Protected areas network is not adequate to protect a critically endangered East Africa Chelonian: Modelling distribution of pancake tortoise, Malacochersus tornieri under current and future climates

By Abraham Eustace, L. Esser, Rudolf Mremi, P. Malonza, Reginald Mwaya. bioRxiv, 2020

2,024 citations recorded by the source corpus.

While the international pet trade and habitat destruction have been extensively discussed as major threats to the survival of the pancake tortoise (Malacochersus tornieri), the impact of climate change on the species remains unknown. In this study, we used species distribution modelling to predict the current and future distribution of pancake tortoises in Zambezian and Somalian biogeographical regions. We used 224 pancake tortoise occurrences obtained from Tanzania, Kenya and Zambia to estimate suitable and stable areas for the pancake tortoise in all countries present in these regions. We also used a protected area network to assess how many of the suitable and stable areas are protected for the conservation of this critically endangered species. Our model predicted the expansion of climatically suitable habitats for pancake tortoises from four countries and a total area of 90,668.75 km2 to ten countries in the future and an area of 343,459.60 - 401,179.70 km2. The model also showed that a more significant area of climatically suitable habitat for the species lies outside of the wildlife protected areas. Based on our results, we can predict that pancake tortoises may not suffer from habitat constriction. However, the species will continue to be at risk from the international pet trade, as most of the identified suitable habitats remain outside of protected areas. We suggest that efforts to conserve the pancake tortoise should not only focus on protected areas but also areas that are unprotected, as these comprise a large proportion of the suitable and stable habitats available following predicted future climate change.

Subfields: Ecological Modeling, Nature and Landscape Conservation, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b9e3e9a09a66edc2ff38589ed2c7892f3cc653bc

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecological Modeling

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

kuenm: an R package for detailed development of ecological niche models using Maxent (2019, methodology): “We used Maxent in this package in view of Maxent’s wide use within the ENM community ( Merow, Smith & Silander, 2013 ) and its flexibility for setting parameters.”
Species distribution models of the Spotted Wing Drosophila ( Drosophila suzukii , Diptera: Drosophilidae) in its native and invasive range reveal an ecological niche shift (2018, methodology): “…Maxent only to draw background samples from regions (counties) with known occurrences in each specific model, restricting background sample selection to local areas that are assumed to have been surveyed for the species (Jarnevich & Young, 2015; Merow et al., 2013; Phillips et al., 2009).”
A protocol for an intercomparison of biodiversity and ecosystem services models using harmonized land-use and climate scenarios (2018, methodology): “, 2016), MOL (Jetz et al., 2007; Merow et al., 2013), and BIOMOD2 (Appendix 1, Table”
Predictor complexity and feature selection affect Maxent model transferability: Evidence from global freshwater invasive species (2020, methodology): “…in model construction, and perhaps in part owing to its ease of use, the algorithm is often not applied optimally by users relying on default settings without consideration for data treatment and model parameterization—despite such practices being deemed inappropriate (Merow et al., 2013).”
A comparison between Ensemble and MaxEnt species distribution modelling approaches for conservation: A case study with Egyptian medicinal plants (2020, background): “The first key to MaxEnt's success is its regularization process to avoid overfitting, especially when using small sample sizes (Baldwin, 2009; Merow et al., 2013; Phillips et al., 2006).”