Skip to content
Ecological Intelligence

Ecological evidence.
Independent perspective.
Explore Wild Lands ↗

Ecological Intelligence / Subject

conservation prioritization

Peer-reviewed Latin America & Caribbean

Where climate refugia occur is not always where protection is most feasible

Evidence
Peer-reviewed
Geography
Central Chile; coastal, inland and Andean Mediterranean-climate ecosystems
System
Mediterranean-climate ecosystems; climate refugia; protected-area design

WHAT THE EVIDENCE SAYS

Researchers mapped potential climate refugia using topographic diversity and projected climatic and plant-distribution changes, then overlaid those priorities with plant biodiversity, accessibility, proximity to protected areas and a parcel-size cost proxy. Refugia potential was strongest in the Andes, but incorporating conservation feasibility shifted mapped opportunities toward coastal ecosystems. The result identifies places where ecological priorities and implementation conditions overlap; it is not a controlled comparison of small and large reserves.

WHY IT MATTERS / OUR READ

A map of ecological value and a map of feasible conservation action answer different questions. Keeping both visible helps planning teams distinguish what deserves protection from what can realistically be secured and managed. A feasibility score should prompt landowner, cost and field checks—not substitute for them.

CAVEATS / UNCERTAINTY

These are modeled priorities, not verified future safe havens. The top-30% refugia cutoff is a planning threshold; plant models and future-climate assumptions constrain resolution and scope. Parcel size is not a measured land price. We do not use the paper's unreconciled area totals or counts of ecosystems meeting protection targets, and infer no acquisition-cost saving.

SOURCE

Pliscoff and Poutay-Broussaingaray · Conservation Science and Practice · climate-refugia planning study
View original evidence ↗

In central Chile, combining topography and projected ecological change with conservation-feasibility criteria shifted mapped opportunities toward the coast.

Read the Wild Lands assessment →
Peer-reviewed North America

Wetland prioritization changes when managers optimize for complementary biodiversity—not just the rarest species

Evidence
Peer-reviewed
Geography
Illinois, USA
System
Wetland preserve networks and vascular-plant communities

WHAT THE EVIDENCE SAYS

A Conservation Science and Practice study compared counts of at-risk vascular plants with four other community metrics across wetlands in an Illinois preserve network. Using complementarity, the authors identified a high-value group of sites and alternative groupings that together capture biodiversity assets that may not appear when each wetland is ranked only by the number of rare species it contains.

WHY IT MATTERS / OUR READ

This is a portfolio-design problem. If every site is judged independently, managers can repeatedly select places that protect the same biodiversity features while overlooking sites that add something unique to the network. Complementarity makes the conservation question ‘what does this site add?’ rather than only ‘how rare is what is here?’

CAVEATS / UNCERTAINTY

The approach was demonstrated with vascular-plant surveys in one preserve network. Prioritization still depends on survey quality, the chosen metrics, management feasibility and whether other taxa show similar complementarity patterns.

SOURCE

Conservation Science and Practice
View original evidence ↗

Illinois preserve-network data show that combining at-risk species with broader plant-community metrics can identify groups of wetlands whose collective biodiversity value is missed by rarity-only ranking.

Read the Wild Lands assessment →

Keep exploring

Follow the systems. Find the connections.

WildlifeLandWaterOceansClimateCitiesOne HealthGovernanceMethods / Monitoring
Browse the archive →