A Vulnerability Assessment of 300 Species in Florida: Threats from Sea Level Rise, Land Use, and Climate Change

Species face many threats, including accelerated climate change, sea level rise, and conversion and degradation of habitat from human land uses. Vulnerability assessments and prioritization protocols have been proposed to assess these threats, often in combination with information such as species rarity; ecological, evolutionary or economic value; and likelihood of success. Nevertheless, few vulnerability assessments or prioritization protocols simultaneously account for multiple threats or conservation values. We applied a novel vulnerability assessment tool, the Standardized Index of Vulnerability and Value, to assess the conservation priority of 300 species of plants and animals in Florida given projections of climate change, human land-use patterns, and sea level rise by the year 2100. We account for multiple sources of uncertainty and prioritize species under five different systems of value, ranging from a primary emphasis on vulnerability to threats to an emphasis on metrics of conservation value such as phylogenetic distinctiveness. Our results reveal remarkable consistency in the prioritization of species across different conservation value systems. Species of high priority include the Miami blue butterfly (Cyclargus thomasi bethunebakeri), Key tree cactus (Pilosocereus robinii), Florida duskywing butterfly (Ephyriades brunnea floridensis), and Key deer (Odocoileus virginianus clavium). We also identify sources of uncertainty and the types of life history information consistently missing across taxonomic groups. This study characterizes the vulnerabilities to major threats of a broad swath of Florida’s biodiversity and provides a system for prioritizing conservation efforts that is quantitative, flexible, and free from hidden value judgments.

[1]  Benjamin S Halpern,et al.  Gaps and Mismatches between Global Conservation Priorities and Spending , 2006, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[2]  S. Rahmstorf,et al.  Global sea level linked to global temperature , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[3]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing , 1995 .

[4]  Paul Beier,et al.  Use of Land Facets to Plan for Climate Change: Conserving the Arenas, Not the Actors , 2010, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[5]  Anni Arponen Prioritizing species for conservation planning , 2012, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[6]  P. Kareiva,et al.  Improving U.S. Endangered Species Act Recovery Plans: Key Findings and Recommendations of the SCB Recovery Plan Project , 2002 .

[7]  T. Malone Coastal waters of the world: Trends, threats and strategies , 1998 .

[8]  S. Peck A Survey of Insects of the Florida Keys: Post-Pleistocene Land-Bridge Islands: Introduction , 1989 .

[9]  Remik Ziemlinski,et al.  Tidally adjusted estimates of topographic vulnerability to sea level rise and flooding for the contiguous United States , 2012 .

[10]  H. Resit Akçakaya,et al.  Identifying the World's Most Climate Change Vulnerable Species: A Systematic Trait-Based Assessment of all Birds, Amphibians and Corals , 2013, PloS one.

[11]  J. Lockwood,et al.  Biotic homogenization: a few winners replacing many losers in the next mass extinction. , 1999, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[12]  Hughes,et al.  Biological consequences of global warming: is the signal already apparent? , 2000, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[13]  I. Owens,et al.  The comparative method in conservation biology. , 2004, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[14]  Richard Shine,et al.  Taxonomic chauvinism , 2022 .

[15]  Samuel A. Cushman,et al.  Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on amphibians: A review and prospectus , 2006 .

[16]  C. W. James. Endemism in Florida , 1961, Brittonia.

[17]  Alex James,et al.  Global variation in terrestrial conservation costs, conservation benefits, and unmet conservation needs , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[18]  W. T. Pfeffer,et al.  Kinematic Constraints on Glacier Contributions to 21st-Century Sea-Level Rise , 2008, Science.

[19]  O. Phillips,et al.  Extinction risk from climate change , 2004, Nature.

[20]  T. Brooks,et al.  Habitat Loss and Extinction in the Hotspots of Biodiversity , 2002 .

[21]  G. Daily,et al.  Ecosystem Services in Decision Making: Time to Deliver , 2009 .

[22]  Hugh P Possingham,et al.  Six Common Mistakes in Conservation Priority Setting , 2013, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[23]  S. Black,et al.  Use of a Business Excellence Model to Improve Conservation Programs , 2010, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[24]  François Pompanon,et al.  Population Adaptive Index: a New Method to Help Measure Intraspecific Genetic Diversity and Prioritize Populations for Conservation , 2007, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[25]  G. Daily,et al.  Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales , 2009 .

[26]  Paul Beier,et al.  Bolder Thinking for Conservation , 2012, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[27]  Lian Pin Koh,et al.  Species Coextinctions and the Biodiversity Crisis , 2004, Science.

[28]  R. May,et al.  Taxonomic Bias in Conservation Research , 2002, Science.

[29]  P. Raven,et al.  Biodiversity: Extinction by numbers , 2000, Nature.

[30]  Patricia A. Zaradic,et al.  Conservation science: a 20‐year report card , 2006 .

[31]  Jonathan B. Oetting,et al.  Systematic reserve design as a dynamic process: F-TRAC and the Florida Forever program , 2006 .

[32]  S. Mulkey Climate change and land use in Florida: Interdependencies and opportunities , 2007 .

[33]  J. Klironomos Another Form of Bias in Conservation Research , 2002, Science.

[34]  K. Aubry,et al.  Using Anecdotal Occurrence Data for Rare or Elusive Species: The Illusion of Reality and a Call for Evidentiary Standards , 2008 .

[35]  L. E. Morse,et al.  Taxonomic Bias and Vulnerable Species , 2002, Science.

[36]  L Colli,et al.  Objectives, criteria and methods for using molecular genetic data in priority setting for conservation of animal genetic resources. , 2010, Animal genetics.

[37]  T. Brooks,et al.  Global Biodiversity Conservation Priorities , 2006, Science.

[38]  Harry Hines,et al.  Optimizing Allocation of Management Resources for Wildlife , 2007, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[39]  H. Gleason,et al.  The individualistic concept of the plant association , 1939 .

[40]  N. Charney Evaluating expert opinion and spatial scale in an amphibian model , 2012 .

[41]  Dennis D. Murphy,et al.  A NEW METHOD FOR SELECTION OF UMBRELLA SPECIES FOR CONSERVATION PLANNING , 2000 .

[42]  K. Gaston,et al.  Can We Afford to Conserve Biodiversity? , 2001 .

[43]  N. Seavy,et al.  A Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment of California's At-Risk Birds , 2012, PloS one.

[44]  Keqi Zhang,et al.  Comparison of three methods for estimating the sea level rise effect on storm surge flooding , 2013, Climatic Change.

[45]  Terry Walshe,et al.  Uncertainty in Comparative Risk Analysis for Threatened Australian Plant Species , 1999 .

[46]  C. Loehle,et al.  Historical bird and terrestrial mammal extinction rates and causes , 2012 .

[47]  R. Noss,et al.  Prioritizing Species by Conservation Value and Vulnerability: A New Index Applied to Species Threatened by Sea-Level Rise and Other Risks in Florida , 2014 .

[48]  R. Mittermeier,et al.  Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities , 2000, Nature.

[49]  J. Estes,et al.  Ecological Effectiveness: Conservation Goals for Interactive Species , 2003 .

[50]  Chris J. Johnson,et al.  Mapping uncertainty: sensitivity of wildlife habitat ratings to expert opinion , 2004 .

[51]  Georgina M. Mace,et al.  Assessing Extinction Threats: Toward a Reevaluation of IUCN Threatened Species Categories , 1991 .

[52]  M. Hudson,et al.  Prioritizing key biodiversity areas in Madagascar by including data on human pressure and ecosystem services , 2010 .

[53]  J. Estes,et al.  The Ecology of Extinctions in Kelp Forest Communities , 1989 .

[54]  Martin I. Taylor,et al.  Making decisions to conserve species under climate change , 2013, Climatic Change.

[55]  A. Baur [Rezension von] T. Caro,Conservation by proxy: Indicator, umbrella, keystone, flagship, and other surrogate species , 2011 .

[56]  Liana N. Joseph,et al.  Optimal Allocation of Resources among Threatened Species: a Project Prioritization Protocol , 2009, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[57]  Mike Hulme,et al.  Using expert knowledge to assess uncertainties in future polar bear populations under climate change , 2008 .

[58]  D. Brockington,et al.  Capitalism and Conservation: The Production and Reproduction of Biodiversity Conservation , 2010 .

[59]  David W Redding,et al.  Incorporating Evolutionary Measures into Conservation Prioritization , 2006, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[60]  Bonnet,et al.  Snakes: a new 'model organism' in ecological research? , 2000, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[61]  A. Clevenger,et al.  GIS‐Generated, Expert‐Based Models for Identifying Wildlife Habitat Linkages and Planning Mitigation Passages , 2002 .