Biodiversity hotspots are biogeographic regions characterized by exceptionally high levels of species richness and endemism that are simultaneously under severe threat from anthropogenic disturbance (Myers et al., 2000; Mittermeier et al., 2011). To qualify as a hotspot, a region must contain at least 1,500 species of vascular plants as endemics and must have lost more than 70% of its original vegetation cover (Myers et al., 2000). Collectively, the remaining natural habitat within these regions represents just over 2% of Earth’s terrestrial surface, yet sustains nearly 60% of the planet’s species of plants, birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians (Mittermeier et al., 2004; Myers, 2003).
These regions are therefore considered irreplaceable reservoirs of global biodiversity, with approximately 35 areas currently meeting hotspot criteria (Myers et al., 2000; Mittermeier et al., 2011). Hotspots support more than half of the world’s endemic plant species and approximately 43% of terrestrial vertebrate endemics, underscoring their global conservation priority (Mittermeier et al., 2011).
Beyond their role as repositories of biodiversity, hotspots provide essential ecosystem services, including pollination, hydrological regulation, soil fertility, and carbon storage (Díaz et al., 2006; Cardinale et al., 2012). The ecological and evolutionary processes that generate and maintain such diversity — including speciation, ecological specialization, and biotic interactions — are fundamental to ecosystem resilience and function (Rickefs, 2004; Hughes et al., 2008).
Despite their ecological significance, biodiversity hotspots are subject to multiple, interacting threats. Key drivers of biodiversity loss include habitat destruction due to agricultural expansion, logging, and infrastructure development (Laurance et al., 2014); climate change impacts on species distributions and ecosystem dynamics (Bellard et al., 2012); introduction of invasive alien species (Brook et al., 2008); and overexploitation of natural resources (Dirzo et al., 2014).
Conservation strategies must therefore adopt integrative approaches that combine habitat protection, ecological restoration, community engagement, and sustainable resource management (Brooks et al., 2006; Rodrigues et al., 2006). Successful initiatives often involve co-management with local communities, protected area expansion, ecological corridor establishment, and international cooperation (Mittermeier et al., 2011; Laurance et al., 2014). Addressing the persistence of biodiversity hotspots thus requires coordinated global action, recognizing their central role in sustaining both ecological integrity and human well-being.
These regions are therefore considered irreplaceable reservoirs of global biodiversity, with approximately 35 areas currently meeting hotspot criteria (Myers et al., 2000; Mittermeier et al., 2011). Hotspots support more than half of the world’s endemic plant species and approximately 43% of terrestrial vertebrate endemics, underscoring their global conservation priority (Mittermeier et al., 2011).
Beyond their role as repositories of biodiversity, hotspots provide essential ecosystem services, including pollination, hydrological regulation, soil fertility, and carbon storage (Díaz et al., 2006; Cardinale et al., 2012). The ecological and evolutionary processes that generate and maintain such diversity — including speciation, ecological specialization, and biotic interactions — are fundamental to ecosystem resilience and function (Rickefs, 2004; Hughes et al., 2008).
Despite their ecological significance, biodiversity hotspots are subject to multiple, interacting threats. Key drivers of biodiversity loss include habitat destruction due to agricultural expansion, logging, and infrastructure development (Laurance et al., 2014); climate change impacts on species distributions and ecosystem dynamics (Bellard et al., 2012); introduction of invasive alien species (Brook et al., 2008); and overexploitation of natural resources (Dirzo et al., 2014).
Conservation strategies must therefore adopt integrative approaches that combine habitat protection, ecological restoration, community engagement, and sustainable resource management (Brooks et al., 2006; Rodrigues et al., 2006). Successful initiatives often involve co-management with local communities, protected area expansion, ecological corridor establishment, and international cooperation (Mittermeier et al., 2011; Laurance et al., 2014). Addressing the persistence of biodiversity hotspots thus requires coordinated global action, recognizing their central role in sustaining both ecological integrity and human well-being.
Myers (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853–858
Impact of Climate Change on Biodiversity Hotspots
Climate change exerts profound impacts on biodiversity hotspots by altering the spatial distribution of species. Rising temperatures and shifting precipitation regimes drive many organisms to migrate to higher elevations or latitudes in pursuit of suitable climate conditions (Parmesan & Yohe, 2003; Chen et al., 2011). Such shifts often disrupt established ecological communities and biotic interactions, leading to declines in biodiversity and altered ecosystem functioning (Bellard et al., 2012).
In addition to gradual climatic changes, extreme weather events such as wildfires, droughts, and intense storms exacerbate habitat degradation within biodiversity hotspots (IPCC, 2014; Allen et al., 2010). These disturbances fragment ecosystems, eliminate critical microhabitats, and disproportionately threaten endemic species that are adapted to narrow environmental conditions (Brook et al., 2008). The cumulative effects of habitat loss and climatic variability significantly increase extinction risk and erode overall biodiversity (Thomas et al., 2004).
Climate change also disrupts ecological processes and ecosystem dynamics by modifying phenological events such as flowering, fruiting, and breeding cycles (Walther et al., 2002; Parmesan, 2006). These changes have cascading consequences for pollinators, seed dispersers, and trophic interactions, ultimately undermining ecosystem stability (Hughes, 2000).
Endemic species are particularly vulnerable because of their restricted ranges, specialized ecological requirements, and often limited dispersal capacity (Malcolm et al., 2006). As a result, many taxa face elevated risks of local extinction, contributing to a reduction in genetic diversity and long-term ecosystem resilience (Thomas et al., 2004; Dawson et al., 2011).
By accelerating species extinctions and reducing species richness, climate change threatens the ecological integrity and service provision of hotspots, including carbon storage, hydrological regulation, and food security (Cardinale et al., 2012). Mitigating these threats requires adaptive management strategies that enhance ecosystem resilience, such as habitat restoration, the creation of ecological corridors, and conservation planning that accounts for climate-driven range shifts (Heller & Zavaleta, 2009; Dawson et al., 2011). Effective implementation necessitates coordinated local, national, and international action to safeguard the biodiversity and ecosystem services of these critical regions.
Biogeographic Patterns in Biodiversity Hotspots
Biogeography—the study of species and ecosystem distribution across space and time—provides essential insights into the processes shaping biodiversity patterns within these hotspots (Lomolino et al., 2016).
Historical speciation events, often driven by geological and climatic processes, are central to the biogeographic distinctiveness of biodiversity hotspots. Geographic barriers such as mountain ranges, rivers, and oceanic expanses restrict gene flow, promoting genetic divergence and allopatric speciation (Avise, 2000; Wiens & Donoghue, 2004). Many endemic taxa found exclusively in biodiversity hotspots can be traced back to such historical isolation, underscoring the role of historical biogeography in shaping present-day patterns of biodiversity (Gaston, 2000).
Dispersal also plays a key role in determining biogeographic patterns in biodiversity hotspots. Natural mechanisms—including wind, ocean currents, and animal-mediated dispersal—enable colonization of new habitats and contribute to range expansions (Nathan, 2006). Conversely, human activities such as trade, transportation, and land-use change increasingly alter dispersal pathways, often facilitating biological invasions that threaten native communities (Seebens et al., 2017). Understanding dispersal dynamics is therefore vital for predicting invasive species spread and maintaining functional connectivity between fragmented habitats (Travis et al., 2013).
Despite their high biodiversity, hotspots are acutely vulnerable to anthropogenic pressures. Habitat loss, climate change, and invasive species are major drivers of local and global extinctions, particularly among narrow-range endemic species with specialized ecological requirements (Brook et al., 2008; Dirzo et al., 2014). Extinction events alter community composition and erode the ecological integrity of hotspots, fundamentally reshaping biogeographic patterns (Pimm et al., 2014).
The study of biogeographic processes within hotspots has significant implications for conservation. Historical and ecological perspectives can inform strategies to preserve evolutionary lineages and maintain ecosystem services (Faith, 1992; Whittaker et al., 2005). Conservation interventions should prioritize maintaining habitat connectivity, restoring degraded ecosystems, and mitigating anthropogenic impacts to sustain biodiversity and ecosystem resilience (Krosby et al., 2010; Dawson et al., 2011). By integrating biogeographic knowledge with conservation planning, efforts can more effectively safeguard the irreplaceable biodiversity of global hotspots.
Endemic Species in Biodiversity Hotspots
Biodiversity hotspots harbor unique assemblages of species, many of which are endemic and occur nowhere else on Earth (Myers et al., 2000; Mittermeier et al., 2011). These species are often highly specialized and thus particularly vulnerable to environmental disturbances, including habitat loss, fragmentation, and climate change, which collectively increase extinction risk (Brook et al., 2008; Dirzo et al., 2014). Conservation genomics—an interdisciplinary field that integrates genomic technologies with conservation biology—provides powerful tools for understanding the genetic basis of adaptation, population dynamics, and long-term species persistence (Allendorf et al., 2010; Funk et al., 2012). Its applications in biodiversity hotspots are increasingly critical for assessing genomic diversity, population structure, gene flow, and informing conservation interventions.
Genomic analyses provide unprecedented resolution in quantifying genetic variation within and among populations of endemic species. High-throughput approaches, such as whole-genome sequencing and single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) genotyping, allow researchers to identify genomic regions under natural selection and evaluate adaptive potential (Ekblom & Galindo, 2011; Shafer et al., 2015). Preserving populations with high genomic diversity is essential to maintaining resilience in the face of environmental change and supporting long-term evolutionary processes (Hoban et al., 2021).
Population genomic tools also elucidate the structure and connectivity of endemic species within hotspots. Methods such as admixture analyses, clustering algorithms, and coalescent-based approaches can detect genetic differentiation, hybridization, and barriers to gene flow (Luikart et al., 2018). Understanding population structure informs the delineation of conservation units, such as Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) and Management Units (MUs), which provide practical frameworks for guiding conservation strategies (Funk et al., 2012).
Connectivity between populations is vital for reducing extinction risk, particularly in fragmented landscapes characteristic of biodiversity hotspots. Conservation genomics enables the estimation of migration rates, the detection of historical and contemporary gene flow, and the identification of genomic regions linked to local adaptation (Allendorf et al., 2010; Frankham et al., 2017). These insights are critical for designing ecological corridors, restoring fragmented habitats, and mitigating the genetic consequences of isolation (Krosby et al., 2010).
By integrating genomic data with ecological and demographic information, conservation genomics supports evidence-based management strategies tailored to the unique needs of endemic species (Shafer et al., 2015). Genomic approaches can identify adaptive traits, detect signatures of inbreeding or reduced genetic health, and prioritize populations most at risk. Ultimately, conservation genomics strengthens the capacity to preserve evolutionary potential and maintain biodiversity within hotspots, ensuring the persistence of irreplaceable endemic taxa in the face of accelerating global change (Hoban et al., 2021).
The Role of Keystone Species in Biodiversity Hotspots
Within global biodiversity hotspots, certain taxa exert a disproportionate influence on ecosystem structure, function, and resilience. These organisms, termed keystone species, play critical ecological roles that extend beyond their relative abundance, regulating community composition, facilitating key ecological processes, and enhancing ecosystem stability (Paine, 1969; Power et al., 1996). As such, keystone species are central to biodiversity conservation efforts, particularly within ecologically sensitive and species-rich regions.
Keystone species are defined by their capacity to produce strong, non-redundant ecological effects that propagate through trophic networks and community interactions (Mills et al., 1993). Their presence is often integral to maintaining species diversity, modulating population dynamics, and sustaining ecosystem processes such as nutrient cycling and habitat formation (Estes et al., 2011). The decline or extirpation of keystone species can initiate cascading ecological disruptions, leading to reductions in biodiversity and degradation of ecosystem integrity (Ripple et al., 2014).
These species interact with a broad array of organisms within biodiversity hotspots, influencing community assembly and resilience. Apex predators, such as wolves (Canis lupus), exemplify trophic keystone species by regulating herbivore populations, thereby preventing trophic cascades that can lead to habitat degradation and biodiversity loss (Estes et al., 2011; Ripple & Beschta, 2012). Ecosystem engineers, such as beavers (Castor canadensis) and reef-building corals (Scleractinia), modify physical environments, creating niches for other species and enhancing habitat heterogeneity (Jones et al., 1994; Graham & Nash, 2013). Mutualistic keystone taxa, including pollinators and seed dispersers, facilitate plant reproduction and regeneration, underpinning ecosystem stability and productivity (Tylianakis et al., 2008; Ashworth et al., 2004).
The ecological prominence of keystone species within biodiversity hotspots highlights their functional indispensability. Conservation strategies targeting these regions must therefore prioritize the identification, protection, and restoration of keystone species and the ecological interactions they mediate (Soulé et al., 2003). Effective approaches include the designation of protected areas, restoration of keystone-driven ecological processes, and mitigation of anthropogenic pressures such as habitat fragmentation, overexploitation, and climate change (Ritchie et al., 2012; Seddon et al., 2014). Failure to conserve keystone species risks undermining broader conservation outcomes and ecosystem resilience.
Empirical case studies underscore the ecological roles of keystone species across diverse habitats. For instance, African elephants (Loxodonta africana) serve as ecological engineers in savanna ecosystems, where their foraging behaviors shape vegetation structure, facilitate seed dispersal, and maintain open habitats essential for other taxa (Haynes, 2012). Similarly, wolves reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park have restored trophic balance by controlling ungulate populations, allowing vegetation and dependent species to recover (Ripple & Beschta, 2012). In tropical forests, frugivorous primates act as keystone seed dispersers, influencing forest composition and promoting regeneration (Chapman & Russo, 2020). Pollinators such as bees provide essential services in both natural and agricultural ecosystems, enabling the reproduction of a vast array of plant species and sustaining ecosystem services (Klein et al., 2007). Coral species form the structural and ecological foundation of coral reef ecosystems, supporting high marine biodiversity and buffering coastal systems (Moberg & Folke, 1999). On island systems such as the Galápagos, giant tortoises (Chelonoidis spp.) perform essential functions as herbivores and seed dispersers, shaping plant community dynamics and facilitating ecological succession (Hunter et al., 2013).
Keystone species play irreplaceable roles in maintaining the ecological integrity of biodiversity hotspots. Their conservation is critical not only for preserving species richness but also for sustaining the functional processes that underlie ecosystem resilience. Integrating keystone species protection into biodiversity conservation frameworks enhances the long-term viability of ecosystems under increasing anthropogenic and climatic pressures.
Climate change exerts profound impacts on biodiversity hotspots by altering the spatial distribution of species. Rising temperatures and shifting precipitation regimes drive many organisms to migrate to higher elevations or latitudes in pursuit of suitable climate conditions (Parmesan & Yohe, 2003; Chen et al., 2011). Such shifts often disrupt established ecological communities and biotic interactions, leading to declines in biodiversity and altered ecosystem functioning (Bellard et al., 2012).
In addition to gradual climatic changes, extreme weather events such as wildfires, droughts, and intense storms exacerbate habitat degradation within biodiversity hotspots (IPCC, 2014; Allen et al., 2010). These disturbances fragment ecosystems, eliminate critical microhabitats, and disproportionately threaten endemic species that are adapted to narrow environmental conditions (Brook et al., 2008). The cumulative effects of habitat loss and climatic variability significantly increase extinction risk and erode overall biodiversity (Thomas et al., 2004).
Climate change also disrupts ecological processes and ecosystem dynamics by modifying phenological events such as flowering, fruiting, and breeding cycles (Walther et al., 2002; Parmesan, 2006). These changes have cascading consequences for pollinators, seed dispersers, and trophic interactions, ultimately undermining ecosystem stability (Hughes, 2000).
Endemic species are particularly vulnerable because of their restricted ranges, specialized ecological requirements, and often limited dispersal capacity (Malcolm et al., 2006). As a result, many taxa face elevated risks of local extinction, contributing to a reduction in genetic diversity and long-term ecosystem resilience (Thomas et al., 2004; Dawson et al., 2011).
By accelerating species extinctions and reducing species richness, climate change threatens the ecological integrity and service provision of hotspots, including carbon storage, hydrological regulation, and food security (Cardinale et al., 2012). Mitigating these threats requires adaptive management strategies that enhance ecosystem resilience, such as habitat restoration, the creation of ecological corridors, and conservation planning that accounts for climate-driven range shifts (Heller & Zavaleta, 2009; Dawson et al., 2011). Effective implementation necessitates coordinated local, national, and international action to safeguard the biodiversity and ecosystem services of these critical regions.
Biogeographic Patterns in Biodiversity Hotspots
Biogeography—the study of species and ecosystem distribution across space and time—provides essential insights into the processes shaping biodiversity patterns within these hotspots (Lomolino et al., 2016).
Historical speciation events, often driven by geological and climatic processes, are central to the biogeographic distinctiveness of biodiversity hotspots. Geographic barriers such as mountain ranges, rivers, and oceanic expanses restrict gene flow, promoting genetic divergence and allopatric speciation (Avise, 2000; Wiens & Donoghue, 2004). Many endemic taxa found exclusively in biodiversity hotspots can be traced back to such historical isolation, underscoring the role of historical biogeography in shaping present-day patterns of biodiversity (Gaston, 2000).
Dispersal also plays a key role in determining biogeographic patterns in biodiversity hotspots. Natural mechanisms—including wind, ocean currents, and animal-mediated dispersal—enable colonization of new habitats and contribute to range expansions (Nathan, 2006). Conversely, human activities such as trade, transportation, and land-use change increasingly alter dispersal pathways, often facilitating biological invasions that threaten native communities (Seebens et al., 2017). Understanding dispersal dynamics is therefore vital for predicting invasive species spread and maintaining functional connectivity between fragmented habitats (Travis et al., 2013).
Despite their high biodiversity, hotspots are acutely vulnerable to anthropogenic pressures. Habitat loss, climate change, and invasive species are major drivers of local and global extinctions, particularly among narrow-range endemic species with specialized ecological requirements (Brook et al., 2008; Dirzo et al., 2014). Extinction events alter community composition and erode the ecological integrity of hotspots, fundamentally reshaping biogeographic patterns (Pimm et al., 2014).
The study of biogeographic processes within hotspots has significant implications for conservation. Historical and ecological perspectives can inform strategies to preserve evolutionary lineages and maintain ecosystem services (Faith, 1992; Whittaker et al., 2005). Conservation interventions should prioritize maintaining habitat connectivity, restoring degraded ecosystems, and mitigating anthropogenic impacts to sustain biodiversity and ecosystem resilience (Krosby et al., 2010; Dawson et al., 2011). By integrating biogeographic knowledge with conservation planning, efforts can more effectively safeguard the irreplaceable biodiversity of global hotspots.
Endemic Species in Biodiversity Hotspots
Biodiversity hotspots harbor unique assemblages of species, many of which are endemic and occur nowhere else on Earth (Myers et al., 2000; Mittermeier et al., 2011). These species are often highly specialized and thus particularly vulnerable to environmental disturbances, including habitat loss, fragmentation, and climate change, which collectively increase extinction risk (Brook et al., 2008; Dirzo et al., 2014). Conservation genomics—an interdisciplinary field that integrates genomic technologies with conservation biology—provides powerful tools for understanding the genetic basis of adaptation, population dynamics, and long-term species persistence (Allendorf et al., 2010; Funk et al., 2012). Its applications in biodiversity hotspots are increasingly critical for assessing genomic diversity, population structure, gene flow, and informing conservation interventions.
Genomic analyses provide unprecedented resolution in quantifying genetic variation within and among populations of endemic species. High-throughput approaches, such as whole-genome sequencing and single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) genotyping, allow researchers to identify genomic regions under natural selection and evaluate adaptive potential (Ekblom & Galindo, 2011; Shafer et al., 2015). Preserving populations with high genomic diversity is essential to maintaining resilience in the face of environmental change and supporting long-term evolutionary processes (Hoban et al., 2021).
Population genomic tools also elucidate the structure and connectivity of endemic species within hotspots. Methods such as admixture analyses, clustering algorithms, and coalescent-based approaches can detect genetic differentiation, hybridization, and barriers to gene flow (Luikart et al., 2018). Understanding population structure informs the delineation of conservation units, such as Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) and Management Units (MUs), which provide practical frameworks for guiding conservation strategies (Funk et al., 2012).
Connectivity between populations is vital for reducing extinction risk, particularly in fragmented landscapes characteristic of biodiversity hotspots. Conservation genomics enables the estimation of migration rates, the detection of historical and contemporary gene flow, and the identification of genomic regions linked to local adaptation (Allendorf et al., 2010; Frankham et al., 2017). These insights are critical for designing ecological corridors, restoring fragmented habitats, and mitigating the genetic consequences of isolation (Krosby et al., 2010).
By integrating genomic data with ecological and demographic information, conservation genomics supports evidence-based management strategies tailored to the unique needs of endemic species (Shafer et al., 2015). Genomic approaches can identify adaptive traits, detect signatures of inbreeding or reduced genetic health, and prioritize populations most at risk. Ultimately, conservation genomics strengthens the capacity to preserve evolutionary potential and maintain biodiversity within hotspots, ensuring the persistence of irreplaceable endemic taxa in the face of accelerating global change (Hoban et al., 2021).
The Role of Keystone Species in Biodiversity Hotspots
Within global biodiversity hotspots, certain taxa exert a disproportionate influence on ecosystem structure, function, and resilience. These organisms, termed keystone species, play critical ecological roles that extend beyond their relative abundance, regulating community composition, facilitating key ecological processes, and enhancing ecosystem stability (Paine, 1969; Power et al., 1996). As such, keystone species are central to biodiversity conservation efforts, particularly within ecologically sensitive and species-rich regions.
Keystone species are defined by their capacity to produce strong, non-redundant ecological effects that propagate through trophic networks and community interactions (Mills et al., 1993). Their presence is often integral to maintaining species diversity, modulating population dynamics, and sustaining ecosystem processes such as nutrient cycling and habitat formation (Estes et al., 2011). The decline or extirpation of keystone species can initiate cascading ecological disruptions, leading to reductions in biodiversity and degradation of ecosystem integrity (Ripple et al., 2014).
These species interact with a broad array of organisms within biodiversity hotspots, influencing community assembly and resilience. Apex predators, such as wolves (Canis lupus), exemplify trophic keystone species by regulating herbivore populations, thereby preventing trophic cascades that can lead to habitat degradation and biodiversity loss (Estes et al., 2011; Ripple & Beschta, 2012). Ecosystem engineers, such as beavers (Castor canadensis) and reef-building corals (Scleractinia), modify physical environments, creating niches for other species and enhancing habitat heterogeneity (Jones et al., 1994; Graham & Nash, 2013). Mutualistic keystone taxa, including pollinators and seed dispersers, facilitate plant reproduction and regeneration, underpinning ecosystem stability and productivity (Tylianakis et al., 2008; Ashworth et al., 2004).
The ecological prominence of keystone species within biodiversity hotspots highlights their functional indispensability. Conservation strategies targeting these regions must therefore prioritize the identification, protection, and restoration of keystone species and the ecological interactions they mediate (Soulé et al., 2003). Effective approaches include the designation of protected areas, restoration of keystone-driven ecological processes, and mitigation of anthropogenic pressures such as habitat fragmentation, overexploitation, and climate change (Ritchie et al., 2012; Seddon et al., 2014). Failure to conserve keystone species risks undermining broader conservation outcomes and ecosystem resilience.
Empirical case studies underscore the ecological roles of keystone species across diverse habitats. For instance, African elephants (Loxodonta africana) serve as ecological engineers in savanna ecosystems, where their foraging behaviors shape vegetation structure, facilitate seed dispersal, and maintain open habitats essential for other taxa (Haynes, 2012). Similarly, wolves reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park have restored trophic balance by controlling ungulate populations, allowing vegetation and dependent species to recover (Ripple & Beschta, 2012). In tropical forests, frugivorous primates act as keystone seed dispersers, influencing forest composition and promoting regeneration (Chapman & Russo, 2020). Pollinators such as bees provide essential services in both natural and agricultural ecosystems, enabling the reproduction of a vast array of plant species and sustaining ecosystem services (Klein et al., 2007). Coral species form the structural and ecological foundation of coral reef ecosystems, supporting high marine biodiversity and buffering coastal systems (Moberg & Folke, 1999). On island systems such as the Galápagos, giant tortoises (Chelonoidis spp.) perform essential functions as herbivores and seed dispersers, shaping plant community dynamics and facilitating ecological succession (Hunter et al., 2013).
Keystone species play irreplaceable roles in maintaining the ecological integrity of biodiversity hotspots. Their conservation is critical not only for preserving species richness but also for sustaining the functional processes that underlie ecosystem resilience. Integrating keystone species protection into biodiversity conservation frameworks enhances the long-term viability of ecosystems under increasing anthropogenic and climatic pressures.
|
Case Studies: Southeast Asia
Rich in wildlife, Southeast Asia includes at least six of the world’s 25 biodiversity hotspots – the areas of the world that contain an exceptional concentration of species, and are exceptionally endangered. The region contains 20% of the planet’s vertebrate and plant species and the world’s third-largest tropical forest. In addition to this existing biodiversity, the region has an extraordinary rate of species discovery, with more than 2,216 new species described between 1997 and 2014 alone. Global comparisons are difficult but it seems the Mekong region has a higher rate of species discovery than other parts of the tropics, with hundreds of new species described annually. Unfortunately, deforestation rates in Southeast Asia are some of the highest anywhere on Earth, and the rate of mining is the highest in the tropics. The region also has a number of hydropower dams under construction and consumption of species for traditional medicines is particularly pronounced - both of which contribute to elimination of habitat which can be particularly problematic for species with small ranges. The only critically endangered hornbills, the rufous-headed hornbill and the Sulu hornbill, are restricted to the Philippines. The latter species is one of the world's rarest birds, with only 20 breeding pairs or 40 mature individuals, and faces imminent extinction. The Ticao hornbill, a subspecies of the Visayan hornbill, is probably already extinct. Tropical forests and savannas account for more than 60 percent of global net primary productivity and 40 percent of carbon storage, respectively. But the tropics face an assortment of well-documented human-driven threats: destruction of forests and marine ecosystems, over-exploitation by industrial fishing fleets and commercial hunters, the spread of diseases and invasive species, and the growing impacts of climate change, which stress both ecosystems and their inhabitants. |
|
These threats, which often interact and build on each other, are heightening the risk of extinction for many species. Already, the vast majority of recorded extinctions among five major vertebrate groups assessed by the IUCN occurred among tropical species. These threats aren’t likely to diminish soon. Human population continues to rise, but growing affluence means that it is increasingly outpaced by resource consumption, which acts a multiplier in terms of humanity’s planetary footprint.
Western Ghats, India
Biodiversity Significance: The Western Ghats, a montane region along the western coast of India, is globally recognized as one of the eight "hottest hotspots" of biodiversity due to its exceptional levels of species richness and endemism (Myers et al., 2000). This region harbors an extraordinary array of flora and fauna, including over 7,400 species of plants, of which approximately 1,800 are endemic (Das et al., 2006; Reddy et al., 2015). It also supports high levels of endemism among vertebrate taxa, particularly amphibians, reptiles, and mammals (Biju et al., 2011; Dinesh et al., 2020).
Anthropogenic Threats: Despite its ecological significance, the Western Ghats face escalating anthropogenic pressures. Accelerated urban expansion, conversion of forested land for agriculture, and extensive infrastructure projects—such as roads, dams, and mining—have resulted in widespread habitat loss and fragmentation (Kumar et al., 2012; Krishnaswamy et al., 2009). These disturbances disrupt ecological connectivity, impairing species dispersal and gene flow, and increasing vulnerability to local extinctions (Laurance et al., 2014).
Conservation Initiatives: To mitigate biodiversity loss, several conservation strategies have been implemented. The establishment of protected areas, including the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve—India’s first biosphere reserve designated in 1986—has played a central role in safeguarding core habitats (Gadgil, 1990; MoEFCC, 2014). Moreover, participatory conservation approaches that engage local communities in sustainable forest management and ecological restoration have demonstrated potential in reducing anthropogenic pressures and enhancing biodiversity outcomes (Ramakrishnan, 2007; Sinha & Badola, 2008).
Madagascar
Biodiversity Significance: Madagascar is globally recognized as a biodiversity hotspot due to its exceptionally high levels of species endemism and ecological uniqueness (Myers et al., 2000). Approximately 90% of its wildlife is endemic, including iconic taxa such as lemurs, over half of the world’s chameleon species, and a diverse range of vascular plants (Goodman & Benstead, 2005; Vences et al., 2009). The island's long-term geological isolation has driven extensive adaptive radiation, resulting in high species richness across multiple taxonomic groups (Yoder & Nowak, 2006).
Anthropogenic Threats: Madagascar’s biodiversity faces significant threats primarily due to anthropogenic activities. Deforestation driven by traditional slash-and-burn agriculture (locally known as tavy), along with unsustainable logging and mining operations, has led to widespread habitat degradation and fragmentation (Harper et al., 2007; Scales, 2011). Given the island's evolutionary isolation, its ecosystems are highly sensitive to disturbances, and habitat loss disproportionately endangers narrowly distributed endemic species (Brooks et al., 2002; Irwin et al., 2010).
Conservation Initiatives: Multiple conservation strategies have been employed to mitigate biodiversity loss in Madagascar. Protected areas such as Ranomafana National Park have proven critical in preserving threatened habitats and endemic species (Wright & Andriamihaja, 2002). Conservation International and other organizations have emphasized the role of community-based conservation, promoting sustainable agricultural practices and agroforestry to align biodiversity goals with local livelihood needs (Sommerville et al., 2010; Ingram et al., 2005). These integrated approaches have shown promise in reducing deforestation while fostering community engagement in long-term ecological stewardship.
The Atlantic Forest, Brazil
Biodiversity Significance: The Atlantic Forest (Mata Atlântica), extending along the eastern coast of Brazil and into parts of Paraguay and Argentina, is one of the most biologically rich and ecologically diverse tropical forests in the world (Myers et al., 2000). Despite extensive habitat loss, the region remains a global biodiversity hotspot, harboring over 20,000 plant species—more than 40% of which are endemic—as well as numerous endemic vertebrates, including primates, birds, and amphibians (Ribeiro et al., 2009; Jenkins et al., 2015). The forest encompasses a mosaic of ecosystems, from moist lowland rainforests to cloud forests and mangroves, contributing to its ecological complexity (Tabarelli et al., 2010).
Anthropogenic Threats: The Atlantic Forest has been severely impacted by centuries of human activity. Originally covering over 1.3 million km², less than 12% of its original extent remains, much of it in isolated fragments (Ribeiro et al., 2009). Major drivers of deforestation include agricultural expansion, cattle ranching, urban sprawl, and unsustainable logging practices (Dean, 1995; Joly et al., 2014). Habitat fragmentation has resulted in population isolation, reducing genetic diversity and increasing susceptibility to stochastic events, invasive species, and local extinctions (Leão et al., 2014; Metzger et al., 2009).
Conservation Initiatives: To address these threats, integrated conservation strategies have been deployed. Initiatives led by Conservation International and other organizations have focused on establishing protected areas such as the Guapiaçu Ecological Reserve (Reserva Ecológica de Guapiaçu, REGUA), which plays a key role in conserving remnant forest patches and reintroducing native species (Brito & Pressey, 2013). Additionally, Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes have been implemented to incentivize conservation-compatible land uses among local communities, promoting forest restoration and sustainable agriculture (Pagiola et al., 2013; Teixeira et al., 2009). These approaches represent a shift toward participatory and economically viable conservation models in the Atlantic Forest biome.
The Coral Triangle, Southeast Asia
The Coral Triangle, encompassing the marine waters of Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Solomon Islands, and Timor-Leste, is recognized as the global epicenter of marine biodiversity (Veron et al., 2009; Allen, 2008). This region hosts over 600 species of reef-building corals—more than 75% of the world’s total—and is home to nearly 3,000 species of reef fish, along with numerous marine turtles, cetaceans, and invertebrates (Burke et al., 2012). The Coral Triangle’s complex seascapes, including coral reefs, mangroves, and seagrass beds, support vital ecosystem services such as fisheries production, coastal protection, and carbon sequestration (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2009).
Anthropogenic and Climatic Threats: The ecological integrity of the Coral Triangle is under mounting pressure from both local and global stressors. Overfishing and destructive fishing practices (e.g., blast fishing, cyanide use) have significantly depleted fish stocks and damaged reef structures (Pet-Soede et al., 1999). Land-based pollution, sedimentation, and plastic waste further degrade marine habitats (Lamb et al., 2018). Most critically, anthropogenic climate change poses an existential threat, with increasing sea surface temperatures inducing widespread coral bleaching and mortality events (Hughes et al., 2017). Ocean acidification and sea-level rise compound these risks, undermining reef resilience and coastal livelihoods.
Conservation Initiatives: In response to these challenges, the Coral Triangle Initiative on Coral Reefs, Fisheries and Food Security (CTI-CFF), established in 2009, represents a multilateral partnership among the six Coral Triangle countries aimed at safeguarding marine and coastal resources (CTI-CFF, 2013). Key components of the initiative include ecosystem-based fisheries management, the establishment and expansion of marine protected areas (MPAs), and the integration of climate change adaptation into conservation planning (White et al., 2014). At the local level, community-based marine resource management (CBMRM) schemes have demonstrated success in enhancing reef health and fisheries productivity through participatory governance and traditional ecological knowledge (Govan et al., 2009; Cinner et al., 2012). These approaches underscore the importance of co-management and capacity-building in achieving long-term conservation outcomes.
Biodiversity Significance: The Western Ghats, a montane region along the western coast of India, is globally recognized as one of the eight "hottest hotspots" of biodiversity due to its exceptional levels of species richness and endemism (Myers et al., 2000). This region harbors an extraordinary array of flora and fauna, including over 7,400 species of plants, of which approximately 1,800 are endemic (Das et al., 2006; Reddy et al., 2015). It also supports high levels of endemism among vertebrate taxa, particularly amphibians, reptiles, and mammals (Biju et al., 2011; Dinesh et al., 2020).
Anthropogenic Threats: Despite its ecological significance, the Western Ghats face escalating anthropogenic pressures. Accelerated urban expansion, conversion of forested land for agriculture, and extensive infrastructure projects—such as roads, dams, and mining—have resulted in widespread habitat loss and fragmentation (Kumar et al., 2012; Krishnaswamy et al., 2009). These disturbances disrupt ecological connectivity, impairing species dispersal and gene flow, and increasing vulnerability to local extinctions (Laurance et al., 2014).
Conservation Initiatives: To mitigate biodiversity loss, several conservation strategies have been implemented. The establishment of protected areas, including the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve—India’s first biosphere reserve designated in 1986—has played a central role in safeguarding core habitats (Gadgil, 1990; MoEFCC, 2014). Moreover, participatory conservation approaches that engage local communities in sustainable forest management and ecological restoration have demonstrated potential in reducing anthropogenic pressures and enhancing biodiversity outcomes (Ramakrishnan, 2007; Sinha & Badola, 2008).
Madagascar
Biodiversity Significance: Madagascar is globally recognized as a biodiversity hotspot due to its exceptionally high levels of species endemism and ecological uniqueness (Myers et al., 2000). Approximately 90% of its wildlife is endemic, including iconic taxa such as lemurs, over half of the world’s chameleon species, and a diverse range of vascular plants (Goodman & Benstead, 2005; Vences et al., 2009). The island's long-term geological isolation has driven extensive adaptive radiation, resulting in high species richness across multiple taxonomic groups (Yoder & Nowak, 2006).
Anthropogenic Threats: Madagascar’s biodiversity faces significant threats primarily due to anthropogenic activities. Deforestation driven by traditional slash-and-burn agriculture (locally known as tavy), along with unsustainable logging and mining operations, has led to widespread habitat degradation and fragmentation (Harper et al., 2007; Scales, 2011). Given the island's evolutionary isolation, its ecosystems are highly sensitive to disturbances, and habitat loss disproportionately endangers narrowly distributed endemic species (Brooks et al., 2002; Irwin et al., 2010).
Conservation Initiatives: Multiple conservation strategies have been employed to mitigate biodiversity loss in Madagascar. Protected areas such as Ranomafana National Park have proven critical in preserving threatened habitats and endemic species (Wright & Andriamihaja, 2002). Conservation International and other organizations have emphasized the role of community-based conservation, promoting sustainable agricultural practices and agroforestry to align biodiversity goals with local livelihood needs (Sommerville et al., 2010; Ingram et al., 2005). These integrated approaches have shown promise in reducing deforestation while fostering community engagement in long-term ecological stewardship.
The Atlantic Forest, Brazil
Biodiversity Significance: The Atlantic Forest (Mata Atlântica), extending along the eastern coast of Brazil and into parts of Paraguay and Argentina, is one of the most biologically rich and ecologically diverse tropical forests in the world (Myers et al., 2000). Despite extensive habitat loss, the region remains a global biodiversity hotspot, harboring over 20,000 plant species—more than 40% of which are endemic—as well as numerous endemic vertebrates, including primates, birds, and amphibians (Ribeiro et al., 2009; Jenkins et al., 2015). The forest encompasses a mosaic of ecosystems, from moist lowland rainforests to cloud forests and mangroves, contributing to its ecological complexity (Tabarelli et al., 2010).
Anthropogenic Threats: The Atlantic Forest has been severely impacted by centuries of human activity. Originally covering over 1.3 million km², less than 12% of its original extent remains, much of it in isolated fragments (Ribeiro et al., 2009). Major drivers of deforestation include agricultural expansion, cattle ranching, urban sprawl, and unsustainable logging practices (Dean, 1995; Joly et al., 2014). Habitat fragmentation has resulted in population isolation, reducing genetic diversity and increasing susceptibility to stochastic events, invasive species, and local extinctions (Leão et al., 2014; Metzger et al., 2009).
Conservation Initiatives: To address these threats, integrated conservation strategies have been deployed. Initiatives led by Conservation International and other organizations have focused on establishing protected areas such as the Guapiaçu Ecological Reserve (Reserva Ecológica de Guapiaçu, REGUA), which plays a key role in conserving remnant forest patches and reintroducing native species (Brito & Pressey, 2013). Additionally, Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes have been implemented to incentivize conservation-compatible land uses among local communities, promoting forest restoration and sustainable agriculture (Pagiola et al., 2013; Teixeira et al., 2009). These approaches represent a shift toward participatory and economically viable conservation models in the Atlantic Forest biome.
The Coral Triangle, Southeast Asia
The Coral Triangle, encompassing the marine waters of Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Solomon Islands, and Timor-Leste, is recognized as the global epicenter of marine biodiversity (Veron et al., 2009; Allen, 2008). This region hosts over 600 species of reef-building corals—more than 75% of the world’s total—and is home to nearly 3,000 species of reef fish, along with numerous marine turtles, cetaceans, and invertebrates (Burke et al., 2012). The Coral Triangle’s complex seascapes, including coral reefs, mangroves, and seagrass beds, support vital ecosystem services such as fisheries production, coastal protection, and carbon sequestration (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2009).
Anthropogenic and Climatic Threats: The ecological integrity of the Coral Triangle is under mounting pressure from both local and global stressors. Overfishing and destructive fishing practices (e.g., blast fishing, cyanide use) have significantly depleted fish stocks and damaged reef structures (Pet-Soede et al., 1999). Land-based pollution, sedimentation, and plastic waste further degrade marine habitats (Lamb et al., 2018). Most critically, anthropogenic climate change poses an existential threat, with increasing sea surface temperatures inducing widespread coral bleaching and mortality events (Hughes et al., 2017). Ocean acidification and sea-level rise compound these risks, undermining reef resilience and coastal livelihoods.
Conservation Initiatives: In response to these challenges, the Coral Triangle Initiative on Coral Reefs, Fisheries and Food Security (CTI-CFF), established in 2009, represents a multilateral partnership among the six Coral Triangle countries aimed at safeguarding marine and coastal resources (CTI-CFF, 2013). Key components of the initiative include ecosystem-based fisheries management, the establishment and expansion of marine protected areas (MPAs), and the integration of climate change adaptation into conservation planning (White et al., 2014). At the local level, community-based marine resource management (CBMRM) schemes have demonstrated success in enhancing reef health and fisheries productivity through participatory governance and traditional ecological knowledge (Govan et al., 2009; Cinner et al., 2012). These approaches underscore the importance of co-management and capacity-building in achieving long-term conservation outcomes.
Solutions
1. Reduce personal and corporate ecological footprints
2. Mandate corporations realize negative externalities
3. Reimagine society
4) Half Earth, Rewild
5) Implement biodiversity protections into government policy at international, national, and local levels
6) Document biodiversity
Solutions
1. Reduce personal and corporate ecological footprints
2. Mandate corporations realize negative externalities
3. Reimagine society
4) Half Earth, Rewild
5) Implement biodiversity protections into government policy at international, national, and local levels
6) Document biodiversity
News and Resources
Colombia grants ‘historic’ protections to rainforest and indigenous groups. The move includes the addition of 8 million hectares (80,000 square kilometers or 31,000 square miles) to its protected areas - a 27% increase. And, grants indigenous communities the ability and autonomy to govern their own territories.
Photo credit: William Helenbrook
|
The Oriental Pied Hornbill (Anthracoceros albirostris), photographed in Khao Yai National Park, Thailand. Though not endangered, unlike several of its 54 other sister species, this one is nonetheless an incredible sight. The hornbills are a family of bird found in tropical and subtropical Africa, Asia and Melanesia. They commonly have a casque on the upper mandible which is a hollow structure that runs along the upper mandible. In some species it is barely perceptible and appears to serve no function beyond reinforcing the bill. In other species it is quite large, is reinforced with bone, resonating calls. In a couple of species, the casque is not hollow but is filled with hornbill ivory and is used as a battering ram in aerial jousts.
|
Photo credit: William Helenbrook
The Brown Basilisk, Basciliscus vittatus, is commonly known for its ability to “walk on water.” Traditionally they are found from northwestern Colombia up to Mexico; however, they have more recently made their home in Southern Florida. At first look, you might consider them to be descendants of dinosaurs - but you’d be wrong. More accurately, dinosaurs and lizards split off some 265 million years ago. The clade Sauria includes all reptiles -and birds. Travel through time - and the Archelosauria split off, forming the archosaurs. The archosaurs are a bit famous because they led to non-avian dinosaurs, modern-day birds, and crocodiles. Alternatively, the Lepidosauria led to snakes, lizards, and the tuatara. What’s a tuatara? From an evolutionary standpoint, they are exceptional. Why? They are the only living species left of the order Rhynchocephalia. You’d have to go back 200 million years to find a common ancestor of lizards and snakes. What’s also fascinating is that crocodiles are more closely related to birds (and dinosaurs) than they are to modern-day lizards. So, despite looking quite “dinosaur-like,” this Jesus Lizard is on his own evolutionary path. If you really want to see a dinosaur relative, look for some birds or find yourself a crocodile.
Photo credit: William Helenbrook
The Lemur Leaf Frog (Agalychnis lemur) is listed as Critically Endangered because of ongoing drastic population declines, estimated to be more than 80% over a ten year period, inferred from the apparent disappearance of most of the Costa Rican, and some of the western Panamanian, population, probably mostly due to chytridiomycosis. However, general habitat loss also remains a threat, and this is especially the case in Costa Rica where deforestation by squatters threatens one of the three known remaining populations. It was once considered to be a reasonably common species in Costa Rica, but most populations have recently disappeared. Within Costa Rica, the former range included several national parks and other protected areas; none of the remaining populations are within protected areas. The species is known to be present within at least six Panamanian protected areas, but it is not known from any protected areas in Colombia. A successful captive breeding program began in 2001 at the Atlanta Botanical Garden, which has since transferred individuals to other zoos to continue these captive breeding efforts. An ex-situ population of this species is breeding at the El Valle Amphibian Conservation Center in Panama. It is a nocturnal tree frog associated with sloping areas in humid lowland and montane primary forest, and is not found in degraded habitats. The eggs are usually deposited on leaf surfaces and the larvae are washed off or fall into water below the site of oviposition (IUCN).
Photo credit: William Helenbrook
The brown titi monkey (Callicebus brunneus). Though it is not facing imminent extinction, most primate populations are plummeting worldwide. In the most bleak assessment of primates to date, conservationists have found that 60% of wild species are on course to die out, with three-quarters already in steady decline.
Literature Cited
Allen, C. D., et al. (2010). A global overview of drought and heat-induced tree mortality reveals emerging climate change risks for forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 259(4), 660–684.
Allen, G. R. (2008). Conservation hotspots of biodiversity and endemism for Indo-Pacific coral reef fishes. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 18(5), 541–556.
Allendorf, F. W., Hohenlohe, P. A., & Luikart, G. (2010). Genomics and the future of conservation genetics. Nature Reviews Genetics, 11(10), 697–709.
Ashworth, L., et al. (2004). Pollination ecology of some Argentinean native plants. Ecological Applications.
Avise, J. C. (2000). Phylogeography: The History and Formation of Species. Harvard University Press.
Bellard, C., Bertelsmeier, C., Leadley, P., Thuiller, W., & Courchamp, F. (2012). Impacts of climate change on the future of biodiversity. Ecology Letters, 15(4), 365–377.
Biju, S. D., et al. (2011). A synopsis of frog diversity of the Western Ghats of India. Zootaxa, 3027(1), 1–36.
Brito, D., & Pressey, R. L. (2013). Conservation planning in biodiverse countries: Redistributing biodiversity and ecosystem services. Biodiversity and Conservation, 22(7), 1517–1531.
Brook, B. W., Sodhi, N. S., & Bradshaw, C. J. A. (2008). Synergies among extinction drivers under global change. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23(8), 453–460.
Brooks, T. M., et al. (2002). Habitat loss and extinction in the hotspots of biodiversity. Conservation Biology, 16(4), 909–923.
Brooks, T. M., et al. (2006). Global biodiversity conservation priorities. Science, 313(5783), 58–61.
Burke, L., et al. (2012). Reefs at Risk Revisited in the Coral Triangle. World Resources Institute.
Cardinale, B. J., et al. (2012). Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature, 486(7401), 59–67.
Chapman, C. A., & Russo, S. E. (2020). Primate seed dispersal: Linking behavioral ecology with forest community ecology. American Journal of Primatology.
Chen, I. C., et al. (2011). Rapid range shifts of species associated with high levels of climate warming. Science, 333(6045), 1024–1026.
Cinner, J. E., et al. (2012). Comanagement of coral reef social-ecological systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(14), 5219–5222.
CTI-CFF. (2013). Regional Plan of Action: Coral Triangle Initiative on Coral Reefs, Fisheries and Food Security. CTI-CFF Secretariat.
Das, A., et al. (2006). Prioritisation of conservation areas in the Western Ghats, India. Biological Conservation, 133(1), 16–31.
Dawson, T. P., et al. (2011). Beyond predictions: Biodiversity conservation in a changing climate. Science, 332(6025), 53–58.
Dean, W. (1995). With Broadax and Firebrand: The Destruction of the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. University of California Press.
Díaz, S., et al. (2006). Biodiversity loss threatens human well-being. PLoS Biology, 4(8), e277.
Dinesh, K. P., et al. (2020). Amphibians of the Western Ghats: diversity and conservation status. Current Science, 118(5), 709–716.
Dirzo, R., et al. (2014). Defaunation in the Anthropocene. Science, 345(6195), 401–406.
Ekblom, R., & Galindo, J. (2011). Applications of next generation sequencing in molecular ecology of non-model organisms. Heredity, 107(1), 1–15.
Estes, J. A., et al. (2011). Trophic downgrading of planet Earth. Science, 333(6040), 301–306.
Faith, D. P. (1992). Conservation evaluation and phylogenetic diversity. Biological Conservation, 61(1), 1–10.
Frankham, R., et al. (2017). Genetic management of fragmented animal and plant populations. Oxford University Press.
Funk, W. C., et al. (2012). Harnessing genomics for delineating conservation units. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 27(9), 489–496.
Gadgil, M. (1990). India's biodiversity: planning and conservation. Ambio, 19(6), 285–291.
Gaston, K. J. (2000). Global patterns in biodiversity. Nature, 405(6783), 220–227.
Goodman, S. M., & Benstead, J. P. (2005). The Natural History of Madagascar. University of Chicago Press.
Govan, H., et al. (2009). Status and potential of locally-managed marine areas in the South Pacific: meeting nature conservation and sustainable livelihood targets through wide-spread implementation of locally-managed marine areas (LMMAs). SPREP.
Graham, N. A. J., & Nash, K. L. (2013). The importance of structural complexity in coral reef ecosystems. Coral Reefs.
Harper, G. J., et al. (2007). Fifty years of deforestation and forest fragmentation in Madagascar. Environmental Conservation, 34(4), 325–333.
Haynes, G. (2012). Elephants (and extinct relatives) as earth-movers and ecosystem engineers. Geomorphology.
Heller, N. E., & Zavaleta, E. S. (2009). Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: A review of 22 years of recommendations. Biological Conservation, 142(1), 14–32.
Hoban, S., et al. (2021). Genetic diversity targets and indicators in the CBD post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework must be improved. Biological Conservation, 253, 108906.
Hoegh-Guldberg, O., et al. (2009). Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification. Science, 318(5857), 1737–1742.
Hughes, A. R., Inouye, B. D., Johnson, M. T., Underwood, N., & Vellend, M. (2008). Ecological consequences of genetic diversity. Ecology Letters, 11(6), 609–623.
Hughes, L. (2000). Biological consequences of global warming: Is the signal already apparent? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 15(2), 56–61.
Hughes, T. P., et al. (2017). Global warming and recurrent mass bleaching of corals. Nature, 543(7645), 373–377.
Hunter, E. A., et al. (2013). Restoration of ecosystem function and biodiversity through rewilding. Ecology Letters.
Ingram, J. C., et al. (2005). Community-based sustainable management of biodiversity in Madagascar. Conservation Biology, 19(6), 1682–1690.
IPCC. (2014). Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Cambridge University Press.
Irwin, M. T., et al. (2010). Patterns of species change in anthropogenically disturbed forests of Madagascar. Biological Conservation, 143(10), 2351–2362.
Jenkins, C. N., et al. (2015). The distribution of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Biological Conservation, 211, 10–16.
Joly, C. A., et al. (2014). Biodiversity conservation research, training, and policy in Brazil: Challenges and opportunities. BioScience, 64(10), 907–915.
Jones, C. G., et al. (1994). Organisms as ecosystem engineers. Oikos.
Klein, A.-M., et al. (2007). Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
Krishnaswamy, J., et al. (2009). Forest fragmentation and landscape-level impacts on tropical forest bird communities in the Western Ghats, India. Biological Conservation, 142(8), 1731–1747.
Krosby, M., et al. (2010). Ecological connectivity for a changing climate. Conservation Biology, 24(6), 1686–1689.
Kumar, S., et al. (2012). Human-induced land-use changes and fragmentation in the Western Ghats. Remote Sensing Letters, 3(6), 535–544.
Lamb, J. B., et al. (2018). Plastic waste associated with disease on coral reefs. Science, 359(6374), 460–462.
Laurance, W. F., et al. (2014). A global strategy for road building. Nature, 513(7517), 229–232.
Leão, T. C. C., et al. (2014). Predicting extinction risk of Brazilian Atlantic Forest angiosperms. Conservation Biology, 28(5), 1349–1359.
Lomolino, M. V., Riddle, B. R., & Whittaker, R. J. (2016). Biogeography (5th ed.). Sinauer Associates.
Luikart, G., Kardos, M., Hand, B. K., Rajora, O. P., Aitken, S. N., & Hohenlohe, P. A. (2018). Population genomics: Advancing understanding of nature. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 49, 69–93.
Malcolm, J. R., et al. (2006). Global warming and extinctions of endemic species from biodiversity hotspots. Conservation Biology, 20(2), 538–548.
Metzger, J. P., et al. (2009). Time-lag in biological responses to landscape changes in a highly dynamic Atlantic Forest region. Biological Conservation, 142(6), 1166–1177.
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC). (2014). Management Effectiveness Evaluation of Protected Areas in India. Government of India.
Mills, L. S., et al. (1993). The keystone-species concept in ecology and conservation. BioScience.
Mittermeier, R. A., Turner, W. R., Larsen, F. W., Brooks, T. M., & Gascon, C. (2011). Global biodiversity conservation: The critical role of hotspots. In F. E. Zachos & J. C. Habel (Eds.), Biodiversity Hotspots (pp. 3–22). Springer.
Moberg, F., & Folke, C. (1999). Ecological goods and services of coral reef ecosystems. Ecological Economics.
Myers, N. (2003). Biodiversity hotspots revisited. BioScience, 53(10), 916–917.
Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., da Fonseca, G. A., & Kent, J. (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403(6772), 853–858.
Nathan, R. (2006). Long-distance dispersal of plants. Science, 313(5788), 786–788.
Paine, R. T. (1969). A note on trophic complexity and community stability. The American Naturalist.
Pagiola, S., et al. (2013). Using PES to implement REDD+. Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) Discussion Paper.
Parmesan, C. (2006). Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 37, 637–669.
Parmesan, C., & Yohe, G. (2003). A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature, 421(6918), 37–42.
Pet-Soede, L., et al. (1999). Blast fishing in Indonesia: Illegal and destructive. Naga, The ICLARM Quarterly, 22(4), 4–9.
Pimm, S. L., et al. (2014). The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science, 344(6187), 1246752.
Power, M. E., et al. (1996). Challenges in the quest for keystones. BioScience.
Ramakrishnan, P. S. (2007). Traditional knowledge systems and biodiversity conservation. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge, 6(1), 11–20.
Reddy, C. S., et al. (2015). Patterns of diversity, endemism and distribution of plant species in the Eastern and Western Ghats of India. Journal of Forestry Research, 26(2), 223–232.
Ricklefs, R. E. (2004). A comprehensive framework for global patterns in biodiversity. Ecology Letters, 7(1), 1–15.
Ripple, W. J., & Beschta, R. L. (2012). Trophic cascades in Yellowstone: The first 15 years after wolf reintroduction. Biological Conservation.
Ripple, W. J., et al. (2014). Status and ecological effects of the world's largest carnivores. Science.
Ritchie, E. G., et al. (2012). Ecosystem restoration with keystone species: Carnivore recolonization and biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology.
Rodrigues, A. S. L., et al. (2006). The value of the IUCN Red List for conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 21(2), 71–76.
Scales, I. R. (2011). Farming, landscape change and conservation in the Ankaratra Mountains, Madagascar. The Geographical Journal, 177(2), 138–149.
Seddon, P. J., et al. (2014). Reversing defaunation: Restoring species in a changing world. Science.
Seebens, H., et al. (2017). No saturation in the accumulation of alien species worldwide. Nature Communications, 8, 14435.
Shafer, A. B. A., et al. (2015). Genomics and the challenging translation into conservation practice. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 30(2), 78–87.
Sinha, B. C., & Badola, R. (2008). Participatory approaches to conservation: learning from experience. International Journal of Biodiversity Science & Management, 4(3), 128–134.
Sommerville, M., et al. (2010). Impact of a community-based payment for ecosystem services intervention on forest use in Madagascar. Conservation Biology, 24(6), 1488–1498.
Soulé, M. E., et al. (2003). Ecological effectiveness: Conservation goals for interactive species. Conservation Biology.
Tabarelli, M., et al. (2010). Prospects for biodiversity conservation in the Atlantic Forest: Lessons from aging human-modified landscapes. Biological Conservation, 143(10), 2328–2340.
Teixeira, A. M. G., et al. (2009). The role of private lands in conservation of the Atlantic Forest biodiversity hotspot. Conservation Biology, 23(3), 733–740.
Thomas, C. D., et al. (2004). Extinction risk from climate change. Nature, 427(6970), 145–148.
Travis, J. M. J., et al. (2013). Dispersal and species’ responses to climate change. Oikos, 122(11), 1532–1540.
Tylianakis, J. M., et al. (2008). Global change and species interactions in terrestrial ecosystems. Ecology Letters.
Vences, M., et al. (2009). Madagascar as a model region of species diversification. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24(8), 456–465.
Veron, J. E. N., et al. (2009). Delineating the Coral Triangle. Galaxea, Journal of Coral Reef Studies, 11(2), 91–100.
Walther, G. R., et al. (2002). Ecological responses to recent climate change. Nature, 416(6879), 389–395.
White, A. T., et al. (2014). Marine protected areas in the Coral Triangle: Progress, issues, and options. Coastal Management, 42(2), 87–106.
Whittaker, R. J., et al. (2005). Conservation biogeography: Assessment and prospect. Diversity and Distributions, 11(1), 3–23.
Wiens, J. J., & Donoghue, M. J. (2004). Historical biogeography, ecology and species richness. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 19(12), 639–644.
Wright, P. C., & Andriamihaja, B. (2002). Making a rainforest national park work in Madagascar: Ranomafana National Park and its long-term research commitment. *Fieldiana