<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23562">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>New research from Finland has shown that protected nature reserves do not
always safeguard wildlife – often only decelerating species
decline.<BR><BR>Protected nature areas – such as reserves – are deemed essential
for maintaining biodiversity and countering its loss. However, research at the
University of Helsinki shows mixed effects of protected areas on various
species.<BR><BR>While protected areas have undoubtedly contributed to slowing
the overall biodiversity loss, it is unclear how well they work across multiple
species concurrently. To explore this, researchers at the university examined
changes in the occurrence of hundreds of species within and outside of protected
areas.<BR><BR>They discovered mixed effects, highlighting that protected areas
do not fully meet the expectations set for them. Rather than reversing the trend
in biodiversity loss, current protected areas will, at best, help decelerate the
species decline rate. What they thus currently offer is more time to act on the
root causes of biodiversity loss.<BR><BR>"Our results show that only a small
proportion of species explicitly benefit from protection, but this varied by
group. Birds show the highest positive response to protection, one out of five
species, and plants show warm-dwelling species benefitting more. Protected areas
mostly help by slowing down the decline of species occurrences," said associate
professor Marjo Saastamoinen, senior author of the study.<BR><BR>"Our findings
should not discourage us from establishing protected areas," commented Andrea
Santangeli, lead author of the study. "Quite the contrary, they show that
protected areas will buy us some time to counter rapid species loss. By
protecting an area, we will slow the local loss of many species – but, at the
same time, we cannot stop species loss by simply setting aside some small pieces
of land here and there and expect miracles to happen."<BR><BR>For improving the
effectiveness of protected areas, Dr Santangeli has a clear-cut recommendation:
"What we need to do is to make the overall landscape more suitable for the
species. Protected areas can serve as lifeboats, but in the longer run, these
lifeboats will still need a safe landing
site."<BR><BR> <BR>Reference<BR>Santangeli, A, Weigel, B, Antão, L H, et
al. 2023. Mixed effects of a national protected area network on terrestrial and
freshwater biodiversity. Nature Communications. DOI:
doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-41073-4<BR><BR><A
href="https://www.birdguides.com/articles/conservation/nature-reserves-alone-cant-reverse-biodiversity-loss/">https://www.birdguides.com/articles/conservation/nature-reserves-alone-cant-reverse-biodiversity-loss/</A><BR><BR>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title=ecology.by@gmail.com href="mailto:ecology.by@gmail.com">Ecology BY</A>
</DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Friday, October 20, 2023 8:02 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> [wildlife-climate] Nature reserves alone can't reverse
biodiversity loss</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>