Refine
Language
- English (4)
Has Fulltext
- yes (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (4)
Keywords
- biodiversity protection (2)
- conservation funding (2)
- conservation planning (2)
- decision making (2)
- global change (2)
- post-2020 biodiversity targets (2)
- strategic site selection (2)
- Iridaceae (1)
- Iridoideae (1)
- Moraea Mill. (1)
Institute
- Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft (4) (remove)
Molecular phylogenetic studies of Moraea Mill. and the inclusion of Barnardiella Goldblatt, Galaxia Thunb., Gynandriris Parl., Hexaglottis Vent., Homeria Vent. and Roggeveldia Goldblatt in the genus have rendered the existing infrageneric classification, dating from 1976, in need of substantial revision. In particular, subg. Moraea and subg. Vieusseuxia have been shown to be paraphyletic. We propose a new infrageneric classification, based, as far as current data permit, on phylogenetic principles. Monophyletic subgenera and sections are circumscribed based on molecular phylogenies alone or in combination with morphological considerations. We recognize 11 subgenera, 15 sections and three series, arranged as follows in phylogenetic sequence: Plumarieae; Visciramosae (with sect. Multifoliae and sect. Visciramosae); Moraea (with sect. Moraea and sect. Polyphyllae); Galaxia (with ser. Unguiculatae, ser. Eurystigma and ser. Galaxia); Monocephalae; Acaules; Polyanthes (with sect. Serpentinae, sect. Deserticola, sect. Hexaglottis, sect. Gynandriris, sect. Polyanthes and sect. Pseudospicatae); Grandifl orae; Vieusseuxia (with sect. Integres, sect. Vieusseuxia and sect. Villosae); and Homeria (with sect. Stipanthera, sect. Flexuosae, sect. Homeria and sect. Conantherae). Most are moderately to well circumscribed at the morphological level either by floral or vegetative characters, except subg. Moraea, which includes a small number of unspecialized species apparently not linked by any apomorphic features. With over 27 new species described in the past 25 years and another 60 transferred to the genus, Moraea now includes 214 species. We provide a full taxonomic synopsis of the genus.
Establishing and maintaining protected areas (PAs) is a key action in delivering post-2020 biodiversity targets. PAs often need to meet multiple objectives, ranging from biodiversity protection to ecosystem service provision and climate change mitigation, but available land and conservation funding is limited. Therefore, optimizing resources by selecting the most beneficial PAs is vital. Here, we advocate for a flexible and transparent approach to selecting PAs based on multiple objectives, and illustrate this with a decision support tool on a global scale. The tool allows weighting and prioritization of different conservation objectives according to user-specified preferences as well as real-time comparison of the outcome. Applying the tool across 1,346 terrestrial PAs, we demonstrate that decision makers frequently face trade-offs among conflicting objectives, e.g., between species protection and ecosystem integrity. Nevertheless, we show that transparent decision support tools can reveal synergies and trade-offs associated with PA selection, thereby helping to illuminate and resolve land-use conflicts embedded in divergent societal and political demands and values.
The establishment and maintenance of protected areas (PAs) is viewed as a key action in delivering post-2020 biodiversity targets. PAs often need to meet multiple objectives, ranging from biodiversity protection to ecosystem service provision and climate change mitigation, but available land and conservation funding is limited. Therefore, optimizing resources by selecting the most beneficial PAs is vital. Here, we advocate for a flexible and transparent approach to selecting protected areas based on multiple objectives, and illustrate this with a decision support tool on a global scale. The tool allows weighting and prioritization of different conservation objectives according to user-specified preferences, as well as real-time comparison of the selected areas that result from such different priorities. We apply the tool across 1347 terrestrial PAs and highlight frequent trade-offs among different objectives, e.g., between species protection and ecosystem integrity. Outputs indicate that decision makers frequently face trade-offs among conflicting objectives. Nevertheless, we show that transparent decision-support tools can reveal synergies and trade-offs associated with PA selection, thereby helping to illuminate and resolve land-use conflicts embedded in divergent societal and political demands and values.
The establishment and maintenance of protected areas(PAs) is viewed as a key action in delivering post-2020 biodiversity targets. PAs often need to meet a multitude of objectives, ranging from biodiversity protection to ecosystem service provision and climate change mitigation. As available land and conservation funding are limited, optimizing resources by selecting the most beneficial PAs is vital. Here we present a decision support tool that enables a flexible approach to PA selection on a global scale, allowing different conservation objectives to be weighted and prioritized according to user-specified preferences. We apply the tool across 1347 terrestrial PAs and highlight frequent trade-offs among different objectives, e.g., between biodiversity protection and ecosystem integrity. These results indicate that decision makers must usually decide among conflicting objectives. To assist this our decision support tool provides an explicitly value-based approach that can help resolve such conflicts by considering divergent societal and political demands and values.