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

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

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

Different spatial analyses were developed for biodiversity conservation. Maps of potential biodiversity (MPB) define the distribution and ecological requirements of key species, while maps of priority conservation areas (MPCA) define priority areas considering endemism and richness. The objective was to test the efficiency of MPB and MPCA to support conservation strategies at different spatial scales based on taxonomic groups using potential habitat suitability (PHS) in Santa Cruz province (Patagonia, Argentina). We obtain PHS maps by Biomapper software using 119 species (huemul, birds, lizards, darkling-beetles, plants) and 40 explanatory variables. PHS were combined into a GIS project to obtain a single MPB and different MPCA using Zonation software. ANOVAs and PCAs compared both methodologies among treatments (environmental variables, ecological areas, forest types, and protected areas). Modelling approach used 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 lowest marginality value related to dry-steppes. Birds and plants presented large range of marginality and specialization 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 related to N. pumilio forests and alpine vegetation. At regional level, the highest MPB and MPCA values were related to shrub-lands and humid-steppes. However, MPCA also showed high values related to forests and alpine vegetation due to endemism, while only MPB highlighted differences along forest types. The representativeness analyses using MPB showed that highest potential biodiversity values did not well represented inside natural reserves, however MPCA detected some high values inside reserves. We conclude that outputs of different spatial analyses (MPB or MPCA) were similar at regional scale, but different at local scale or in ecological areas. Both methodologies can be used for different conservation strategies (e.g. highlight richness or endemism).