick JR (2009) The Zonation framework and software for conservation prioritization. In: Moilanen A, Wilson K, Possingham HP (eds) Spatial conservation prioritization: quantitative methods and computational tools. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 196–210

    Google Scholar 

  • Moilanen A, Anderson BJ, Eigenbrod F et al (2011) Balancing alternative land uses in conservation prioritization. Ecol Appl 21:1419–1426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy DD, Noon BD (1991) Coping with uncertainty in wildlife biology. J Wildl Manage 55:773–782

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips SJ, Dudik M (2008) Modeling of species distributions with Maxent: new extensions and a comprehensive evaluation. Ecography 31:161–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips SJ, Anderson RP, Schapire RE (2006) Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol Model 190:231–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed JM, Akcakaya HR, Burgman M et al (2006) Critical habitat. In: Scott JM, Goble DD, Davis FW (eds) The Endangered species act at thirty: conserving biodiversity in human-dominated landscapes. Evolution of at-risk species protection. Island Press, Washington, D.C, pp 164–177

  • Rosenfeld JS, Hatfield T (2006) Information needs for assessing critical habitat of freshwater fish. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 63:683–698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sennikov AN, Tojibaev KS, Khassanov FO, Beshko NY (2016) The flora of Uzbekistan project. Phytotaxa 282:107–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spiers JA, Oatham MP, Rostant LV, Farrell AD (2018) Applying species distribution modelling to improving conservation based decisions: a gap analysis of Trinidad and Tobago’s endemic vascular plants. Biodivers Conserv 27:2931–2949

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor C, Cadenhead N, Lindenmayer DB, Wintle BA (2017) Improving the design of a conservation reserve for a critically endangered species. PLoS ONE 12:e0169629

  • van Proosdij ASJ, Sosef MSM, Wieringa JJ, Raes N (2016) Minimum required number of specimen records to develop accurate species distribution models. Ecography 39:542–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volis S (2017) Conservation utility of botanic garden living collections: setting a strategy and appropriate methodology. Plant Divers 39:365–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volis S (2019) Plant conservation: the role of habitat restoration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Orzimat Turginov for compiling the species occurrence data and Ziyoviddin Yusupov for kind help with preparation of figures for publication. We are also grateful to two reviewers for their comments on the first version of the manuscript.

Funding

There was no funding for this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sergei Volis.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interests.

Additional information

Communicated by Daniel Sanchez Mata.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

10531_2021_2265_MOESM1_ESM.png

Supplementary Figure 1. SDM-predicted suitable habitat for 50 critically endangered plant species of Uzbekistan (PNG 580 kb)

10531_2021_2265_MOESM2_ESM.png

Supplementary Figure 2.SDM-predicted suitable habitat for 50 critically endangered plant species of Uzbekistan (PNG 424 kb)

10531_2021_2265_MOESM3_ESM.doc

Supplementary Table. A list of studied species, their life form and the estimated extent of the SDM-predicted suitable habitat. Names of the species from the category 0 (presumably extinct) are in bold (DOC 96 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Volis, S., Tojibaev, K. Defining critical habitat for plant species with poor occurrence knowledge and identification of critical habitat networks. Biodivers Conserv 30, 3603–3611 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-021-02265-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-021-02265-w

Keywords

Navigation