Requiem for Argentine mammals: A spatial framework for mapping extinction risk

• Published in: Journal for nature conservation 2024-12, Vol.82, p.126759, Article 126759
• Main Authors: Martin, Gabriel M., González, Baltazar, Brook, Federico, Zuliani, Melina, Abba, Agustín M., Cirignoli, Sebastián, de Bustos, Soledad, Díaz, M.Mónica, Villafañe, Isabel Gómez, Kowalewski, Martín, Mora, Matías S., Ojeda, Agustina, Peker, Silvana, Pereira, Javier A., Superina, Mariella, Teta, Pablo, Varela, Diego, Monjeau, Adrian
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Biodiversity metrics; Distribution; Human footprint; Pixel conservation values; Protected areas; South America
• ISSN: 1617-1381
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jnc.2024.126759

[Display omitted] •The conservation status of all Argentine mammals was studied.•An explicit conservation indicator (Pixel Conservation Value) was used.•PCVs were analyzed across the country’s protected areas, and including human pressure.•Priority areas for the conservation of Argentine mammals were identified.•We found a very low impact of Argentina’s protected areas on mammal conservation. The objective of this work was to analyze the species richness and conservation status of terrestrial mammals in Argentina in relation to protected areas and human footprint intensity using a spatially explicit metric. We calculated the conservation value per species integrating taxonomic singularity, chorology and national conservation category. We superimposed conservation values per pixel in 25 km2 grids with the protected areas of the country under different types of administration and management defined in this study and with the human footprint. Richness ranged from 1 to 93 species per pixel, and conservation values from 3 to 589 per pixel. Pixels with the highest richness and high conservation values represented 0.5 % and 18.8 % of the studied area, respectively. High pixel conservation values had 2.5 % of their area protected. The protected areas of Argentina covered 8.7 % of the total area of distribution of mammals. Areas under national management (e.g., national parks) conserved only 1.8 %, while the remainder corresponded to areas under sub-national jurisdiction (e.g., provincial reserves) and under resource management. Most taxa had less than 10 % of their range within protected areas. The high, medium and low human footprint affected 12 %, 33.2 % and 53.3 % of the studied area, respectively. The high footprint impacted on 1.2 % to 14.5 % of the distribution of the different orders of mammals, with Lagomorpha and Pilosa being the most affected. Areas of high conservation value were poorly represented in protected areas, and were impacted by a high human footprint.