Should species with smaller distribution ranges always be prioritised for conservation?

Results and Scripts related to the Paper "Should species with smaller distribution ranges always be prioritised for conservation?" submitted to the Journal Bodiversity and Conservation Abstract Alarming trend in biodiversity decline has been observed due to anthropogenic drivers, reinforcing the need to identify priority species for conservation. We discuss the prioritisation of species with small distribution sizes for conservation through two often-neglected perspectives: exposure to human-driven threats and importance to biodiversity. To evaluate species exposure, we estimated the amount of human pressure within their distribution ranges. To estimate species distinctive contributions to ecosystem functions and services, we calculated decreases in phylogenetic diversity after sequential species exclusion. We found that species with smaller distribution ranges are not the most exposed to human-driven threats, as phylogenetic diversity is not always affected by the loss of these species when compared to species with broader distribution ranges. We propose conservation strategies to cope better with species vulnerability and to identify species with higher conservation needs. Species undergoing high exposure to human-driven threats would benefit from conservation initiatives distinguishing the causes of smaller range size. Ecosystem management could focus on species whose distribution is mostly limited by abiotic suitability, while species management could be more adequate for species whose distribution is mostly limited by accessibility. We also discuss the use of a response–effect framework to improve our capacity to identify species more negatively impacted by human-driven threats and with more distinctive effects on ecosystem processes. Species with smaller distribution ranges should be prioritised for conservation when a negative correlation between species' ability to cope with environmental change and the distinctiveness of their effects on ecosystem processes is found.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Published
2026-03-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18999149
Primary Topic
Species Distribution and Climate Change
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Should species with smaller distribution ranges always be prioritised for conservation?

Julius Köhler, Luiz Bondi, Andressa Cabral, Tabea Giese et al.
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Species Distribution and Climate Change
article

Should species with smaller distribution ranges always be prioritised for conservation?

Julius Köhler, Luiz Bondi, Andressa Cabral, Tabea Giese, Beatriz Prado-Monteiro, Aboubacar-Oumar Zon, Luiza F. A. De Paula, Stefan Porembski, Wassila Ibrahim Seidou, Miguel Inácio
article en

Abstract

Results and Scripts related to the Paper "Should species with smaller distribution ranges always be prioritised for conservation?" submitted to the Journal Bodiversity and Conservation Abstract Alarming trend in biodiversity decline has been observed due to anthropogenic drivers, reinforcing the need to identify priority species for conservation. We discuss the prioritisation of species with small distribution sizes for conservation through two often-neglected perspectives: exposure to human-driven threats and importance to biodiversity. To evaluate species exposure, we estimated the amount of human pressure within their distribution ranges. To estimate species distinctive contributions to ecosystem functions and services, we calculated decreases in phylogenetic diversity after sequential species exclusion. We found that species with smaller distribution ranges are not the most exposed to human-driven threats, as phylogenetic diversity is not always affected by the loss of these species when compared to species with broader distribution ranges. We propose conservation strategies to cope better with species vulnerability and to identify species with higher conservation needs. Species undergoing high exposure to human-driven threats would benefit from conservation initiatives distinguishing the causes of smaller range size. Ecosystem management could focus on species whose distribution is mostly limited by abiotic suitability, while species management could be more adequate for species whose distribution is mostly limited by accessibility. We also discuss the use of a response–effect framework to improve our capacity to identify species more negatively impacted by human-driven threats and with more distinctive effects on ecosystem processes. Species with smaller distribution ranges should be prioritised for conservation when a negative correlation between species' ability to cope with environmental change and the distinctiveness of their effects on ecosystem processes is found.

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (BR), Mykolas Romeris University (LT), German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (DE), West African Science Service Centre on Climate Change and Adapted Land Use (GH), Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Yalgado Ouédraogo (BF), University of Music Würzburg (DE), "Hadji Dimitar" Hospital (BG), University of Rostock (DE), Friedrich Schiller University Jena (DE)
Life in Land
Openalex Percentile: Top 23%
Species Distribution and Climate Change
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.