The importance of protected areas for threatened Brazilian butterflies

Abstract

The present study aims to disclose the importance existing protected areas (PAs) and their level of protection for the conservation of the threatened Brazilian butterflies. A total of 898 occurrence records were found for all 63 species of butterflies present in the current Brazilian Red list. For all studied taxa, at least one occurrence record is within the limits of a PA. More than half of the occurrence records (61.9%) are within the limits of PAs, but less than half (41.7%) of these records are present in fully protected areas. For 17 taxa (27%), less than 50% of their records are within PAs, thus being completely unprotected. For butterfly taxa in the category “critically endangered”, 42.6% of their occurrence records falls outside PAs. Almost 99% of the records are concentrated in the Atlantic Forest and the Cerrado, the two most threatened Brazilian biomes and global hostspots of biodiversity. In conclusion, the present study showed an important panorama of how threatened Brazilian butterflies are protected (or not). Anyway, it is important to highlight that for any record inside a PA, some level of protection is provided for these taxa against the advance of environmental destruction caused by human activities.

Key words Lepidoptera; Papilionoidea; endangered species; Red List; conservation

INTRODUCTION

The protected areas (hereafter “PAs”) are becoming an oasis of biodiversity in an increasingly impoverished world. These areas are defined as geographical spaces that are recognised, dedicated, and managed to achieve the long-term conservation of nature (UNEP-WCMC & IUCN 2020, IPBES 2019). They act as buffer ecosystems, harbouring remaining species populations against the destructive impacts of human activities, particularly those resulting in habitat loss or degradation, or the overexploitation of wildlife (Bruner et al. 2001, Jones et al. 2018, Cazalis et al. 2020, PulidoChadid et al. 2023).

Currently, the PAs covered 16.6% of terrestrial and freshwater and 7.7% of marine ecosystems (UNEP-WCMC & IUCN 2020). However, the evidence suggests that despite the growing number and coverage of PAs worldwide, biodiversity trends continue to deteriorate (Jones et al. 2018, Leclère et al. 2020), while human pressure increases outside and inside PAs, especially in the tropics (Jones et al. 2018, Geldmann et al. 2019).

Brazil is a megadiverse tropical country and has one of the largest PAs systems in the world (MMA 2018, Pacheco et al. 2018), but it faces many challenges in maintaining, managing, and expanding these areas (Bacon et al. 2019, Vieira et al. 2019). A total of 18.6% of Brazilian lands are current under protection, but 70% of the total area is in the Amazon (Brasil, 2021), while the remaining biomes hardly reach 10% of their territories under protection, revealing a high protection bias (Vieira et al. 2019, Marques et al. 2022). Recently, Brazil faced a series of barriers to protect its biodiversity and unsuitable political decisions are continuously being adopted, resulting in strongly negative implications for conservation of biodiversity (Azevedo-Santos et al. 2017, Alves et al. 2019, Metzger et al. 2019, Conceição et al. 2022) as these usually aim in reducing both, the size and degree of protection of the PAs (Alves et al. 2019, Metzger et al. 2019, Schmitz et al. 2023).

Although PAs are a significant global tool to conserve biodiversity, there is little assessment on their importance in the conservation of invertebrates, including insects, especially for those species that are threatened or endemic (Chowdhury et al. 2023). For example, the Brazilian Red List is made up of 1249 threatened animal taxa, of which only 10% are insects (MMA 2022). Moreover, available information concerning the effectiveness of the existing PAs is the conservation of threatened Brazilian species is limited or null (ICMBio 2018). Thus, this paper focus in unveiling the importance and level of protection of the existing PAs for the conservation of the threatened Brazilian butterflies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The target butterflies in the present study are those present in the current Brazilian Red List (63 taxa) (MMA 2022). All recent taxonomic changes in their names were followed for the sake of taxonomic stability (as in Rosa et al. 2023).

From 2015 to October 2023, images (photographs) of adult and/or larvae of butterflies from the Brazilian Red List were searched (using their current names, previous names, synonyms, and for subspecies the name of the species were also used) in the following data sources: 1) Google Images online platform, and other specific websites (Flickr (https://www.flickr.com/), 2) Biofaces (https://www.biofaces.com/), 3) iNaturalist (https://www.inaturalist.org/)), 4) YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/), and 5) on the social media website Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/), both in general search and in specific groups for photos of butterflies and animal-related topics (“Borboletas e Mariposas Neotropicais”, “Borboletas e Mariposas”, “Passarinhandos e Borboletando”, “Entomologia Brasileira”, “Entomos”, “Insetos”, “Insetos do Brasil”, “Fotonaturalistas – Insetos”, “Fauna Brasileira”, and “Borboletas”). Duplicate records in different databases were considered from only one source (in this case, the database where the image was posted first) (eg. the same record on Facebook and iNaturalist). In order to obtain the most precise coordinates of the occurrence records where the photographic record was made, each of the citizen scientists was contacted, most of whom provided accurate data. Records from personal communication with citizens scientists (eg. via personal email and Facebook Messenger) were also compiled, along with the photograph of the taxon to assure its identity. All photographs were verified by the authors of this study and/or by their group specialists.

After data compilation, each occurrence record was mapped in the Google Earth Pro software. At this point, redundant occurrence records or those whose precision is low (e.g., referring to a country or state) were not mapped / analysed. Each occurrence record has been verified if it falls inside or outside of protected areas (“PAs”) and biomes, based on data from Brazilian Ministry of the Environment (http://mapas.mma.gov.br/i3geo/datadownload.htm) and the website Protected Planet (https://www.protectedplanet.net/). The level of protection of PAs are based in the IUCN protected area management categories (Dudley 2008), with categories I-V grouped as “Fully Protected Areas” (here after “Fully-PAs”) and category VI designated as “Sustainable Use of Natural Resources Protected Areas” (here after “SUNR -PAs”).

For more details on the methods see Rosa et al. (2023). See Supplementary Material DATA SI for the dataset of occurrence records and their source. Since all records refer to threatened taxa that have potential commercial trade interest (e.g., for private collections), specific geographic coordinates and geographical site were deliberately omitted for those unpublished data.

RESULTS

A total of 898 different occurrence records were found for all 63 threatened Brazilian butterflies (Fig. 1e-h; DATA SI). For all studied taxa, at least one occurrence record within the limits of a PA was reported (Table SI). The number of occurrence records inside PAs was 556 (61.9%), and 342 (38.1%) outside (DATA SI, Table SI). The occurrence records inside Fully-PAs summed 232 (41.7%) for 48 taxa, while 324 records (58.3%) for 54 taxa were reported in SUNR-PAs (DATA SI, Table SI). For 17 taxa (27%), less than 50% of their occurrence records are within PAs. The threatened Brazilian butterflies are present within 158 different PAs, 86 (54.1%) of which are fully protected and 72 (45.3%) are SUNR-PAs (DATA SI, Table SI). The number and percentage of occurrence records of each type of PA of the threatened butterflies are presented in the Table SII.

Figure 1
View of some Protected areas and some threatened Brazilian butterflies. a: “Alto da Figueira Private Natural Heritage Reserve”, Nova Friburgo, RJ; b: “Sempre Vivas National Park”, Buenópolis, MG; c: “Silveiras Environmental Protected Area”, Silveiras, SP; d: “Serra do Mar State Park”, Ubatuba, SP; e: Pampasatyrus glaucope eberti Pyrcz & Zacca, 2017, “Silveiras Environmental Protected Area”; f: Anaea suprema (Schaus, 1920), “Serra da Mantiqueira Environmental Protected Area”, Pindamonhangaba, SP; g: Parides burchellanus (Westwood, 1872), “South Região Metropolitana de Belo Horizonte Environmental Protected Area”, Brumadinho, MG; h: Episcada vitrea R.F. d’Almeida & O. Mielke, 1967, “Alto da Figueira Private Natural Heritage Reserve”. Acronym for Brazilian States: MG = Minas Gerais, RJ = Rio de Janeiro, SP = São Paulo.

Considering the Brazilian Biomes, the occurrence records inside PAs were distributed as follow: 456 records (82%) in the Atlantic Forest; 90 records (16.2%) in the Cerrado savanna; 8 records (1.4%) in the semi-arid Caatinga; and only 2 records (0.4%) in the Amazonia. No records were found in the Pampa grasslands and in the Pantanal wetlands (Fig. 1a-d; DATA SI).

About the conservation status of the threatened butterflies, taxa currently listed as critically endangered (CR) present 160 occurrence records inside and 121 outside PAs; for endangered taxa (EN), 288 are inside and 169 outside PAs and for vulnerable (VU), 108 are inside and 52 outside PAs (Fig. 2, DATA SI).

Figure 2
Percent of occurrence records separated by conservation status of the 63 threatened Brazilian butterflies inside and outside of PAs. Abbreviations: CR = Critically Endangered, EN = Endangered, VU = Vulnerable, PAs = Protected areas. Number above bars are the actual number of records in each category.

DISCUSSION

The available data clearly indicates that for all threatened Brazilian butterfly species, at least one occurrence record is within a PA, indicating that at least a portion of their population is being safeguarded. Furthermore, over half of these records are within the boundaries of PAs, which is a relatively positive trend. However, the main concern is that almost 40% of the records are outside the bounds of any PA, particularly in some of the most populous states of Brazil. This calls for a constructive approach, where all stakeholders work together to increase the number of protected areas and create new conservation initiatives to safeguard these species and their habitats.

Although all threatened butterfly taxa have at least one occurrence record inside a PA, they are not equally protected; for a third of them, less than 50% of the known occurrence records fall inside the limits of PAs. For example, for the endangered Parides ascanius (Cramer, 1775), a conservation flagship species in Brazil, almost 60% of its occurrence records are located outside PAs (see also Uehara-Prado & Fonseca 2007). The situation can be more critical when the areas outside PAs are facing recent threats, such as the high-altitude grasslands, the only known habitat for all subspecies of Pampasatyrus (Rosa et al. 2020). By grouping the species by conservation status, butterfly taxa in the highest threat category (CR - critically endangered) deserve attention, since 43.1% of their occurrence records are outside PAs (Fig. 1). It should be noted that less than half of the occurrence records inside PAs are in Fully-PAs, indicating that the majority of records are found in SUNR-PAs, where local human populations are allowed to use part of the natural resources directly, in a supposed sustainable way. The concerning part is that the highest number of occurrence records among the types of PAs (50%) and the largest number of threatened butterfly taxa (78%) were found in PAs of the type “Environmental Protection Area” (APA, see MMA 2023). This type of PA is the least restrictive when it comes to anthropogenic pressures, primarily because environmental inspection is limited for logistical and/or financial reasons, resulting in limited opportunities for conservation.

Finally, concerning the Brazilian Biomes, almost 99% of the records are concentrated in the Atlantic Forest and the Cerrado, the two most threatened Brazilian biomes and global hostspots of biodiversity (Myers et al. 2000, Mittermeier et al. 2004). This scenario highlights a significant gap in knowledge regarding the remaining biomes, especially the Amazon Forest. It suggests that the lack of understanding about these biomes is responsible for the situation rather than the intensity of threats the Atlantic Forest and Cerrado face (see also Lewinsohn et al. 2005). Therefore, it is imperative that investments in research and education are carried out to fill this knowledge gap.

In conclusion, present data showed that most of the occurrence records of threatened Brazilian butterflies are inside PAs, providing some level of protection for their populations against the advance of environmental destruction caused (directly and indirectly) by human activities. These areas are possibly the last natural refuges not only for butterflies, but to several other threatened species of animals and plants living in the same habitats. So, although these PAs experience some level of disturbance, the present study shows the importance of these areas for the conservation of threatened butterflies (and other organisms) living inside them. In addition, the available information of occurrence of threatened butterflies could be useful in proposing and establishing new protected areas in the future.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

DATA SI.

Table SI, SII.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank all people who directly or indirectly contributed with information for this study (full name list DATA SI). We thank two anonymous referees by valuable contributions in the submitted version. We thank all curators in charge of the visited collections for facilitating access (full name list DATA SI). AHBR thanks Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior–Brazil – CAPES - Finance Code 001, for the present scholarship. AVLF thanks the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico - CNPq (421248/2017-3 and 304291/2020-0), and the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo - FAPESP (grants 2021/03868-8). This publication is part of the RedeLep “Rede Nacional de Pesquisa e Conservação de Lepidópteros” SISBIOTA-Brazil/CNPq (563332/2010-7). This study is registered under de SISGEN (A55D8FF).

REFERENCES

• ALVES GHZ, SANTOS RS, FIGUEIREDO BRS, MANETTA GI, MESSAGE HJ, PAZIANOTO LH, GUIMARÃES GB, BENEDITO E & COUTO EV. 2019. Misguided policy may jeopardize a diverse South Brazilian environmental protection area. Biota Neotrop 19: e20180574.
• AZEVEDO-SANTOS VM ET AL. 2017. Removing the abyss between conservation science and policy decisions in Brazil. Biodivers Conserv 26: 1745-1752.
• BACON E ET AL. 2019. Aichi biodiversity target 11 in the like-minded megadiverse countries. J Nat Conserv 51: 125723.
• BRASIL. 2021. Cadastro Nacional de Unidades de Conservação – Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade – ICMBio/MMA. Available at: <https://cnuc.mma.gov.br/>. Access on 30 October 2023.
  » https://cnuc.mma.gov.br/
• BRUNER AG, GULLISON RE, RICE RE & DA FONSECA GA. 2001. Effectiveness of parks in protecting tropical biodiversity. Science 291(5501): 125-128.
• CAZALIS V, PRINCÉ K, MIHOUB JB, KELLY J, BUTCHART SH & RODRIGUES AS. 2020. Effectiveness of protected areas in conserving tropical forest birds. Nat Commun 11(1): 4461.
• CHOWDHURY S, JENNIONS MD, ZALUCKI MP, MARON M, WATSON JE & FULLER RA. 2023. Protected areas and the future of insect conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 38(1): 85-95.
• CONCEIÇÃO EO ET AL. 2022. The impact of downsizing protected areas: How a misguided policy may enhance landscape fragmentation and biodiversity loss. Land Use Policy 112: 105835-36.
• DUDLEY N. 2008. Guidelines for applying protected area management categories. IUCN. Switzerland: Gland, 86 p.
• GELDMANN J, MANICA A, BURGESS ND, COAD L & BALMFORD A. 2019. A global-level assessment of the effectiveness of protected areas at resisting anthropogenic pressures. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 116(46): 23209-23215.
• ICMBIO. 2018. Livro Vermelho da Fauna Brasileira Ameaçada de Extinção. ICMBio - Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade. Brasil: Brasília, 4162 p.
• IPBES. 2019. Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES secretariat. Germany: Bonn, 1148 p.
• JONES KR, VENTER O, FULLER RA, ALLAN JR, MAXWELL SL, NEGRET PJ & WATSON JEM. 2018. One-third of global protected land is under intense human pressure. Science 360: 788-791.
• LECLÈRE D ET AL. 2020. Bending the curve of terrestrial biodiversity needs an integrated strategy. Nature 585(7826): 551-556.
• LEWINSOHN TM, FREITAS AVL & PRADO PI. 2005. Conservação de invertebrados terrestres e seus habitats no Brasil. Megadiversidade 1(1): 62-69.
• MARQUES NC, MACHADO RB, AGUIAR LM, MENDONÇA-GALVÃO L, TIDON R, VIEIRA EM, MARINI-FILHO OJ & BUSTAMANTE M. 2022. Drivers of change in tropical protected areas: Long-term monitoring of a Brazilian biodiversity hotspot. Perspect Ecol Conserv 20(2): 69-78.
• METZGER JP, BUSTAMANTE MMC, FERREIRA J, FERNANDES GW, LIBRÁN-EMBID F, PILLAR VD, PRIST PR, RODRIGUES RR, VIEIRA ICG & OVERBECK GE. 2019. Why Brazil needs its legal reserves. Perspect Ecol Conserv 17: 91-103.
• MMA. 2018. Cadastro Nacional de Unidades de Conservação – Ministério do Meio Ambiente. Available at: <http://www.mma.gov br/areas-protegidas/cadastro-nacional-de-ucs/ dados-consolidados>. Access on 30 October 2023.
  » http://www.mma.gov
• MMA. 2022. Portaria MMA Nº 148, de 7 de Junho de 2022 - Atualiza o teor do Anexo da Portaria nº 443, de 17 de dezembro de 2014, Lista oficial de espécies da flora brasileira ameaçadas de extinção – Ministério do Meio Ambiente. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, DF. Seção 1, 108: 74.
• MMA. 2023. Painel Unidades de Conservação. Available at: <https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiMGNmMGY3NGMtNWZlOC00ZmRmLWExZWItNTNiNDhkZDg0MmY4IiwidCI6IjM5NTdhMzY3LTZkMzgtNGMxZi1hNGJhLTMzZThmM2M1NTBlNyJ9&pageName=ReportSectione0a112a2a9e0cf52a827>. Access on 01 March 2024.
  » https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiMGNmMGY3NGMtNWZlOC00ZmRmLWExZWItNTNiNDhkZDg0MmY4IiwidCI6IjM5NTdhMzY3LTZkMzgtNGMxZi1hNGJhLTMzZThmM2M1NTBlNyJ9&pageName=ReportSectione0a112a2a9e0cf52a827
• MITTERMEIER RA, ROBLES GIL P, HOFFMANN M, PILGRIM J, BROOKS T, MITTERMEIER CG, LAMOREUX J & FONSECA GAB. 2004. Hotspots revisited: Earth’s biologically richest and most endangered ecoregions. CEMEX, Mexico: Mexico City, 392 p.
• MYERS N, MITTERMEIER RA, MITTERMEIER CG, FONSECA GAB & KENT J. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403(6772): 853-858.
• PACHECO AA, NEVES ACO & FERNANDES GW. 2018. Uneven conservation efforts compromise Brazil to meet the Target 11 of Convention on Biological Diversity. Perspect Ecol Conserv 16: 43-48.
• PULIDO-CHADID K, VIRTANEN E & GELDMANN J. 2023. How effective are protected areas for reducing threats to biodiversity? A systematic review protocol. Environ Evid 12(1): 18.
• ROSA AHB, RIBEIRO DB & FREITAS AVL. 2020. Population biology, natural history and conservation of two endangered high elevation Neotropical butterflies. J Insect Conserv 24: 681-694.
• ROSA AHB, RIBEIRO DB & FREITAS AVL. 2023. How data curation and new geographical records can change the conservation status of threatened Brazilian butterflies. J Insect Conserv 27: 403-414.
• SCHMITZ MH, DO COUTO EV, XAVIER EC, TOMADON LDS, LEAL RP & AGOSTINHO AA. 2023. Assessing the role of protected areas in the land-use change dynamics of a biodiversity hotspot. Ambio 52: 1603-1617.
• UEHARA-PRADO M & FONSECA RL. 2007. Urbanization and mismatch with protected areas place the conservation of a threatened species at risk. Biotropica 39: 264-268.
• UNEP-WCMC & IUCN. 2020. Protected Planet Report 2020. UNEP-WCMC and IUCN: UK: Cambridge; Switzerland: Gland.
• VIEIRA RRS, PRESSEY RL & LOYOLA R. 2019. The residual nature of protected areas in Brazil. Biol Conserv 233: 152-161.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  07 Oct 2024
• Date of issue
  2024

History

• Received
  12 Dec 2023
• Accepted
  28 July 2024