Assessing ecological function in the context of species recovery

Species interactions matter to conservation. Setting an ambitious recovery target for a species requires considering the size, density, and demographic structure of its populations such that they fulfill the interactions, roles, and functions of the species in the ecosystems in which they are embedded. A recently proposed framework for an International Union for Conservation of Nature Green List of Species formalizes this requirement by defining a fully recovered species in terms of representation, viability, and functionality. Defining and quantifying ecological function from the viewpoint of species recovery is challenging in concept and application, but also an opportunity to insert ecological theory into conservation practice. We propose 2 complementary approaches to assessing a species’ ecological functions: confirmation (listing interactions of the species, identifying ecological processes and other species involved in these interactions, and quantifying the extent to which the species contributes to the identified ecological process) and elimination (inferring functionality by ruling out symptoms of reduced functionality, analogous to the red-list approach that focuses on symptoms of reduced viability). Despite the challenges, incorporation of functionality into species recovery planning is possible in most cases and it is essential to a conservation vision that goes beyond preventing extinctions and aims to restore a species to levels beyond what is required for its viability. This vision focuses on conservation and recovery at the species level and sees species as embedded in ecosystems, influencing and being influenced by the processes in those ecosystems. Thus, it connects and integrates conservation at the species and ecosystem levels.     

Use of surrogate species to cost-effectively prioritize conservation actions

Conservation efforts often focus on umbrella species whose distributions overlap with many other flora and fauna. However, because biodiversity is affected by different threats that are spatially variable, focusing only on the geographic range overlap of species may not be sufficient in allocating the necessary actions needed to efficiently abate threats. We developed a problem-based method for prioritizing conservation actions for umbrella species that maximizes the total number of flora and fauna benefiting from management while considering threats, actions, and costs. We tested our new method by assessing the performance of the Australian federal government's umbrella prioritization list, which identifies 73 umbrella species as priorities for conservation attention. Our results show that the federal government priority list benefits only 6% of all Australia's threatened terrestrial species. This could be increased to benefit nearly half (or 46%) of all threatened terrestrial species for the same budget of AU$550 million/year if more suitable umbrella species were chosen. This results in a 7-fold increase in management efficiency. We believe nations around the world can markedly improve the selection of prioritized umbrella species for conservation action with this transparent, quantitative, and objective prioritization approach.     

The place of nature in conservation conflicts

Conservation conflicts are gaining importance in contemporary conservation scholarship such that conservation may have entered a conflict hype. We attempted to uncover and deconstruct the normative assumptions behind such studies by raising several questions: what are conservation conflicts, what justifies the attention they receive, do conservation-conflict studies limit wildlife conservation, is scientific knowledge stacked against wildlife in conservation conflicts, do conservation-conflict studies adopt a specific view of democracy, can laws be used to force conservation outcomes, why is flexibility needed in managing conservation conflicts, can conservation conflicts be managed by promoting tolerance, and who needs to compromise in conservation conflicts? We suggest that many of the intellectual premises in the field may defang conservation and prevent it from truly addressing the current conservation crisis as it accelerates. By framing conservation conflicts as conflicts between people about wildlife or nature, the field insidiously transfers guilt, whereby human activities are no longer blamed for causing species decline and extinctions but conservation is instead blamed for causing social conflicts. When the focus is on mitigating social conflicts without limiting in any powerful way human activities damaging to nature, conservation-conflict studies risk keeping conservation within the limits of human activities, instead of keeping human activities within the limits of nature. For conservation to successfully stop the biodiversity crisis, we suggest the alternative goal of recognizing nature's right to existence to maintenance of ecological functions and evolutionary processes. Nature being a rights bearer or legal person would imply its needs must be explicitly taken into account in conflict adjudication. If, even in conservation, nature's interests come second to human interests, it may be no surprise that conservation cannot succeed.     

Application of multiple-population viability analysis to evaluate species recovery alternatives

Population viability analysis (PVA) is a powerful conservation tool, but it remains impractical for many species, particularly species with multiple, broadly distributed populations for which collecting suitable data can be challenging. A recently developed method of multiple-population viability analysis (MPVA), however, addresses many limitations of traditional PVA. We built on previous development of MPVA for Lahontan cutthroat trout (LCT) (Oncorhynchus clarkii henshawi), a species listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, that is distributed broadly across habitat fragments in the Great Basin (U.S.A.). We simulated potential management scenarios and assessed their effects on population sizes and extinction risks in 211 streams, where LCT exist or may be reintroduced. Conservation populations (those managed for recovery) tended to have lower extinction risks than nonconservation populations (mean = 19.8% vs. 52.7%), but not always. Active management or reprioritization may be warranted in some cases. Eliminating non-native trout had a strong positive effect on overall carrying capacities for LCT populations but often did not translate into lower extinction risks unless simulations also reduced associated stochasticity (to the mean for populations without non-native trout). Sixty fish or 5–10 fish/km was the minimum reintroduction number and density, respectively, that provided near-maximum reintroduction success. This modeling framework provided crucial insights and empirical justification for conservation planning and specific adaptive management actions for this threatened species. More broadly, MPVA is applicable to a wide range of species exhibiting geographic rarity and limited availability of abundance data and greatly extends the potential use of empirical PVA for conservation assessment and planning.     

Factors associated with preemptive conservation under the U.S. Endangered Species Act

In recent decades, there has been an increasing emphasis on proactive efforts to conserve species being considered for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) before they are listed (i.e., preemptive conservation). These efforts, which depend on voluntary actions by public and private land managers across the species’ range, aim to conserve species while avoiding regulatory costs associated with ESA listing. We collected data for a set of social, economic, environmental, and institutional factors that we hypothesized would influence voluntary decisions to promote or inhibit preemptive conservation of species under consideration for ESA listing. We used logistic regression to estimate the association of these factors with preemptive conservation outcomes based on data for a set of species that entered the ESA listing process and were either officially listed (n = 314) or preemptively conserved (n = 73) from 1996 to 2018. Factors significantly associated with precluded listing due to preemptive conservation included high baseline conservation status, low proportion of private land across the species’ range, small total range size, exposure to specific types of threats, and species’ range extending over several states. These results highlight strategies that can help improve conservation outcomes, such as allocating resources for imperiled species earlier in the listing process, addressing specific threats, and expanding incentives and coordination mechanisms for conservation on private lands.     

Global gap analysis of cactus species and priority sites for their conservation

Knowing how much biodiversity is captured by protected areas (PAs) is important to meeting country commitments to international conservation agreements, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, and analyzing gaps in species coverage by PAs contributes greatly to improved locating of new PAs and conservation of species. Regardless of their importance, global gap analyses have been conducted only for a few taxonomic groups (e.g., mangroves, corals, amphibians, birds, mammals). We conducted the first global gap analysis for a complete specious plant group, the highly threatened Cactaceae. Using geographic distribution data of 1438 cactus species, we assessed how well the current PA network represents them. We also systematically identified priority areas for conservation of cactus species that met and failed to meet conservation targets accounting for their conservation status. There were 261 species with no coverage by PAs (gap species). A greater percentage of cacti species (18%) lacked protection than mammals (9.7%) and birds (5.6%), and also a greater percentage of threatened cacti species (32%) were outside protected areas than amphibians (26.5%), birds (19.9%), or mammals (16%). The top 17% of the landscape that best captured covered species represented on average 52.9% of species ranges. The priority areas for gap species and the unprotected portion of the ranges of species that only partially met their conservation target (i.e., partial gap) captured on average 75.2% of their ranges, of which 100 were threatened gap species. These findings and knowledge of the threats affecting species provide information that can be used to improve planning for cacti conservation and highlight the importance of assessing the representation of major groups, such as plants, in PAs to determining the performance of the current PA network.     

Quantifying biases in marine-protected-area placement relative to abatable threats

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are a critical defense against biodiversity loss in the world's oceans, but to realize near-term conservation benefits, they must be established where major threats to biodiversity occur and can be mitigated. We quantified the degree to which MPA establishment has targeted stoppable threats (i.e., threats that can be abated through effectively managed MPAs alone) by combining spatially explicit marine biodiversity threat data in 2008 and 2013 and information on the location and potential of MPAs to halt threats. We calculated an impact metric to determine whether countries are protecting proportionally more high- or low-threat ecoregions and compared observed values with random protected-area allocation. We found that protection covered <2% of ecoregions in national waters with high levels of abatable threat in 2013, which is ∼59% less protection in high-threat areas than if MPAs had been placed randomly. Relatively low-threat ecoregions had 6.3 times more strict protection (International Union for Conservation of Nature categories I–II) than high-threat ecoregions. Thirty-one ecoregions had high levels of stoppable threat but very low protection, which presents opportunities for MPAs to yield more significant near-term conservation benefits. The extent of the global MPA estate has increased, but the establishment of MPAs where they can reduce threats that are driving biodiversity loss is now urgently needed.     

Value of protected areas to avian persistence across 20 years of climate and land-use change

Establishing protected areas, where human activities and land cover changes are restricted, is among the most widely used strategies for biodiversity conservation. This practice is based on the assumption that protected areas buffer species from processes that drive extinction. However, protected areas can maintain biodiversity in the face of climate change and subsequent shifts in distributions have been questioned. We evaluated the degree to which protected areas influenced colonization and extinction patterns of 97 avian species over 20 years in the northeastern United States. We fitted single-visit dynamic occupancy models to data from Breeding Bird Atlases to quantify the magnitude of the effect of drivers of local colonization and extinction (e.g., climate, land cover, and amount of protected area) in heterogeneous landscapes that varied in the amount of area under protection. Colonization and extinction probabilities improved as the amount of protected area increased, but these effects were conditional on landscape context and species characteristics. In this forest-dominated region, benefits of additional land protection were greatest when both forest cover in a grid square and amount of protected area in neighboring grid squares were low. Effects did not vary with species’ migratory habit or conservation status. Increasing the amounts of land protection benefitted the range margins species but not the core range species. The greatest improvements in colonization and extinction rates accrued for forest birds relative to open-habitat or generalist species. Overall, protected areas stemmed extinction more than they promoted colonization. Our results indicate that land protection remains a viable conservation strategy despite changing habitat and climate, as protected areas both reduce the risk of local extinction and facilitate movement into new areas. Our findings suggest conservation in the face of climate change favors creation of new protected areas over enlarging existing ones as the optimal strategy to reduce extinction and provide stepping stones for the greatest number of species.     

Region-wide retreats from lower elevations of range-restricted birds across the Northern Andes

Local studies show upslope shifts in the distribution of tropical birds in response to warming temperatures. Unanswered is whether these upward shifts occur regionally across many species. We considered a nearly 2000-km length of the Northern Andes, where deforestation, temperature, and extreme weather events have increased during the past decades. Range-restricted bird species are particularly vulnerable to such events and occur in exceptionally high numbers in this region. Using abundant crowd-sourced data from the Cornell Lab of Ornithology database, eBird, and the Global Biodiversity Information Facility, we documented distributions of nearly 200 such species. We examined whether species shifted their elevational ranges over time by comparing observed versus expected occurrences below a low elevational threshold and above a high elevational threshold for 2 periods: before and after 2005. We predicted fewer observations at lower elevations (those below the threshold) and more at upper elevations (those above the threshold) after 2005. We also tested for deforestation effects at lower elevations within each species’ distribution ranges. We compared relative forest loss with the differences between observed and expected occurrences across the elevational range. Species’ retreats from lower elevations were ubiquitous and involved a 23–40% decline in prevalence at the lowest elevations. Increases at higher elevations were not consistent. The retreats occurred across a broad spectrum of species, from predominantly lowland to predominantly highland. Because deforestation showed no relationship with species retreats, we contend that a warming climate is the most parsimonious explanation for such shifts.     

Use of standardized methods to improve extinction-risk classification

Standardized classification methods based on quantifiable risk metrics are critical for evaluating extinction threats because they increase objectivity, consistency, and transparency of listing decisions. Yet, in the United States, neither federal nor state agencies use standardized methods for listing species for legal protection, which could put listing decisions at odds with the magnitude of the risk. We used a recently developed set of quantitative risk metrics for California herpetofauna as a case study to highlight discrepancies in listing decisions made without standardized methods. We also combined such quantitative metrics with classification tree analysis to attempt to increase the transparency of previous listing decisions by identifying the criteria that had inherently been given the most weight. Federally listed herpetofauna in California scored significantly higher on the risk-metric spectrum than those not federally listed, whereas state-listed species did not score any higher than species that were not state listed. Based on classification trees, state endemism was the most important predictor of listing status at the state level and distribution trend (decline in a species’ range size) and population trend (decline in a species’ abundance at localized sites) were the most important predictors at the federal level. Our results emphasize the need for governing bodies to adopt standardized methods for assessing conservation risk that are based on quantitative criteria. Such methods allow decision makers to identify criteria inherently given the most weight in determining listing status, thus increasing the transparency of previous listing decisions, and produce an unbiased comparison of conservation threat across all species to promote consistency, efficiency, and effectiveness of the listing process.     

Relative costs of conserving threatened species across taxonomic groups

Bias toward legally protecting and prioritizing charismatic taxonomic groups, such as mammals and birds, and against others, such as insects and plants, is well documented. However, the relative costs of conserving various taxonomic groups and the potential of these costs to interact with existing biases have been much less explored. We analyzed conservation programs across more than 2,000 species in 3 countries to investigate the costs of conserving species within taxonomic groups and how these costs might affect conservation planning. For each data set, we tested for differences in mean annual cost among taxonomic groups. For the data set from the United States, recovery plans differed in duration, so we also tested for differences in total costs among taxonomic groups. Although the costs for individual species varied widely, there were strong international consistencies. For example, mammals cost 8–26 times more on average to conserve than plants and 13–19 times more to conserve than aquatic invertebrates. On average, bird species cost 5–30 times more to conserve than plants and 6–14 times more to conserve than aquatic invertebrates. These cost differences could exacerbate unequal resource allocation among taxonomic groups such that more charismatic groups both receive more attention and require more resources, leading to neglect of other taxonomic groups.     

Climate readiness of recovery plans for threatened Australian species

The rapidly changing climate is posing growing threats for all species, but particularly for those already considered threatened. We reviewed 100 recovery plans for Australian terrestrial threatened species (50 fauna and 50 flora plans) written from 1997 to 2017. We recorded the number of plans that acknowledged climate change as a threat and of these how many proposed specific actions to ameliorate the threat. We classified these actions along a continuum from passive or incremental to active or interventionist. Overall, just under 60% of the sampled recovery plans listed climate change as a current or potential threat to the threatened taxa, and the likelihood of this acknowledgment increased over time. A far smaller proportion of the plans, however, identified specific actions associated with ameliorating climate risk (22%) and even fewer (9%) recommended any interventionist action in response to a climate-change-associated threat. Our results point to a disconnect between the knowledge generated on climate-change-related risk and potential adaptation strategies and the extent to which this knowledge has been incorporated into an important instrument of conservation action.     

Climate suitability as a predictor of conservation translocation failure

The continuing decline and loss of biodiversity has caused an increase in the use of interventionist conservation tools, such as translocation. However, many translocation attempts fail to establish viable populations, with poor release site selection often flagged as an inhibitor of success. We used species distribution models (SDMs) to predict the climate suitability of 102 release sites for amphibians, reptiles, and terrestrial insects and compared suitability predictions between successful and failed attempts. We then quantified the importance of climate suitability relative to 5 other variables frequently considered in the literature as important determinants of translocation success: number of release years, number of individuals released, life stage released, origin of the source population, and position of the release site relative to the species’ range. Probability of translocation success increased as predicted climate suitability increased and this effect was the strongest among the variables we considered, accounting for 48.3% of the variation in translocation outcome. These findings should encourage greater consideration of climate suitability when selecting release sites for conservation translocations and we advocate the use of SDMs as an effective way to do this.     

Metrics for quantifying how much different threats contribute to red lists of species and ecosystems

Red lists are a crucial tool for the management of threatened species and ecosystems. Among the information red lists provide, the threats affecting the listed species or ecosystem, such as pollution or hunting, are of special relevance. This information can be used to quantify the relative contribution of different threat factors to biodiversity loss by disaggregating the cumulative extinction risk across species into components that can be attributed to certain threats. We devised and compared 3 metrics that accomplish this and may be used as indicators. The first metric calculates the portion of the temporal change in red list index (RLI) values that is caused by each threat. The second metric attributes the deviation of an RLI value from its reference value to different threats. The third metric uses extinction probabilities that are inferred from red list categories to estimate the contribution of a threat to the expected loss of species or ecosystems within 50 years. We used data from Norwegian Red Lists to test and evaluate these metrics. The first metric captured only a minor portion of the biodiversity loss caused by threats because it ignores species whose red list category does not change. Management authorities will often be interested in the contribution of a given threat to the total deviation from the optimal state. This was measured by the remaining metrics. The second metric was best suited for comparisons across countries or taxonomic groups. The third metric conveyed the same information but uses numbers of species or ecosystem as its unit, which is likely more intuitive to lay people and may be preferred when communicating with stakeholders or the general public.     

Importance of species translocations under rapid climate change

Species that cannot adapt or keep pace with a changing climate are likely to need human intervention to shift to more suitable climates. While hundreds of articles mention using translocation as a climate-change adaptation tool, in practice, assisted migration as a conservation action remains rare, especially for animals. This is likely due to concern over introducing species to places where they may become invasive. However, there are other barriers to consider, such as time-frame mismatch, sociopolitical, knowledge and uncertainty barriers to conservationists adopting assisted migration as a go-to strategy. We recommend the following to advance assisted migration as a conservation tool: attempt assisted migrations at small scales, translocate species with little invasion risk, adopt robust monitoring protocols that trigger an active response, and promote political and public support.     

Public perception of river fish biodiversity in four European countries

Public support for biodiversity conservation is shaped by people's values and their knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes toward the environment. We conducted the first multinational representative survey of the general public's perceptions of river fish biodiversity in France, Germany, Norway, and Sweden. For the online survey, 1000 respondents per country were randomly selected from large panels following country-specific quotas set on age, gender, and educational level. Questions covered people's level of knowledge, beliefs, values, and attitudes toward river fish, environmental threats, and conservation measures. We found that the public had limited knowledge of freshwater fishes. Two non-native species, rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), were widely perceived as native, whereas native Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) was mostly classified as native in Scandinavia and largely as non-native in central Europe. These results suggest an extinction of experience paralleling the extirpation or decline of salmon stocks in countries such as Germany and France. Respondents thought pollution was the dominant threat to riverine fish biodiversity. In reality, habitat loss, dams, and the spread of non-native fishes are equally important. Despite limited biological knowledge, respondents from all countries held an overwhelmingly proecological worldview, supported conservation stocking, and appreciated native fishes, although only a minority interacted with them directly. Differences among the 4 countries related to several conservation issues. For example, threats to biodiversity stemming from aquaculture were perceived as more prevalent in Norway compared with the other 3 countries. Promoting fish conservation based on charismatic species and use values of fishes may work well in countries with a strong economic and cultural link to the freshwater environment, such as Norway. In countries where people rather abstractly care for nature, focusing conservation messaging on broader ecosystem traits and non-use values of fishes is likely to win more support.     

A counterfactual approach to measure the impact of wet grassland conservation on U.K. breeding bird populations

Wet grassland populations of wading birds in the United Kingdom have declined severely since 1990. To help mitigate these declines, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has restored and managed lowland wet grassland nature reserves to benefit these and other species. However, the impact of these reserves on bird population trends has not been evaluated experimentally due to a lack of control populations. We compared population trends from 1994 to 2018 among 5 bird species of conservation concern that breed on these nature reserves with counterfactual trends created from matched breeding bird survey observations. We compared reserve trends with 3 different counterfactuals based on different scenarios of how reserve populations could have developed in the absence of conservation. Effects of conservation interventions were positive for all 4 targeted wading bird species: Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus), Redshank (Tringa totanus), Curlew (Numenius arquata), and Snipe (Gallinago gallinago). There was no positive effect of conservation interventions on reserves for the passerine, Yellow Wagtail (Motacilla flava). Our approach using monitoring data to produce valid counterfactual controls is a broadly applicable method allowing large-scale evaluation of conservation impact.     

Applying a values-based decision process to facilitate comanagement of threatened species in Aotearoa New Zealand

Ko koe ki tēnā, ko ahau ki tēnai kīwai o te kete (you at that, and I at this handle of the basket). This Māori (New Zealanders of indigenous descent) saying conveys the principle of cooperation—we achieve more through working together, rather than separately. Despite decades of calls to rectify cultural imbalance in conservation, threatened species management still relies overwhelmingly on ideas from Western science and on top-down implementation. Values-based approaches to decision making can be used to integrate indigenous peoples’ values into species conservation in a more meaningful way. We used such a values-based method, structured decision making, to develop comanagement of pekapeka (Mystacina tuberculata) (short-tailed bat) and tara iti (Sternula nereis davisae) (Fairy Tern) between Māori and Pākehā (New Zealanders of European descent). We implemented this framework in a series of workshops in which facilitated discussions were used to gather expert knowledge to predict outcomes and make management recommendations. For both species, stakeholders clearly stated their values as fundamental objectives from the start, which allowed alternative strategies to be devised that naturally addressed their diverse values, including mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge and perspectives). On this shared basis, all partners willingly engaged in the process, and decisions were largely agreed to by all. Most expectations of conflicts between values of Western science and Māori culture were unfounded. Where required, positive compromises were made by jointly developing alternative strategies. The values-based process successfully taha wairua taha tangata (brought both worlds together to achieve the objective) through codeveloped recovery strategies. This approach challenges the traditional model of scientists first preparing management plans focused on biological objectives, then consulting indigenous groups for approval. We recommend values-based approaches, such as structured decision making, as powerful methods for development of comanagement conservation plans between different peoples.     

Sentiment analysis as a measure of conservation culture in scientific literature

Culturomics is emerging as an important field within science, as a way to measure attitudes and beliefs and their dynamics across time and space via quantitative analysis of digitized data from literature, news, film, social media, and more. Sentiment analysis is a culturomics tool that, within the last decade, has provided a means to quantify the polarity of attitudes expressed within various media. Conservation science is a crisis discipline; therefore, accurate and effective communication are paramount. We investigated how conservation scientists communicate their findings through scientific journal articles. We analyzed 15,001 abstracts from articles published from 1998 to 2017 in 6 conservation-focused journals selected based on indexing in scientific databases. Articles were categorized by year, focal taxa, and the conservation status of the focal species. We calculated mean sentiment score for each abstract (mean adjusted z score) based on 4 lexicons (Jockers-Rinker, National Research Council, Bing, and AFINN). We found a significant positive annual trend in the sentiment scores of articles. We also observed a significant trend toward increasing negativity along the spectrum of conservation status categories (i.e., from least concern to extinct). There were some clear differences in the sentiments with which research on different taxa was reported, however. For example, abstracts mentioning lobe finned fishes tended to have high sentiment scores, which could be related to the rediscovery of the coelacanth driving a positive narrative. Contrastingly, abstracts mentioning elasmobranchs had low scores, possibly reflecting the negative sentiment score associated with the word shark. Sentiment analysis has applications in science, especially as it pertains to conservation psychology, and we suggest a new science-based lexicon be developed specifically for the field of conservation.     

Anthropogenic threats to evolutionary heritage of angiosperms in the Netherlands through an increase in high-competition environments

Present biodiversity comprises the evolutionary heritage of Earth's epochs. Lineages from particular epochs are often found in particular habitats, but whether current habitat decline threatens the heritage from particular epochs is unknown. We hypothesized that within a given region, humans threaten specifically habitats that harbor lineages from a particular geological epoch. We expect so because humans threaten environments that dominated and lineages that diversified during these epochs. We devised a new approach to quantify, per habitat type, diversification of lineages from different epochs. For Netherlands, one of the floristically and ecologically best-studied regions, we quantified the decline of habitat types and species in the past century. We defined habitat types based on vegetation classification and used existing ranking of decline of vegetation classes and species. Currently, most declining habitat types and the group of red-listed species are characterized by increased diversification of lineages dating back to Paleogene, specifically to Paleocene-Eocene and Oligocene. Among vulnerable habitat types with large representation of lineages from these epochs were sublittoral and eulittoral zones of temperate seas and 2 types of nutrient-poor, open habitats. These losses of evolutionary heritage would go unnoticed with classical measures of evolutionary diversity. Loss of heritage from Paleocene-Eocene became unrelated to decline once low competition, shade tolerance, and low proportion of non-Apiaceae were accounted for, suggesting that these variables explain the loss of heritage from Paleocene-Eocene. Losses of heritage from Oligocene were partly explained by decline of habitat types occupied by weak competitors and shade-tolerant species. Our results suggest a so-far unappreciated human threat to evolutionary heritage: habitat decline threatens descendants from particular epochs. If the trends persist into the future uncontrolled, there may be no habitats within the region for many descendants of evolutionary ancient epochs, such as Paleogene.