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

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

Bucharest

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

IALE

Different spatial analyses were developed for biodiversity conservation. Maps of potential biodiversity (MPB) define distribution and ecological requirements of indicator 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 scales based on taxonomic groups using potential habitat suitability (PHS) in Santa Cruz province (Argentina). We analysed 119 species (huemul, birds, lizards, darkling-beetles, plants) and 40 explanatory variables, obtaining PHS maps using Biomapper software. PHS were combined in 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 used climatic (n=6), topographic (n=2) and landscape (n=7) variables. PCA and indexes (marginality and specialization) showed that lizards and darkling-beetles presented the lowest marginality related to dry-steppes. Birds and plants presented large range of marginality and specialization related to different ecosystem types, e.g. humid-steppes and shrub-lands, Nothofagus antarctica forests and ecotone areas. Huemul presented the highest marginality values 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 presented high values related to forests and alpine vegetation due to endemism values, while only MPB highlight differences of potential biodiversity values through forest types. The representativeness analyses using MPB showed that highest potential biodiversity are not well represented inside natural reserves, however MPCA detect some high values inside these reserves. We can conclude that outputs of different spatial analyses (MPB or MPCA) were similar at regional scale, but can differ at local scale or for different ecological areas. Both methodologies can be used for different conservation strategies (e.g. highlight richness or endemism).