Identifying priorities for systematic Antarctic vegetation protection at the continental scale

Antarctica's vegetation underpins its terrestrial ecosystems yet it is threatened by climate change, human activity and the introduction and spread of non-native species. Protecting these vegetation communities is critical to conserving all Antarctic terrestrial life. However, current protection under the Antarctic Specially Protected Area (ASPA) system is spatially uneven, leaving some vegetation communities vulnerable. In this study, we used recently derived satellite vegetation cover data at the continental scale to quantify the proportion of protected and unprotected vegetation across each of the 16 recognised Antarctic Conservation Biogeographic Regions (ACBRs). Estimates suggest that only 21.4% of Antarctica's satellite-detected terrestrial vegetation cover is protected by the current ASPA system, though acknowledging that some sparse and patchy vegetation communities may not have been detected. Protection is regionally uneven, with most ACBRs having less than 10% of their vegetation cover protected, and only one ACBR (North-west Antarctic Peninsula) reaching 27.2%. Next, using satellite and modelled vegetation data, we applied a systematic conservation planning framework to identify key sites of unprotected vegetation within each ACBR. In total, we identified 92 candidate sites to inform future protection efforts, with notable examples including Fildes Peninsula (North-west Antarctic Peninsula), Taylor Valley (South Victoria Land) and the Vestfold Hills (East Antarctica). Overall, a slightly higher proportion of sites were identified in the continental Antarctic than the maritime Antarctic. This study provides a comprehensive, evidence-based framework to inform the protection of Antarctica's vegetation. Our findings highlight gaps in the protection of Antarctic vegetation and identify opportunities for enhanced future conservation.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Biological Conservation
Published
2026-10-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2026.112121
Primary Topic
Polar Research and Ecology
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Identifying priorities for systematic Antarctic vegetation protection at the continental scale

Peter Convey, Charlotte V. Walshaw, Claudia Colesie, Andrew N. Gray et al.
Biological Conservation
Polar Research and Ecology
article

Identifying priorities for systematic Antarctic vegetation protection at the continental scale

Peter Convey, Charlotte V. Walshaw, Claudia Colesie, Andrew N. Gray, Kevin A. Hughes, Mariana García Criado, Jasmine R. Lee, Hannah S. Wauchope
article en

Abstract

Antarctica's vegetation underpins its terrestrial ecosystems yet it is threatened by climate change, human activity and the introduction and spread of non-native species. Protecting these vegetation communities is critical to conserving all Antarctic terrestrial life. However, current protection under the Antarctic Specially Protected Area (ASPA) system is spatially uneven, leaving some vegetation communities vulnerable. In this study, we used recently derived satellite vegetation cover data at the continental scale to quantify the proportion of protected and unprotected vegetation across each of the 16 recognised Antarctic Conservation Biogeographic Regions (ACBRs). Estimates suggest that only 21.4% of Antarctica's satellite-detected terrestrial vegetation cover is protected by the current ASPA system, though acknowledging that some sparse and patchy vegetation communities may not have been detected. Protection is regionally uneven, with most ACBRs having less than 10% of their vegetation cover protected, and only one ACBR (North-west Antarctic Peninsula) reaching 27.2%. Next, using satellite and modelled vegetation data, we applied a systematic conservation planning framework to identify key sites of unprotected vegetation within each ACBR. In total, we identified 92 candidate sites to inform future protection efforts, with notable examples including Fildes Peninsula (North-west Antarctic Peninsula), Taylor Valley (South Victoria Land) and the Vestfold Hills (East Antarctica). Overall, a slightly higher proportion of sites were identified in the continental Antarctic than the maritime Antarctic. This study provides a comprehensive, evidence-based framework to inform the protection of Antarctica's vegetation. Our findings highlight gaps in the protection of Antarctic vegetation and identify opportunities for enhanced future conservation.

Biological ConservationVol. 324
British Antarctic Survey (GB), University of Johannesburg (ZA), University of Birmingham (GB), University of Edinburgh (GB)
Natural Environment Research Council
Life on land
Openalex Percentile: Top 16%
Polar Research and Ecology
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.