to most local endemics, especially to hyperendemics (highly restricted species). The
first step is to assess the spatial scale of direct and indirect factors affecting food
webs and biodiversity. As an approximation: concrete landscapes, ecosystems and
habitats can be seen as media and tools, and biodiversity as purpose.
However, there is no doubt that increasing monetary investments, relatively and
absolutely, is necessary for the salvation of ecosystems and the long-term survival of
species. On the other hand, it might be possible to save money by reducing
ineffective nature conservation measures; an example may be to stop funding the
control of alien species that do not have any measurable negative effect on native
species. Therefore, the solution is not only the amount of investment for nature
protection, but the effectiveness of investments with respect to a simple indicator: no
further loss of species. As an interim outcome, the list of Critically Endangered
species should decrease.
5.1 Threatened Species and Risk of Extinction
The risk of any species extinction depends on its range of distribution and the
pressure on its population. The smaller the range and the higher the pressure,
i.e. death toll of mature individuals, the higher the risk of extinction.
Because of their limited range of occurrence, the survival of hyperendemics—i.e.
with a range smaller than 1 km
2 , or a world population of no more than 50 individuals—and local endemics should have the highest priority. Many hyperendemics
and local endemics are considered palaeo-endemics or relictual, having spatial
ranges that are remnants of wider historical distributions; others are considered to
be neo-endemics, i.e. newly evolved species from the late Pleistocene or the
Holocene.
However, every risk threatening the existence of species, including the introduction of pathogens and e.g. tourism, should be minimized. On the other hand,
measures to enlarge extant populations and the stockpiling of genetic material can
be systematically planned, organized and intensified, for example with support from
seed banks, botanical gardens, aquariums and zoos. The public money invested
might simply be connected to the success of relating these programmes to the desired
actions.
General needs and consequences for different habitat types, associated endemics,
and threatened species can be only broadly defined. Thus, the following consequences can only serve as a basis for discussion and should be assessed in every
case, and at local to regional scales.
Globally, agriculture, land use change, forestry, aquaculture and biological
resource use are the factors most threatening biodiversity. Many terrestrial ecosystems are directly and indirectly affected by conversion, tillage, plantations, construction of roads and buildings, and intensification of use, including diverse physical,
chemical and biological components.
Land Use Change and the Future of Biodiversity
469
first step is to assess the spatial scale of direct and indirect factors affecting food
webs and biodiversity. As an approximation: concrete landscapes, ecosystems and
habitats can be seen as media and tools, and biodiversity as purpose.
However, there is no doubt that increasing monetary investments, relatively and
absolutely, is necessary for the salvation of ecosystems and the long-term survival of
species. On the other hand, it might be possible to save money by reducing
ineffective nature conservation measures; an example may be to stop funding the
control of alien species that do not have any measurable negative effect on native
species. Therefore, the solution is not only the amount of investment for nature
protection, but the effectiveness of investments with respect to a simple indicator: no
further loss of species. As an interim outcome, the list of Critically Endangered
species should decrease.
5.1 Threatened Species and Risk of Extinction
The risk of any species extinction depends on its range of distribution and the
pressure on its population. The smaller the range and the higher the pressure,
i.e. death toll of mature individuals, the higher the risk of extinction.
Because of their limited range of occurrence, the survival of hyperendemics—i.e.
with a range smaller than 1 km
2 , or a world population of no more than 50 individuals—and local endemics should have the highest priority. Many hyperendemics
and local endemics are considered palaeo-endemics or relictual, having spatial
ranges that are remnants of wider historical distributions; others are considered to
be neo-endemics, i.e. newly evolved species from the late Pleistocene or the
Holocene.
However, every risk threatening the existence of species, including the introduction of pathogens and e.g. tourism, should be minimized. On the other hand,
measures to enlarge extant populations and the stockpiling of genetic material can
be systematically planned, organized and intensified, for example with support from
seed banks, botanical gardens, aquariums and zoos. The public money invested
might simply be connected to the success of relating these programmes to the desired
actions.
General needs and consequences for different habitat types, associated endemics,
and threatened species can be only broadly defined. Thus, the following consequences can only serve as a basis for discussion and should be assessed in every
case, and at local to regional scales.
Globally, agriculture, land use change, forestry, aquaculture and biological
resource use are the factors most threatening biodiversity. Many terrestrial ecosystems are directly and indirectly affected by conversion, tillage, plantations, construction of roads and buildings, and intensification of use, including diverse physical,
chemical and biological components.
Land Use Change and the Future of Biodiversity
469