Abstract
Ensuring the effectiveness of protected areas (PAs) has become a top-priority conservation action. Without management plans to define clear conservation goals and actions, PAs risk failing to protect biodiversity. Yet, management plans are insufficiently detailed or absent for several PAs worldwide. Although biodiversity knowledge is a cornerstone to guide the creation of PAs, we still lack information on its impact on long-term management. Thus, to better understand how biodiversity inventories might bias the management of protected areas, we investigate how these plans relate to the number of threatened species in PAs. Thus, we mapped 10,407 records corresponding to 1,395 threatened flora species in 863 PAs of the Brazilian Atlantic Forest under different jurisdictions and found that PAs with management plans hold twice the number of threatened flora species than those without such plans. Additionally, we found no support for the idea that larger PAs or those under higher anthropic pressure are more likely to have management plans, suggesting that management plans represent a proxy for the attention that PAs receive that goes far beyond necessity. We suggest two major reasons for this result. First, better-studied PAs are more likely to receive public funds to establish their management plans. Second, PAs with management plans and well-defined conservation goals may attract more studies. Both reasons may act synergistically, and we provide guidance on how managers and scientists should overcome these biases.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Data and code are available in the supplementary material.
References
Amano T, Székely T, Sandel B et al (2018) Successful conservation of global waterbird populations depends on effective governance. Nature 553:199–202. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25139
André de Almeida, Cunha Carla Bernadete Madureira, Cruz Gustavo Alberto, Bouchardet da Fonseca (2019) Legal Atlantic Forest (Mata Atlântica Legal): integrating biogeography to public policies towards the conservation of the biodiversity hotspot. Sustentabilidade em Debate 10(3):320–353. https://doi.org/10.18472/SustDeb.v10n3.2019.27112
Appleton MR, Courtiol A, Emerton L et al (2022) Protected area personnel and ranger numbers are insufficient to deliver global expectations. Nat Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00970-0
Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. J Stat Soft 67. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
Bradshaw CJA, Craigie I, Laurance WF (2015) National emphasis on high-level protection reduces risk of biodiversity decline in tropical forest reserves. Biol Conserv 190:115–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.05.019
Brasil (2000) Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservação
Brazill-Boast J, Williams M, Rickwood B et al (2018) A large-scale application of project prioritization to threatened species investment by a government agency. PLoS ONE 13:e0201413. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201413
Brooks M E, Kristensen K, Benthem K J, van, et al (2017) glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling. The R Journal 9:378. https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2017-066
Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2004) Multimodel Inference: Understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociol Methods Res 33:261–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124104268644
Buxton RT, Avery-Gomm S, Lin H-Y et al (2020) Half of resources in threatened species conservation plans are allocated to research and monitoring. Nat Commun 11:4668. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18486-6
Caitano HDA, Dutra VF, Valadares RT, Calazans LSB (2022) Reintroduction of illegally extracted Melocactus violaceus (Cactaceae) in Brazil. Oryx 56:155–158. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605320000344
Carvalho G (2022) Flora: Tools for interacting with the brazilian flora 2020
Carvalho RL, Resende AF, Barlow J et al (2023) Pervasive gaps in amazonian ecological research. Curr Biol 33:3495–3504. .e4
CDB (2021) First draft of the post-2020. Global Biodiversity Framework
Chape S, Harrison J, Spalding M, Lysenko I (2005) Measuring the extent and effectiveness of protected areas as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity targets. Phil Trans R Soc B 360:443–455. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1592
CNCFlora (2016) Livro vermelho da flora do Brasil
Coad L, Watson JE, Geldmann J et al (2019) Widespread shortfalls in protected area resourcing undermine efforts to conserve biodiversity. Front Ecol Environ 17:259–264. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2042
Collar NJ (1996) The reasons for red data books. Oryx 30:121–130. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605300021505
D´Amico AR, Cortes Figueira JE, Cândido-Jr JF, Drumond MA (2020) Environmental diagnoses and effective planning of protected areas in Brazil: is there any connection? PLoS ONE 15:e0242687. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242687
D’Amico AR, others (2013) Lições aprendidas sobre o diagnóstico para elaboração de planos de manejo de unidades de conservação: comunidade de ensino e aprendizagem em planejamento de unidades de conservação. WWF-Brasil, Brasília
da Silva JMC, Dias TCA, de Cunha C, da Cunha AC HFA (2021) Funding deficits of protected areas in Brazil. Land Use Policy 100:104926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104926
Delso Á, Fajardo J, Muñoz J (2021) Protected area networks do not represent unseen biodiversity. Sci Rep 11:12275. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-91651-z
Durán AP, Barbosa O, Gaston KJ (2022) Understanding the interacting factors that determine ecological effectiveness of terrestrial protected areas. J Nat Conserv 70:126264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2022.126264
Fundação Sos Mata Atlântica, INPE (2021) Atlas dos remanescentes florestais Da Mata Atlântica: período 2019/2020, relatório técnico. Fundação SOS Mata Atlântica, São Paulo
Geldmann J, Manica A, Burgess ND et al (2019) A global-level assessment of the effectiveness of protected areas at resisting anthropogenic pressures. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 116:23209–23215. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1908221116
Gill DA, Mascia MB, Ahmadia GN et al (2017) Capacity shortfalls hinder the performance of marine protected areas globally. Nature 543:665–669. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21708
Godoy LR, da Leuzinger C MD (2015) O financiamento do Sistema Nacional De Unidades De Conservação no Brasil: características e tendências. Revista De Informação Legislativa 52:21
Gonçalves TV, Parreira MR, Nabout JC (2021) Brazilian protected areas that are larger, older, and closer to urban areas are more studied by scientists. Biol Conserv 257:109123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109123
Graham V, Geldmann J, Adams VM et al (2021) Management resourcing and government transparency are key drivers of biodiversity outcomes in southeast Asian protected areas. Biol Conserv 253:108875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108875
Group Brazil Flora (2022) Brazilian flora 2020 project - Projeto Flora do Brasil 2020
Hartig F (2022) DHARMa: Residual Diagnostics for Hierarchical (Multi-Level / Mixed) Regression Models
Hoffmann M, Brooks T, Da Fonseca G et al (2008) Conservation planning and the IUCN red list. Endang Species Res 6:113–125. https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00087
Howard C, Flather CH, Stephens PA (2020) A global assessment of the drivers of threatened terrestrial species richness. Nat Commun 11:993. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-14771-6
ICMBIO - Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade (2018) Roteiro metodológico para elaboração e revisão de planos de manejo das unidades de conservação federais. Brasília
Joppa LN, Loarie SR, Pimm SL (2008) On the protection of protected areas. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105:6673–6678. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0802471105
Kearney SG, Adams VM, Fuller RA et al (2020) Estimating the benefit of well-managed protected areas for threatened species conservation. Oryx 54:276–284. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605317001739
Leverington F, Costa KL, Pavese H et al (2010) A global analysis of protected area management effectiveness. Environ Manage 46:685–698. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9564-5
Machado M, Young CEF, Clauzet M (2020) Environmental funds to support protected areas: lessons from Brazilian experiences. PARKS 47–62. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2020.PARKS-26-1MM.en
Márquez-Alvis S, Vallejos LM, Paredes-Guerrero S et al (2023) Effects of the environmental conditions and seasonality on a population survey of the Andean condor Vultur gryphus in the tropical Andes. PeerJ 11:e14763. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.14763
Martín-López B, Montes C, Ramírez L, Benayas J (2009) What drives policy decision-making related to species conservation? Biol Conserv 142:1370–1380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.01.030
Martinelli G, Moraes MA (2013) Livro vermelho da Flora do Brasil. (1.ed.) Instituto de Pesquisas Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro, 1100p, Rio de Janeiro
Mazerolle MJ (2020) AICcmodavg: Model selection and multimodel inference based on (Q)AIC(c)
MMA (2022) Cadastro Nacional de Unidades de Conservação (CNUC). https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiMGNmMGY3NGMtNWZlOC00ZmRmLWExZWItNTNiNDhkZDg0MmY4IiwidCI6IjM5NTdhMzY3LTZkMzgtNGMxZi1hNGJhLTMzZThmM2M1NTBlNyJ9&pageName=ReportSectione0a112a2a9e0cf52a827. Accessed 9 May 2022
Morais AR, Siqueira MN (2021) Analyzing temporal and spatial trends in management plans of federal protected areas in Brazil. Universidade De Rio Verde. Oecol Aust 25:846–854. https://doi.org/10.4257/oeco.2021.2504.05
Muanis MM, Serrão M, Geluda L et al (2009) Quanto Custa uma unidade de conservação federal? uma visão estratégica para o financiamento do Sistema Nacional De Unidades De Conservação (Snuc). FUNBIO - Fundo Brasileiro para a Biodiversidade
Muylaert RL, Vancine MH, Bernardo R, et al (2018) UMA NOTA SOBRE OS LIMITES TERRITORIAIS DA MATA ATLÂNTICA. Oecol Aust 22:302–311. https://doi.org/10.4257/oeco.2018.2203.09
Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG et al (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858. https://doi.org/10.1038/35002501
Nori J, Maas B, Brum F, Villalobos F (2023) Addressing knowledge shortfalls in conservation science: a long way to go, as quickly as possible. Biol Conserv 287:110314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110314
Oliveira-Filho AT, Fontes MAL (2000) Patterns of floristic differentiation among atlantic forests in southeastern brazil and the influence of climate. Biotropica 32:793–810. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7429.2000.tb00619.x
Oliveira U, Paglia AP, Brescovit AD et al (2016) The strong influence of collection bias on biodiversity knowledge shortfalls of B razilian terrestrial biodiversity. Divers Distrib 22:1232–1244. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12489
Possingham HP, Andelman SJ, Burgman MA et al (2002) Limits to the use of threatened species lists. Trends Ecol Evol 17:503–507. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(02)02614-9
Pressey RL, Humphries CJ, Margules CR et al (1993) Beyond opportunism: key principles for systematic reserve selection. Trends Ecol Evol 8:124–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(93)90023-I
Robert H, MacArthur Edward O, Wilson (1963) An equilibrium theory of insular zoogeography, Evolution. 17(4):373–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1963.tb03295.x
Robert M, Pringle (2017) Upgrading protected areas to conserve wild biodiversity. Nature 546(7656):91–99. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature22902
R Core Team (2022) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria
Redford KH (1992) The empty forest. Bioscience 42:412–422. https://doi.org/10.2307/1311860
Ribeiro MC, Metzger JP, Martensen AC et al (2009) The Brazilian Atlantic Forest: how much is left, and how is the remaining forest distributed? Implications for conservation. Biol Conserv 142:1141–1153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.02.021
Ricci L, Musciano MD, Sabatini FM et al (2023) A multitaxonomic assessment of Natura 2000 effectiveness across European biogeographic regions. Conserv Biology cobi 14212. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14212
Rylands AB, Brandon K (2005) Brazilian protected areas. Conserv Biol 19:612–618. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00711.x
Schleicher J, Eklund J, Barnes D M, et al (2020) Statistical matching for conservation science. Conserv Biol 34:538–549. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13448
Serviço Florestal Brasileiro (2018) Cadastro Nacional de Florestas Públicas (CNFP). https://www.florestal.gov.br/cadastro-nacional-de-florestas-publicas/127-informacoes-florestais/cadastro-nacional-de-florestas-publicas-cnfp/1673-dados-por-estado-cnfp-2018. Accessed 1 Apr 2020
Shafer CL (1999) National park and reserve planning to protect biological diversity: some basic elements. Landsc Urban Plann 44:123–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00115-7
Silva M (2005) The Brazilian protected areas program. Conserv Biol 19:608–611. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00707.x
Silva JMCda, de Castro Dias TCA, da Cunha AC, Cunha HFA (2019) Public spending in federal protected areas in Brazil. Land Use Policy 86:158–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.04.035
Sousa-Baena MS, Garcia LC, Peterson AT (2014) Completeness of digital accessible knowledge of the plants of Brazil and priorities for survey and inventory. Divers Distrib 20:369–381. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12136
Terraube J, Fernández-Llamazares Á, Cabeza M (2017) The role of protected areas in supporting human health: a call to broaden the assessment of conservation outcomes. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 25:50–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.08.005
Terraube J, Van Doninck J, Helle P, Cabeza M (2020) Assessing the effectiveness of a national protected area network for carnivore conservation. Nat Commun 11:2957. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16792-7
Thomas L, Middleton J (2003) Guidelines for management planning of protected areas. IUCN Publications Services Unit, 219c Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL, United Kingdom
Troudet J, Grandcolas P, Blin A et al (2017) Taxonomic bias in biodiversity data and societal preferences. Sci Rep 7:9132. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-09084-6
Venter O, Sanderson EW, Magrach A et al (2016) Global terrestrial human footprint maps for 1993 and 2009. Sci Data 3:160067. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.67
Vieira RRS, Pressey RL, Loyola R (2019) The residual nature of protected areas in Brazil. Biol Conserv 233:152–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.02.010
Visconti P, Butchart SHM, Brooks TM et al (2019) Protected area targets post-2020. Science 364:239–241. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav6886
Watson JEM, Dudley N, Segan DB, Hockings M (2014) The performance and potential of protected areas. Nature 515:67–73. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13947
Wauchope HS, Jones JPG, Geldmann J et al (2022) Protected areas have a mixed impact on waterbirds, but management helps. Nature 605:103–107. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04617-0
WDPA (2022) The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA). In: protectedplanet.net. www.protectedplanet.net. Accessed 5 Sep 2022
Werneck M, de Sobral S, Rocha MEG CTV, et al (2011) Distribution and endemism of angiosperms in the Atlantic Forest. Nat Conserv 9:188–193. https://doi.org/10.4322/natcon.2011.024
Whittaker RJ, Araújo MB, Jepson P et al (2005) Conservation biogeography: assessment and prospect. Divers Distrib 11:3–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1366-9516.2005.00143.x
WWF-Brasil, ICMBio (2012) Management effectiveness of Brazilian federal protected areas: results of 2010
Xu W, Xiao Y, Zhang J et al (2017) Strengthening protected areas for biodiversity and ecosystem services in China. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 114:1601–1606. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1620503114
Acknowledgements
We are especially thankful to Andressa Gatti for the initial insights in a preliminary version of the manuscript and Talitha Mayumi and Jorge Souza for comments on the later version of the manuscript. MLG thanks CNPq for the research grant “Bolsa de Produtividade em Pesquisa” (309854/2019-9), and FAPES for the research grant “Taxa de Pesquisa” (299/2021). This study was supported by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq, Programa de Capacitação Institucional – PCI/INMA) of the Brazilian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCTI).
Funding
This study was supported by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq, Programa de Capacitação Institucional – PCI/INMA) of the Brazilian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCTI). MLG was supported by CNPq for the research grant “Bolsa de Produtividade em Pesquisa” (309854/2019-9) and FAPES for the research grant “Taxa de Pesquisa” (299/2021).
Competing interestsThe authors report no conflicts of interest.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
GSS: Conceptualization; Data curation; Formal analysis; Methodology; Visualisation; Original draft preparation. DOM: Conceptualization; Original draft preparation, review and editing. ACL: Data curation, Review. MLG: Supervision, Review and editing.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Communicated by Gianmaria Bonari.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Santos, G.S., Moreira, D.O., Loss, A.C. et al. Management plans bias the number of threatened species in protected areas: a study case with flora species in the Atlantic Forest. Biodivers Conserv 33, 843–858 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-024-02796-y
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-024-02796-y