title: US protected lands mismatch biodiversity priorities.
abstract: Because habitat loss is the main cause of extinction, where and how much society chooses to protect is vital for saving species. The United States is well positioned economically and politically to pursue habitat conservation should it be a societal goal. We assessed the US protected area portfolio with respect to biodiversity in the country. New synthesis maps for terrestrial vertebrates, freshwater fish, and trees permit comparison with protected areas to identify priorities for future conservation investment. Although the total area protected is substantial, its geographic configuration is nearly the opposite of patterns of endemism within the country. Most protected lands are in the West, whereas the vulnerable species are largely in the Southeast. Private land protections are significant, but they are not concentrated where the priorities are. To adequately protect the nation's unique biodiversity, we recommend specific areas deserving additional protection, some of them including public lands, but many others requiring private investment.
authors.affiliation: Instituto de Pesquisas Ecológicas, Nazaré Paulista - SP, 12960-000, Brazil; clinton.jenkins@gmail.com.
authors.forename: Clinton N
authors.identifier: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2198-0637
authors.initials: CN
authors.lastname: Jenkins
authors.affiliation: Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Honolulu, HI 96818; Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708; and.
authors.forename: Kyle S
authors.identifier: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5725-1773
authors.initials: KS
authors.lastname: Van Houtan
authors.affiliation: Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708; and.
authors.forename: Stuart L
authors.initials: SL
authors.lastname: Pimm
authors.affiliation: Global Land Cover Facility, Department of Geographical Sciences, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742.
authors.forename: Joseph O
authors.initials: JO
authors.lastname: Sexton
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D044822:Biodiversity; D003247:Conservation of Natural Resources; D056727:Endangered Species; D005843:Geography; D013045:Species Specificity; D014481:United States
keywords: conservation priorities; endemism; extinction; protected areas; range size
references.citation: Science. 2005 Jul 22;309(5734):603-7
references.pmid: 16040704
references.citation: PLoS Biol. 2007 Jun;5(6):e157
references.pmid: 17550306
references.citation: Conserv Biol. 2007 Dec;21(6):1423-32
references.pmid: 18173466
references.citation: Science. 2014 May 30;344(6187):1246752
references.pmid: 24876501
references.citation: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2011 Sep 27;366(1578):2633-41
references.pmid: 21844042
references.citation: Science. 1997 Jan 24;275(5299):550-3
references.pmid: 8999803
references.citation: Conserv Biol. 2008 Feb;22(1):110-9
references.pmid: 18273953
references.citation: Science. 2004 Dec 3;306(5702):1783-6
references.pmid: 15486254
references.citation: Ecol Lett. 2006 Oct;9(10):1136-45
references.pmid: 16972877
references.citation: PLoS One. 2013;8(1):e54689
references.pmid: 23372754
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Jul 9;110(28):E2602-10
references.pmid: 23803854
references.citation: Nature. 2004 Apr 8;428(6983):640-3
references.pmid: 15071592
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 2000 Feb;15(2):70-76
references.pmid: 10652559
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2000 Oct 7;267(1456):1947-52
references.pmid: 11075706
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Aug 14;104(33):13384-9
references.pmid: 17686977