Institution
South African National Parks
Government•Pretoria, South Africa•
About: South African National Parks is a government organization based out in Pretoria, South Africa. It is known for research contribution in the topics: National park & Population. The organization has 273 authors who have published 682 publications receiving 26696 citations. The organization is also known as: South African National Park.
Topics: National park, Population, Vegetation, Biodiversity, Protected area
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
BirdLife International1, United Nations Environment Programme2, Zoological Society of London3, Statistics Netherlands4, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill5, Old Dominion University6, Conservation International7, Food and Agriculture Organization8, University of Virginia9, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds10, University of Queensland11, University of Cambridge12, National Center for Atmospheric Research13, World Wide Fund for Nature14, South African National Parks15, UNESCO16, University of British Columbia17, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research18, The Nature Conservancy19, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center20, American Bird Conservancy21, Stellenbosch University22, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources23
TL;DR: Most indicators of the state of biodiversity showed declines, with no significant recent reductions in rate, whereas indicators of pressures on biodiversity showed increases, indicating that the Convention on Biological Diversity’s 2010 targets have not been met.
Abstract: In 2002, world leaders committed, through the Convention on Biological Diversity, to achieve a significant reduction in the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. We compiled 31 indicators to report on progress toward this target. Most indicators of the state of biodiversity (covering species' population trends, extinction risk, habitat extent and condition, and community composition) showed declines, with no significant recent reductions in rate, whereas indicators of pressures on biodiversity (including resource consumption, invasive alien species, nitrogen pollution, overexploitation, and climate change impacts) showed increases. Despite some local successes and increasing responses (including extent and biodiversity coverage of protected areas, sustainable forest management, policy responses to invasive alien species, and biodiversity-related aid), the rate of biodiversity loss does not appear to be slowing.
3,993 citations
••
Colorado State University1, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research2, United States Forest Service3, United States Geological Survey4, École Normale Supérieure5, University of Lyon6, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation7, Lund University8, University of Dar es Salaam9, Princeton University10, University of Nairobi11, University of Virginia12, University of Cape Town13, University of Zimbabwe14, Mammal Research Institute15, University of Wisconsin-Madison16, Wageningen University and Research Centre17, University of Botswana18, University of Potsdam19, South African National Parks20
TL;DR: It is shown, using data from 854 sites across Africa, that maximum woody cover in savannas receiving a mean annual precipitation (MAP) of less than ∼650 mm is constrained by, and increases linearly with, MAP.
Abstract: Savannas are globally important ecosystems of great significance to human economies. In these biomes, which are characterized by the co-dominance of trees and grasses, woody cover is a chief determinant of ecosystem properties1–3. The availability of resources (water, nutrients) and disturbance regimes (fire, herbivory) are thought to be important in regulating woody cover1,2,4,5, but perceptions differ on which of these are the primary drivers of savanna structure. Here we show, using data from 854 sites across Africa, that maximum woody cover in savannas receiving a mean annual precipitation (MAP) of less than ,650mm is constrained by, and increases linearly with, MAP. These arid and semi-arid savannas may be considered ‘stable' systems in which water constrains woody cover and permits grasses to coexist, while fire, herbivory and soil properties interact to reduce woody cover below the MAP-controlled upper bound. Above a MAP of ,650mm, savannas are ‘unstable' systems in which MAP is sufficient for woody canopy closure, and disturbances (fire, herbivory) are required for the coexistence of trees and grass. These results provide insights into the nature of African savannas and suggest that future changes in precipitation6 may considerably affect their distribution and dynamics.
1,740 citations
••
Stellenbosch University1, Stockholm University2, Leibniz Association3, James Cook University4, South African National Parks5, University of Queensland6, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation7, Rhodes University8, Wageningen University and Research Centre9, University of East Anglia10, University of the Witwatersrand11, University of Alaska Fairbanks12, Carleton University13, McGill University14, Wildlife Conservation Society15, University of Minnesota16
TL;DR: In this article, the authors identify seven generic policy-relevant principles for enhancing the resilience of desired ES in the face of disturbance and ongoing change in social-ecological systems (SES).
Abstract: Enhancing the resilience of ecosystem services (ES) that underpin human well-being is critical for meeting current and future societal needs, and requires specific governance and management policies. Using the literature, we identify seven generic policy-relevant principles for enhancing the resilience of desired ES in the face of disturbance and ongoing change in social-ecological systems (SES). These principles are (P1) maintain diversity and redundancy, (P2) manage connectivity, (P3) manage slow variables and feedbacks, (P4) foster an understanding of SES as complex adaptive systems (CAS), (P5) encourage learning and experimentation, (P6) broaden participation, and (P7) promote polycentric governance systems. We briefly define each principle, review how and when it enhances the resilience of ES, and conclude with major research gaps. In practice, the principles often co-occur and are highly interdependent. Key future needs are to better understand these interdependencies and to operationalize and apply...
872 citations
••
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic1, Stellenbosch University2, Charles University in Prague3, Canterbury of New Zealand4, University of Tennessee5, University of Fribourg6, Zoological Society of London7, University College London8, Williams College9, Durham University10, University of Vienna11, South African National Parks12, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources13, Free University of Berlin14, Leibniz Association15, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ16, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg17, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague18, United States Forest Service19, University of Toronto20, University of Rhode Island21, University of Concepción22, Taizhou University23, University of Konstanz24, Spanish National Research Council25, University of Seville26, University of Pretoria27
TL;DR: Improved international cooperation is crucial to reduce the impacts of invasive alien species on biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human livelihoods, as synergies with other global changes are exacerbating current invasions and facilitating new ones, thereby escalating the extent and impacts of invaders.
Abstract: Biological invasions are a global consequence of an increasingly connected world and the rise in human population size The numbers of invasive alien species – the subset of alien species that spread widely in areas where they are not native, affecting the environment or human livelihoods – are increasing Synergies with other global changes are exacerbating current invasions and facilitating new ones, thereby escalating the extent and impacts of invaders Invasions have complex and often immense long‐term direct and indirect impacts In many cases, such impacts become apparent or problematic only when invaders are well established and have large ranges Invasive alien species break down biogeographic realms, affect native species richness and abundance, increase the risk of native species extinction, affect the genetic composition of native populations, change native animal behaviour, alter phylogenetic diversity across communities, and modify trophic networks Many invasive alien species also change ecosystem functioning and the delivery of ecosystem services by altering nutrient and contaminant cycling, hydrology, habitat structure, and disturbance regimes These biodiversity and ecosystem impacts are accelerating and will increase further in the future Scientific evidence has identified policy strategies to reduce future invasions, but these strategies are often insufficiently implemented For some nations, notably Australia and New Zealand, biosecurity has become a national priority There have been long‐term successes, such as eradication of rats and cats on increasingly large islands and biological control of weeds across continental areas However, in many countries, invasions receive little attention Improved international cooperation is crucial to reduce the impacts of invasive alien species on biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human livelihoods Countries can strengthen their biosecurity regulations to implement and enforce more effective management strategies that should also address other global changes that interact with invasions
677 citations
••
TL;DR: The results provide clear direction for bridging the current divide between information available on IAS and that needed for policy and management for the prevention and control of IAS, and highlight the need for measures to ensure that policy is effectively implemented, such that it translates into reduced IAS pressure and impact on biodiversity beyond 2010.
Abstract: Aim Invasive alien species (IAS) pose a significant threat to biodiversity. The Convention on Biological Diversity’s 2010 Biodiversity Target, and the associated indicator for IAS, has stimulated globally coordinated efforts to quantify patterns in the extent of biological invasion, its impact on biodiversity and policy responses. Here, we report on the outcome of indicators of alien invasion at a global scale.
Location Global.
Methods We developed four indicators in a pressure-state-response framework, i.e. number of documented IAS (pressure), trends in the impact of IAS on biodiversity (state) and trends in international agreements and national policy adoption relevant to reducing IAS threats to biodiversity (response). These measures were considered best suited to providing globally representative, standardized and sustainable indicators by 2010.
Results We show that the number of documented IAS is a significant underestimate, because its value is negatively affected by country development status and positively by research effort and information availability. The Red List Index demonstrates that IAS pressure is driving declines in species diversity, with the overall impact apparently increasing. The policy response trend has nonetheless been positive for the last several decades, although only half of countries that are signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) have IAS-relevant national legislation. Although IAS pressure has apparently driven the policy response, this has clearly not been sufficient and/or adequately implemented to reduce biodiversity impact.
Main conclusions For this indicator of threat to biodiversity, the 2010 Biodiversity Target has thus not been achieved. The results nonetheless provide clear direction for bridging the current divide between information available on IAS and that needed for policy and management for the prevention and control of IAS. It further highlights the need for measures to ensure that policy is effectively implemented, such that it translates into reduced IAS pressure and impact on biodiversity beyond 2010.
568 citations
Authors
Showing all 274 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Robin M. Warren | 74 | 363 | 19049 |
Norman Owen-Smith | 55 | 182 | 10631 |
Melodie A. McGeoch | 52 | 213 | 13792 |
Anton McLachlan | 49 | 156 | 10089 |
Joseph O. Ogutu | 43 | 118 | 5209 |
Karen J. Esler | 42 | 252 | 7334 |
Michael G. L. Mills | 38 | 58 | 4273 |
Harry Biggs | 38 | 74 | 5170 |
Dirk J. Roux | 32 | 94 | 4216 |
Shaun R. Levick | 31 | 68 | 3412 |
Sam M. Ferreira | 30 | 117 | 2890 |
Llewellyn C. Foxcroft | 28 | 79 | 2607 |
Duan Biggs | 27 | 85 | 3526 |
Izak P.J. Smit | 27 | 64 | 2168 |
Leo Braack | 27 | 57 | 2039 |