Potential biodiversity maps of multiples taxonomic group to support conservation strategies at different scales.

MV LENCINAS; PL PERI; YM ROSAS; G MARTÍNEZ PASTUR

Bucharest

Conferencia; IALE Conference: Socio-Ecological Practice Research for Sustainable Landscape Governance.; 2020

Different spatial analyses were developed for biodiversity conservation. Maps ofpotential biodiversity (MPB) define the distribution and ecological requirements of key species,while maps of priority conservation areas (MPCA) define priority areas considering endemismand richness. The objective was to test the efficiency of MPB and MPCA to support conservationstrategies at different spatial scales based on taxonomic groups using potential habitat suitability(PHS) in Santa Cruz province (Patagonia, Argentina). We obtain PHS maps by Biomappersoftware using 119 species (huemul, birds, lizards, darkling-beetles, plants) and 40 explanatoryvariables. PHS were combined into a GIS project to obtain a single MPB and different MPCAusing Zonation software. ANOVAs and PCAs compared both methodologies among treatments(environmental variables, ecological areas, forest types, and protected areas). Modelling approachused climatic (n=6), topographic (n=2) and landscape (n=7) variables. PCA and MPB indices(marginality and specialization) showed that lizards and darkling-beetles presented the lowestmarginality value related to dry-steppes. Birds and plants presented large range of marginality andspecialization values related to different ecosystem types, e.g. humid-steppes and shrub-lands,Nothofagus antarctica forests and ecotone areas. Huemul had the highest marginality value relatedto N. pumilio forests and alpine vegetation. At regional level, the highest MPB and MPCA valueswere related to shrub-lands and humid-steppes. However, MPCA also showed high values relatedto forests and alpine vegetation due to endemism, while only MPB highlighted differences alongforest types. The representativeness analyses using MPB showed that highest potential biodiversity values did not well represented inside natural reserves, however MPCA detected some high valuesinside reserves. We conclude that outputs of different spatial analyses (MPB or MPCA) weresimilar at regional scale, but different at local scale or in ecological areas. Both methodologies canbe used for different conservation strategies (e.g. highlight richness or endemism).