4.7 Article

Current limitations of global conservation to protect higher vulnerability and lower resilience fish species

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-06633-x

关键词

-

资金

  1. national funds through Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia (FCT) [PTDC/MAR/117119/2010]
  2. FCT [UID/MAR/04292/2013, SFRH/BPD/94320/2013]
  3. Investigador FCT Programme from FCT [IF/00058/2013]
  4. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [PTDC/MAR/117119/2010] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Estuaries are threatened by intense and continuously increasing human activities. Here we estimated the sensitivity of fish assemblages in a set of estuaries distributed worldwide (based on species vulnerability and resilience), and the exposure to cumulative stressors and coverage by protected areas in and around those estuaries (from marine, estuarine and freshwater ecosystems, due to their connectivity). Vulnerability and resilience of estuarine fish assemblages were not evenly distributed globally and were driven by environmental features. Exposure to pressures and extent of protection were also not evenly distributed worldwide. Assemblages with more vulnerable and less resilient species were associated with estuaries in higher latitudes (in particular Europe), and with higher connectivity with the marine ecosystem, moreover such estuaries were generally under high intensity of pressures but with no concomitant increase in protection. Current conservation schemes pay little attention to species traits, despite their role in maintaining ecosystem functioning and stability. Results emphasize that conservation is weakly related with the global distribution of sensitive fish species in sampled estuaries, and this shortcoming is aggravated by their association with highly pressured locations, which appeals for changes in the global conservation strategy (namely towards estuaries in temperate regions and highly connected with marine ecosystems).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据