Open AccessA blueprint for securing Brazil's marine biodiversity and supporting the achievement of global conservation goals
Author(s) -
Magris Rafael A.,
Costa Micheli D. P.,
Ferreira Carlos E. L.,
Vilar Ciro C.,
Joyeux JeanChristophe,
Creed Joel C.,
Copertino Margareth S.,
Horta Paulo A.,
Sumida Paulo Y. G.,
FranciniFilho Ronaldo B.,
Floeter Sergio R.
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
diversity and distributions
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.918
H-Index - 118
eISSN - 1472-4642
pISSN - 1366-9516
DOI - 10.1111/ddi.13183
Subject(s) - threatened species , blueprint , marine protected area , habitat , biodiversity , environmental resource management , geography , marine conservation , cumulative effects , prioritization , marine spatial planning , marine reserve , environmental planning , ecology , environmental science , business , biology , mechanical engineering , engineering , process management
Aim As a step towards providing support for an ecological approach to strengthening marine protected areas (MPAs) and meeting international commitments, this study combines cumulative impact assessment and conservation planning approach to undertake a large‐scale spatial prioritization. Location Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of Brazil, Southwest Atlantic Ocean. Methods We developed a prioritization approach to protecting different habitat types, threatened species ranges and ecological connectivity, while also mitigating the impacts of multiple threats on biodiversity. When identifying priorities for conservation, we accounted for the co‐occurrence of 24 human threats and the distribution of 161 marine habitats and 143 threatened species, as well as their associated vulnerabilities. Additionally, we compared our conservation priorities with MPAs proposed by local stakeholders. Results We show that impacts to habitats and species are widespread and identify hot spots of cumulative impacts on inshore and offshore areas. Industrial fisheries, climate change and land‐based activities were the most severe threats to biodiversity. The highest priorities were mostly found towards the coast due to the high cumulative impacts found in nearshore areas. As expected, our systematic approach showed a better performance on selecting priority sites when compared to the MPAs proposed by local stakeholders without a typical conservation planning exercise, increasing the existing coverage of MPAs by only 7.9%. However, we found that proposed MPAs still provide some opportunities to protect areas facing high levels of threats. Main conclusions The study presents a blueprint of how to embrace a comprehensive ecological approach when identifying strategic priorities for conservation. We advocate protecting these crucial areas from degradation in emerging conservation efforts is key to maintain their biodiversity value.