Front Sci Frontiers in Science Front Sci 2813-6330 Frontiers Media S.A. 10.3389/fsci.2024.1349350 Impact Journals Frontiers in Science Lead Article Conservation Imperatives: securing the last unprotected terrestrial sites harboring irreplaceable biodiversity Dinerstein Eric 1 * Joshi Anup R. 2 Hahn Nathan R. 1 Lee Andy T. L. 1 Vynne Carly 1 Burkart Karl 3 Asner Gregory P. 4 Beckham Charlotte 5 Ceballos Gerardo 6 Cuthbert Richard 5 Dirzo Rodolfo 7 Fankem Oliver 8 Hertel Sarah 3 Li Binbin V. 9 Mellin Haley 10 Pharand-Deschênes Félix 11 Olson David 12 Pandav Bivash 13 Peres Carlos A. 14 15 Putra Rudi 16 Rosenthal Amy 17 18 Verwer Caspar 19 Wikramanayake Eric 20 Zolli Andrew 17 1 RESOLVE, Washington, DC, United States 2 Conservation Sciences Program, Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States 3 One Earth, Culver City, CA, United States 4 Center for Global Discovery and Conservation Science, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, United States 5 World Land Trust, Halesworth, United Kingdom 6 Instituto de Ecología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad de México, Mexico 7 Department of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States 8 Global Conservation, Yaoundé, Cameroon 9 Environmental Research Center, Duke Kunshan University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China 10 Conserve, Fairfax, CA, United States 11 Globaïa, Wellington, New Zealand 12 Conservation Earth, Sharma, Saudi Arabia 13 Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, India 14 School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom 15 Instituto Juruá, Manaus, AM, Brazil 16 Forum Konservasi Leuser, Aceh, Indonesia 17 Planet Labs PBC, San Francisco, CA, United States 18 Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, IL, United States 19 International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) - Netherlands, Amsterdam, Netherlands 20 Environmental Foundation, Colombo, Sri Lanka

Edited by: Hugh Possingham, The University of Queensland, Australia

Reviewed by: Joseph Michael Kiesecker, The Nature Conservancy, United States

David Lindenmayer, Australian National University, Australia

*Correspondence: Eric Dinerstein, edinerstein@resolve.ngo

25 06 2024 2024 2 1349350 04 12 2023 22 05 2024 Copyright © 2024 Dinerstein, Joshi, Hahn, Lee, Vynne, Burkart, Asner, Beckham, Ceballos, Cuthbert, Dirzo, Fankem, Hertel, Li, Mellin, Pharand-Deschênes, Olson, Pandav, Peres, Putra, Rosenthal, Verwer, Wikramanayake and Zolli 2024 Dinerstein, Joshi, Hahn, Lee, Vynne, Burkart, Asner, Beckham, Ceballos, Cuthbert, Dirzo, Fankem, Hertel, Li, Mellin, Pharand-Deschênes, Olson, Pandav, Peres, Putra, Rosenthal, Verwer, Wikramanayake and Zolli

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

Ambitious biodiversity goals to protect 30% or more of the Earth’s surface by 2030 (30x30) require strategic near-term targets. To define areas that must be protected to prevent the most likely and imminent extinctions, we propose Conservation Imperatives—16,825 unprotected sites spanning ~164 Mha of the terrestrial realm that harbor rare and threatened species. We estimate that protecting the Conservation Imperatives would cost approximately US$169 billion (90% probability: US$146—US$228 billion). Globally, 38% of the 16,825 sites are either adjacent to or within 2.5 km of an existing protected area, potentially reducing land acquisition and management costs. These sites should be prioritized for conservation action over the next 5 years as part of a broader strategy to expand the global protected area network. The expansion of global protected areas between 2018 and 2023 incorporated only 7% of sites harboring range-limited and threatened species, highlighting a renewed urgency to conserve these habitats. Permanently protecting only 0.74% of land found in the tropics, where Conservation Imperatives are concentrated, could prevent the majority of predicted near-term extinctions once adequately resourced. We estimate this cost to be from US$29 billion to US$46 billion per year over the next 5 years. Multiple approaches will be required to meet long-term protection goals: providing rights and titles to Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) conserving traditional lands, government designation of new protected areas on federal and state lands, and land purchase or long-term leasing of privately held lands.

Conservation Imperatives 30x30 protected area targets rare species land cover fraction mapping geospatial analysis land costs analysis

香京julia种子在线播放

    1. <form id=HxFbUHhlv><nobr id=HxFbUHhlv></nobr></form>
      <address id=HxFbUHhlv><nobr id=HxFbUHhlv><nobr id=HxFbUHhlv></nobr></nobr></address>

      Key points

      There is an urgent need to prioritize the conservation of habitats of rare and threatened species as part of a larger global biodiversity strategy.

      Conservation Imperatives offer a solution to conserving the last unprotected sites harboring rare, range-restricted, and threatened species and should be a central component of the ambitious goals to protect at least 30% of the Earth’s surface by 2030.

      The Conservation Imperatives identified in this study are highly concentrated, requiring only ~164 Mha globally to avoid extinctions; this equates to only 1.22% of the Earth’s entire terrestrial surface and 0.74% of land in the tropics.

      Targeted investments to prevent extinctions in parallel with the conservation of carbon-rich regions are necessary as the world sets about expanding the protected area network from 15.7% today to 30% by 2030.

      Conserving Conservation Imperatives is achievable and affordable, especially in the tropics, as the purchase of the tropical subset of Conservation Imperatives costs about US$169 billion (90% probability: US$146–US$228 billion), or US$34 billion (90% probability: US$29.2–US$45.6 billion) per year over 5 years.

      As Conservation Imperatives represent the most biologically important and threatened places to protect, they can be thought of as “anchor points” to design regional-scale conservation planning efforts under 30×30.

      Introduction

      In late December 2022, at the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity’s 15th Conference of Parties (COP15), more than 190 parties adopted the 30×30 target—to protect at least 30% of the world’s lands, oceans, and inland waters by 2030 (1). Conservation biologists, Indigenous Peoples, science-based NGOs, corporate leaders, and others have endorsed the 30×30 target and also called for protecting half of the terrestrial realm for humanity to have the best chance to reverse biodiversity loss, stabilize Earth’s climate, prevent ecosystem collapse, and avoid future pandemics (25). Either goal—30% protected or 50% protected—will encourage the protection of large areas of land to meet targets, but this strategy can easily result in an underrepresentation of biodiversity (6). Land protection targets must account for the urgency of preventing numerous species extinctions and extirpations of small, rare, and range-restricted populations.

      The purpose of this paper is to offer a science-based strategy to secure and protect the remaining homes of rare and endangered species through timely, affordable investments in land acquisition and habitat conservation. To this end, we introduce the term Conservation Imperatives, defined as currently unprotected sites that contain rare, threatened, and narrow-range endemic species. Specifically, our approach is to map unprotected sites harboring rare species while accounting for converted habitats and estimating costs to put these lands under conservation stewardship. We also seek to determine progress in the protection of global sites of rarity as determined from 2018 to 2023. Finally, we outline new efforts to leverage Conservation Imperatives to finance protection where immediate focus is needed and create anchor points for wider conservation planning under a global 5-year strategy.

      Advancing Conservation Imperatives is a global prioritization scheme in the sense that preventing extinctions is proposed as an immediate conservation target. We strive for maximum buy-in by all nations, Indigenous groups, and local communities who have jurisdiction over such lands to preserve opportunities for expanding protection to Conservation Imperatives. We intentionally avoid prioritizing sites on a global scale. The maps and data we present here should be used as a starting point for subsequent ecoregion-based or regional prioritizations within each realm. A rich literature on systematic conservation planning and reserve design can inform methodologies for evaluating and delineating proposed sites at the regional level (710). Local teams of experts in each country can also take advantage of higher-resolution spatial data—for species distributions, population viability of threatened species, representation of rare habitats, land cover, extent of degraded lands, restoration potential, connectivity options, threats from development, extensive records of land purchase or leasing prices, and feasibility of conservation effort—often unavailable in global assessments. These essential planning efforts reinforce local ownership of Conservation Imperatives and will help reduce extinction risk by considering the likely future conditions in each region.

      Methods Species rarity layer

      We combined six widely used data layers employed in published global biodiversity assessments to identify sites supporting rare, narrow-range endemic, and endangered species (4). Using the latest dataset of global protected areas (11) as our base map, we sequentially intersected polygons identified as supporting rare and threatened species to avoid double counting of the overlapped areas. These include Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE) sites, the range-restricted rarity of forest species, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List, Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs), a second estimator of range-restricted rarity among vertebrates, and range-restricted vascular plants. For more details on the construction of the species rarity layer, see Dinerstein et al. (4) ( Presentation 1 : Supplementary Table 1 ). The total extent of these six data layers, minus the area covered by global protected areas, determines the remaining unprotected segment, which defines the extent of the Conservation Imperatives ( Figure 1 ). This layer of species rarity was then refined using the fractional land cover analysis described below.

      Schematic illustrating the construction of Conservation Imperatives and adjacency analysis. 1) Six layers of rare species data were overlaid together with the World Database on Protected Areas (11) to remove overlapping areas and generate the species rarity layer. 2) The resulting species rarity layer was overlaid on a fractional land cover map with areas of habitat and non-habitat. 3) Areas of non-habitat were removed from the species rarity layer to derive Conservation Imperatives. 4) After completion of the previous steps, spatial analysis was performed to identify Conservation Imperatives that are adjacent to an existing reserve (i.e., within 2.5 km).

      For freshwater species, which are on average more endangered than terrestrial species, we relied on the same data layers for the following reasons: i) the life histories of some of the most endangered vertebrates in the IUCN Red List of Endangered Species (Layer 3, see Figure 1 ) could be considered freshwater or at least freshwater-dependent rather than terrestrial species. These taxa include amphibians and some reptile groups; ii) the IUCN Red List polygons (Layer 3) also contain the spatial distributions of several relatively well-studied freshwater taxa for which range maps exist. These include freshwater turtles, freshwater fish, freshwater crabs, freshwater mollusks, freshwater crayfishes and shrimps, odonates (dragonflies and damselflies), and some aquatic plants; and iii) more than half of all endangered vertebrates in the Alliance for Zero Extinction layer (Layer 1) are amphibians.

      Fractional land cover analysis

      We introduced a fractional land cover analysis to derive a more accurate estimate of the true Area of Habitat (hereafter “AoH”) for rare and threatened species because published range data contain varying amounts of agricultural, pastoral, and urban lands. The uneven resolution of the most widely used global biodiversity layers, coupled with rapid land-use change from conversion to agriculture and urbanization, results in many species rarity sites now containing areas of non-habitat. To identify and remove non-habitat, we used Copernicus Global Land Cover Layers CGLS-LC100 Collection 3 at 100 m resolution (12) (hereafter “Copernicus data”) and Google Earth Engine (13) to generate a land cover map that includes fractions of all land cover types occurring in a pixel at 100 m resolution.

      We used seven classes to create the fractional layer: Forest, Shrub, Grass, Crop, Urban, Bare Ground, and Permanent Water (inland water bodies). We defined Forest using the percent tree cover in the Copernicus data that varied by biome and set cutoff levels based on expert knowledge in each biome and their distinguishing ecological characteristics. Forest is defined as pixels with a tree cover fraction > 80% for the tropical forest biome, > 50% for the temperate forest biome, and > 30% for the boreal forest and mangrove biomes. To differentiate desert habitat from bare ground in the desert and xeric shrub biome, desert is defined as > 70% bare soil and bare ground as 50–69% bare soil in this biome. For all other cover types, we did not differentiate the percent cover among biomes. Shrub cover is defined as pixels with a shrub cover fraction ≥ 30%; Grass as a grass cover fraction ≥ 50%; Bare Ground as a bare cover fraction ≥ 50%; Urban as an urban cover fraction ≥ 10%; Permanent Water (inland) as a permanent water cover fraction ≥ 30%; and Crop as a cropland cover fraction >1% (to avoid any potential cultivated areas).

      The species rarity layer and the fractional land cover map were overlaid to calculate the contribution of different cover types to unprotected polygons ( Figure 1 ). To calculate the AoH (14) in species rarity sites, we masked all land in the Crop, Urban, and Bare Ground cover types. We recognize that crops and bare ground can represent suitable habitats for some species that are threatened or have restricted ranges. Evaluating these individual species’ requirements is, however, beyond the scope of this global assessment. In instances where the fractional land cover analysis resulted in small, isolated fragments of rare species habitat surrounded by developed or cultivated land, fragments smaller than 1 ha were removed due to high near-term conversion risk. Finally, we overlaid the resulting species rarity layer with the world’s 846 terrestrial ecoregion boundaries to be able to categorize Conservation Imperatives by ecoregion (15). The result of these sequential overlays allows us to identify Conservation Imperatives ( Figure 1 ).

      Adjacency analysis

      To determine the adjacency of Conservation Imperatives to existing reserves mapped in the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) layer ( Figure 1 ), we buffered protected areas by 2.5 km and assessed which sites fell within this buffer. For this exercise, we assumed that site protection and management could be easier than the expansion of existing protected areas or corridor establishment. We chose 2.5 km as the upper limit based on the minimum corridor width recommended for the largest terrestrial vertebrates (elephants) to move between isolated patches of habitat (16).

      Cost assessment

      Establishing accurate spatial delineation of Conservation Imperatives sets the stage for estimating the expected costs of protected area designation. Previous assessments of costs for conservation at the global scale have relied on extrapolation of land values based on agricultural and pastoral potential (17, 18). Despite recent calls for datasets reflecting the real costs of land for conservation (19, 20), comprehensive datasets remain unavailable. Complicating this estimation is that multiple stewardship mechanisms with different cost implications—such as private land purchase, leasing of community reserves and forests, re-establishing Indigenous land rights, and government re-designations—affect the true total costs of protecting sites harboring rare species. Using actual data on costs to place land under conservation stewardship can provide a clearer approximation of the resources required to secure critical sites for biodiversity (19).

      To estimate the cost of securing Conservation Imperative sites in the tropical belt, we collected empirical data from land protection projects occurring between 2008 and 2022, fit generalized linear regression models, and applied a simulation approach. Our dataset consisted of 1,016 projects compiled from IUCN Netherlands, the Quick Response Fund for Nature, and World Land Trust (21), supplemented by unpublished data from other NGOs focused on land purchases that met our criteria for inclusion. These organizations regularly fund land acquisition, designation, and protection projects globally, with a higher concentration in the tropics. This portfolio includes a range of projects, including the expansion of existing parks and community reserves, establishment of privately protected areas, and creation of community forest reserves. Acquisition costs cover the purchase price and legal and notary fees, which were as much as 10% of the acquisition cost. For leased land projects of varying lengths, we calculated an annual value and then extrapolated the cost per hectare for 10 years—the dataset’s median lease length. We adjusted all costs to 2023 US$ to account for inflation. We removed projects with incomplete information on location, purchase cost, purchase size, and lease length. After cleaning the dataset, the remaining locations contained 833 sites distributed across all 6 major realms and 14 biomes ( Presentation 1 : Supplementary Figure 1 ).

      We next fit linear regression models to the empirical cost per hectare of land protection projects. We used a log transformation on cost-per-hectare values to reduce skew and create an approximate normal distribution. We hypothesized that land value could be influenced by the biogeographical realm, region, ecoregion, area of land being secured, type of land acquisition, and country-level economic factors (4, 22). We used the following covariates as predictors: realm, size of acquisition, type of acquisition (categorized into purchase or lease), national per capita GDP, and country population size (23). All continuous covariates were scaled and centered for interpretation. The mean per capita GDP and population were extracted based on the country in which the project occurred between 2010 and 2020. A random effect for data source was added to account for possible variation among the groups that supplied project data. We fit candidate models and used the Akaike Information Criterion and conditional R2 values to select the most informative model for land value [MuMin R Package (24)]. We tested for correlations among continuous covariates and excluded variables with R > 0.65 values prior to the analysis (5). We also tested for multiple collinearity using the variance inflation factor (25). Neither test required the removal of covariates.

      To calculate the price to place Conservation Imperatives under conservation stewardship, we used Monte Carlo simulations (26) to estimate the cost per hectare and total land value of all sites under simulated purchase scenarios. Each simulation used the land value model to predict the cost per hectare of each Conservation Imperative site using random values for acquisition size (assuming multiple smaller purchases would be needed to secure large sites), acquisition type (assuming a mix of purchase and lease), and data source and determined land value by multiplying the predicted cost per hectare by the known size of the site. We ran 10,000 simulations with random values drawn from distributions parameterized by realm. Total cost estimates were calculated as the mean across all simulations, and we used 90% probability distributions to measure uncertainty. We used this approach to determine the total cost of placing all Conservation Imperatives in the tropical belt under conservation stewardship. We then identified the top 10 ecoregions in each realm harboring the most Conservation Imperatives and assessed the price of conserving those sites by ecoregion. We converted all results to US$ per square kilometer to keep units comparable to the fractional analysis. The code used for model fitting and simulation can be found in the Supplementary Materials .

      Representation of species rarity among newly created protected areas

      To determine if the increases in the global protected area estate over the last 5 years have effectively addressed rare and endemic species exposed to the greatest risks of extinction, we intersected the Conservation Imperatives polygons with the most recent map of the WDPA using protected area categories 1–7 (April 2023) (11). We predicted that new reserves created from 2018 to 2023 would cover > 50% of the Conservation Imperatives.

      Results Fractional land cover analysis

      We identified 16,825 sites harboring rare and threatened species, covering ~164 Mha or 1.22% of the Earth’s land surface ( Figure 2 ). This AoH represents a 46% reduction from earlier estimates based on a published compilation of identified areas of importance for rare and threatened species [e.g., KBAs, Red List sites (4)]. Most of these reductions occurred in large blocks of unprotected habitat rather than in smaller fragments.

      Map of global unprotected species rarity site. Global distribution of the unprotected species rarity sites (magenta area) across predominantly forested habitat (green) and non-forested habitat (yellow), with non-habitat areas (grey) removed from previously designated species rarity sites, covering 1.22%. Non-habitat areas include land classified as urban, agricultural, and degraded.

      Reduction in total AoH harboring unprotected rarity differed by latitude and by biome. In the four major tropical realms, we found a 45% reduction in total land area. In the non-tropical realms, we estimated a 49% reduction in area ( Table 1 ). Within biomes that comprise the tropical realms, tropical and subtropical dry broadleaf forests underwent the largest reduction in target habitat (77%), followed by tropical and subtropical coniferous forests (58%). Tropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forests, which contained the highest concentration (75%) of Conservation Imperatives, showed a 49% reduction in area ( Figure 3 ; Table 2 ).

      Extent of habitat by biogeographic realm after applying fractional land cover to species rarity sites and removing non-habitat area.

      Biogeographic realm Forested habitat (km2) Non-forested habitat (km2) Total habitat (km2) Habitat reduction (%)*
      Afrotropic 65,301 350,050 415,351 32
      Australasia 180,550 37,066 217,616 36
      Indomalayan 150,262 4,662 154,924 56
      Nearctic 17,512 23,501 41,012 49
      Neotropic 174,945 137,045 311,990 54
      Oceania 1,766 241 2,007 84
      Palearctic 73,220 423,791 497,010 49
      Total 663,556 976,355 1,639,911 46

      *Approximate reduction of unprotected rare and threatened species areas from 2019 levels versus total area extent from newly compiled data sets.

      Effect of fractional analysis when identifying and removing non-habitat (Other) areas from species rarity polygons in several regions with high species rarity. Forested and non-forested habitats are retained. (A) Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, Colombia; (B) West African coastal forests; and (C) Madagascar dry forests.

      Extent of habitat by biome after applying fractional land cover to species rarity sites and removing non-habitat area.

      No. Biome name Forested habitat (km2) Non-forested habitat (km2) Total habitat (km2) Habitat reduction (%)*
      1 Tropical/subtropical moist broadleaf forests 536,606 55,436 592,043 49
      2 Tropical/subtropical dry broadleaf forests 7,903 13,248 21,152 77
      3 Tropical/subtropical coniferous forests 13,152 3,073 16,225 58
      4 Temperate broadleaf/mixed forests 28,563 25,156 53,719 68
      5 Temperate conifer forests 19,777 8,481 28,257 33
      6 Boreal forests/taiga 51,147 35,018 86,165 22
      7 Tropical/subtropical grasslands, savannas, shrublands 17 370,057 370,075 14
      8 Temperate grasslands, savannas, shrublands 5 82,146 82,151 53
      9 Flooded grasslands, savannas 2 8,794 8,796 65
      10 Montane grasslands, shrublands 41 32,775 32,816 62
      11 Tundra 1 45,632 45,633 35
      12 Mediterranean forests, woodlands, scrub 5 36,162 36,167 78
      13 Deserts, xeric shrublands 7 259,015 259,022 46
      14 Mangroves 6,329 1,361 7,690 44
      Total 663,556 976,355 1,639,911 46

      *Approximate reduction of unprotected rare and threatened species areas from 2019 levels versus total area extent from newly compiled data sets.

      Conservation Imperatives

      Conservation Imperatives are highly concentrated. We found a distinct skew in the distribution of the 16,825 sites harboring unprotected rarity across biogeographic realms and biomes ( Figure 2 ; Tables 3 , 4 ; Presentation 1 : Supplementary Table 2 ). The majority of unprotected sites fall within the tropical and subtropical moist forests biome. Within the same biome but sorted by realm, the Neotropics had the most sites (38% of all Conservation Imperatives), followed by the Indomalayan (34%), Australasia (18%), and Afrotropic (9%) realms. Sites were also clustered within realms. The 10 ecoregions with the most Conservation Imperatives within the four major tropical realms account for 63.5% of all sites globally ( Figure 4 ; Table 5 ). The top five countries in the world with the highest number of Conservation Imperatives are the Philippines, Brazil, Indonesia, Madagascar, and Colombia, and together they account for 59% of all sites globally. Over 87% of all Conservation Imperatives occur in just 30 countries ( Table 6 ).

      Distribution of Conservation Imperative sites (2023) by realm.

      Biogeographic realm Forest (km2) Grass (km2) Shrub (km2) Desert (km2) Total (km2) Number of sites Totalsites (%)
      Afrotropic 65,301 124,904 224,425 722 415,351 1,870 11.1
      Australasia 180,550 30,538 6,210 318 217,616 2,526 15.0
      Indomalayan 150,262 2,681 1,963 18 154,924 4,569 27.2
      Nearctic 17,512 11,355 11,914 233 41,012 184 1.1
      Neotropic 174,945 89,346 47,455 244 311,990 5,972 35.5
      Oceania 1,766 149 92 - 2,007 52 0.3
      Palearctic 73,220 262,573 20,868 140,349 497,010 1,652 9.8
      Total 663,556 521,545 312,927 141,883 1,639,911 16,825 100

      The four tropical realms account for 89% of all sites globally.

      Distribution of Conservation Imperative sites in each biome (2023).

      No. Biome name Forest (km2) Grass (km2) Shrub (km2) Desert (km2) Total (km2) Number of sites Total sites (%)
      1 Tropical/subtropical moist broadleaf forests 536,606 27,081 28,355 592,043 12,580 74.8
      2 Tropical/subtropical dry broadleaf forests 7,903 5,925 7,323 21,152 554 3.3
      3 Tropical/subtropical coniferous forests 13,152 552 2,521 16,225 170 1.0
      4 Temperate broadleaf, mixed forests 28,563 24,055 1,101 53,719 503 3.0
      5 Temperate conifer forests 19,777 7,860 620 28,257 125 0.7
      6 Boreal forests, taiga 51,147 25,828 9,191 86,165 88 0.5
      7 Tropical/subtropical grasslands, savannas, shrublands 17 165,980 204,077 370,075 562 3.3
      8 Temperate grasslands, savannas, shrublands 5 63,503 18,643 82,151 439 2.6
      9 Flooded grasslands, savannas 2 8,435 358 8,796 57 0.3
      10 Montane grasslands, shrublands 41 29,993 2,782 32,816 428 2.5
      11 Tundra 1 43,136 2,497 45,633 37 0.2
      12 Mediterranean forests, Woodlands, scrub 5 21,619 14,543 36,167 436 2.6
      13 Deserts, xeric shrublands 7 96,743 20,389 141,883 259,022 619 3.7
      14 Mangroves 6,329 835 526 7,690 227 1.3
      Total 663,556 521,545 312,927 141,883 1,639,911 16,825 100

      The tropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forests biome alone accounts for three-quarters of all sites globally.

      The 10 ecoregions in each realm containing the highest number of Conservation Imperatives.

      The top 10 ecoregions in each realm with the highest number of Conservation Imperative sites (2023) and the total remaining natural habitat and estimated cost to place under conservation stewardship.

      ID Ecoregion name Total habitat area (km2) Number of sites % of sites in realm Estimated cost (million US$)
      Mean Lower 90% CI Upper 90% CI
      Afrotropic
      17 Madagascar humid forests 4,295 614 32 337 190 539
      18 Madagascar subhumid forests 3,836 250 13 302 164 477
      32 Madagascar dry deciduous forests 3,025 59 3 241 120 398
      79 Ethiopian montane grasslands and woodlands 725 49 3 56 24 103
      25 Northern Swahili coastal forests 16,190 48 3 1,201 447 2,259
      1 Albertine Rift montane forests 5,200 43 2 352 111 713
      108 Southwest Arabian Escarpment shrublands and woodlands 2,407 38 2 272 133 462
      42 Dry miombo woodlands 376 35 2 26 10 50
      51 Northern Acacia-Commiphora bushlands and thickets 10,976 32 2 710 179 1,545
      89 Fynbos shrubland 2,049 29 2 221 64 472
      Total cost of top 10 ecoregions 3,717
      Australasia
      156 Sulawesi lowland rain forests 25,417 1,090 45 197 136 276
      157 Sulawesi montane rain forests 36,785 421 18 270 152 428
      139 Central Range Papuan montane rain forests 39,150 379 16 231 83 441
      153 Southeast Papuan rain forests 15,727 46 2 98 37 184
      163 Lesser Sundas deciduous forests 1,916 41 2 15 9 22
      168 Eastern Australian temperate forests 2,192 39 2 31 19 45
      140 Halmahera rain forests 3,147 32 1 24 16 35
      152 Solomon Islands rain forests 10,456 25 1 69 46 97
      148 Northern New Guinea lowland rain and freshwater swamp forests 6,101 22 1 39 18 69
      159 Vanuatu rain forests 992 18 1 7 5 10
      Total cost of top 10 ecoregions 980
      Indomalayan
      247 Mindanao-Eastern Visayas rain forests 22,648 1,561 36 14,948 9,354 22,070
      241 Luzon rain forests 15,139 1,123 26 9,912 6,336 14,223
      231 Greater Negros-Panay rain forests 1,813 190 4 1,184 672 1,819
      248 Mindoro rain forests 1,663 178 4 971 501 1,664
      246 Mindanao montane rain forests 7,517 139 3 4,880 2,411 8,015
      288 Western Java montane rain forests 709 100 2 467 239 765
      240 Luzon montane rain forests 2,644 57 1 1,732 752 2,975
      249 Mizoram-Manipur-Kachin rain forests 5,395 52 1 3,037 1,796 4,651
      256 Northern Indochina subtropical forests 3,171 44 1 2,097 1,174 3,205
      219 Borneo lowland rain forests 13,993 43 1 8,399 2,961 16,403
      Total cost of top 10 ecoregions 47,628
      Nearctic
      327 Sierra Madre Oriental pine-oak forests 1,828 16 9 76 47 112
      399 Southeast US conifer savannas 1,149 15 8 66 35 107
      386 Canadian Aspen forests and parklands 121 9 5 7 4 12
      396 Northern Shortgrass prairie 672 9 5 40 21 64
      427 Central Mexican matorral 603 8 4 21 7 41
      432 Meseta Central matorral 819 8 4 31 15 55
      342 Southern Great Lakes forests 222 7 4 11 4 22
      428 Chihuahuan desert 3,490 7 4 131 55 241
      382 Southern Hudson Bay taiga 1,782 6 3 99 42 177
      376 Mid-Canada Boreal Plains forests 561 5 3 30 12 55
      Total cost of top 10 ecoregions 513
      Neotropic
      442 Bahia coastal forests 3,563 1,635 27 410 307 543
      443 Bahia interior forests 1,161 579 10 138 107 174
      500 Serra do Mar coastal forests 3,134 434 7 372 277 481
      460 Eastern Cordillera Real montane forests 18,176 279 5 1,796 1,201 2,541
      439 Alto Paraná Atlantic forests 2,177 192 3 241 162 338
      486 Northwest Andean montane forests 18,454 192 3 1,888 1,169 2,775
      477 Magdalena Valley montane forests 9,685 156 3 927 516 1,511
      491 Pernambuco coastal forests 160 150 2 19 13 26
      493 Peruvian Yungas 11,658 142 2 1,191 852 1,600
      593 Northern Andean páramo 892 121 2 92 66 125
      Total cost of top 10 ecoregions 7,075
      Palearctic
      791 Eastern Mediterranean conifer-broadleaf forests 6,900 114 7 1,092 634 1,681
      735 Pontic steppe 9,506 101 6 1,675 1,017 2,497
      804 Southern Anatolian montane conifer and deciduous forests 12,680 70 4 2,255 1,241 3,512
      727 Eastern Anatolian montane steppe 9,761 57 3 1,501 757 2,492
      732 Kazakh steppe 9,220 53 3 1,504 845 2,375
      785 Aegean and Western Turkey sclerophyllous and mixed forests 1,577 43 2 270 143 437
      798 Mediterranean woodlands and forests 2,221 40 2 295 137 511
      661 East European forest steppe 2,191 39 2 382 210 608
      819 Central Asian southern desert 3,436 37 2 486 269 780
      650 Caucasus mixed forests 5,851 36 2 901 488 1,431
      Total cost of top 10 ecoregions 10,361

      This includes tropical and non-tropical ecoregions.

      Top 30 countries with the highest number of Conservation Imperative sites, their percentage total, median and total area of sites (km2), and the number and percentage of sites within each country that are adjacent to existing protected areas (i.e., within 2.5 km of boundary).

      Country Number of Conservation Imperative sites % of total sites Median area of sites (km2) Total area of sites (km2) Number of sites adjacent to an existing protected area (within 2.5 km of boundary) % of sites adjacent to an existing protected area in country
      Philippines 3,355 19.5 0.46 53,816 833 25
      Brazil 3,342 19.4 0.31 35,632 781 23
      Indonesia 1,893 11.0 0.50 116,773 387 20
      Madagascar 968 5.6 0.37 14,585 183 19
      Colombia 761 4.4 0.93 39,827 423 56
      Ecuador 653 3.8 0.38 35,026 157 24
      Papua New Guinea 527 3.1 0.36 81,800 26 5
      India 437 2.5 5.23 20,861 65 15
      Peru 342 2.0 13.42 43,590 101 30
      Turkey 304 1.8 28.53 50,166 2 1
      Russia 291 1.7 54.48 138,436 89 31
      China 276 1.6 22.68 41,276 47 17
      Mexico 230 1.3 17.22 33,441 63 27
      Argentina 187 1.1 40.87 61,285 38 20
      Australia 137 0.8 2.31 35,705 54 39
      United Republic of Tanzania 127 0.7 0.24 1,041 52 41
      South Africa 116 0.7 9.74 40,648 52 45
      Myanmar 114 0.7 16.78 22,883 16 14
      Ethiopia 109 0.6 0.86 40,513 6 6
      Kazakhstan 104 0.6 85.39 58,230 19 18
      United States of America 102 0.6 17.78 10,636 51 50
      Venezuela 93 0.5 1.77 2,793 50 54
      Kenya 92 0.5 0.69 16,297 22 24
      Vietnam 85 0.5 5.47 3,274 42 49
      Bolivia 81 0.5 16.31 8,612 27 33
      Yemen 78 0.5 27.00 6,111 1 1
      Malaysia 76 0.4 7.88 9,141 25 33
      Democratic Republic of the Congo 73 0.4 13.46 49,350 23 32
      Syria 70 0.4 5.16 2,360 1 1
      Chile 66 0.4 3.49 2,652 22 33
      Total of top 30 countries 15,089 87.6 1,076,759 3,658 24
      Representation of species rarity among newly created protected areas

      We predicted that >50% of new protected areas designated between 2018 and 2023 would overlap with unprotected species rarity sites. We estimated that 1.2 million km2 was added to the global protected area estate over this 5-year time period (11). Of that, the largest extent was located in two ecoregions (#473 Japura-Solimões-Negro Moist Forests and #831 North Arabian Desert, totaling 192,000 km2), but based on our analysis these additions showed very little overlap with areas harboring rare and threatened species. In fact, over this same time period, only 109,779 km2, or less than 7% of identified Conservation Imperatives, have been added to the World Database on Protected Areas ( Figure 5 ), leaving the vast majority of these sites at risk of conversion and degradation. Expressed slightly differently, had the 1.2 million km2 set aside during the 2018–2023 period included only Conservation Imperatives, 73% of these sites globally would now be under protection.

      Expansion of protection in species rarity sites in World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) between 2018 and 2023 after overlaying the fractional land cover. Green polygons show unprotected species rarity sites that have gained protection between 2018 and 2023, representing only 7% of the global increase in protection coverage. Magenta polygons represent sites that remain unprotected in 2023.

      Cost analysis

      The model of land acquisition costs per hectare that included realm, purchase type, purchase size, per capita GDP, and population size performed best and had an R2 value of 0.76 ( Presentation 1 : Supplementary Table 4 ). Among the variables we tested, acquisition size [-0.67, 95% CI (-0.71, -0.64); larger acquisitions had lower per-ha costs], acquisition type [0.97, 95% CI (0.66, 1.28); purchases were more expensive than leases], and realm were the most useful predictors and explained much of the model variation on their own. We also found that higher per capita GDP [0.18, 95% CI (0.07, 0.28)] and human population density [0.03, 95% CI (0.02, 0.08)] increased land prices ( Presentation 1 : Supplementary Table 4 ).

      In Monte Carlo simulations of the land cost for Conservation Imperatives, we found that the total cost of the Conservation Imperatives in the tropics is US$169 billion, with a 90% probability between US$146 and US$228 billion ( Presentation 1 : Supplementary Figure 2 ). Much of this uncertainty appeared to come from variations in the size and type (purchases and leases) of land acquisitions. Land acquisition was least expensive in Australasia and most expensive in the Indomalayan realm but somewhat similar in the other realms ( Table 7 , Presentation 1 : Supplementary Figure 2B ). The Afrotropic, Indomalayan, and Neotropic realms showed the largest variation in predicted total cost, which appeared to arise from larger cost differences between lease arrangements and purchases and the number of sites that were either leased or purchased in each simulation ( Presentation 1 : Supplementary Figure 2 ). Land costs for the top 10 ecoregions—ranked by number of species rarity sites—from each of the four major tropical realms would be US$59.4 billion (90% probability of US$29–US$108 billion), safeguarding 63% of all sites ( Figure 4 ; Table 5 ). To cover Conservation Imperatives at all latitudes, the total cost increases to US$263 billion (90% probability of US$204–US$339 billion).

      Predicted cost per km2 and total purchase cost for securing Conservation Imperatives (2023) within tropical latitudes by realm.

      Realm Mean cost/km2 (US$) Mean acquisition size (km2) Mean total cost (billions US$) 90% probability (billions US$)
      Afrotropic 32,548 21,811 38.53 24.39–59.70
      Australasia 5,800 131,750 1.59 1.19–2.11
      Indomalayan 361,840 1,840 90.39 72.36–112.49
      Nearctic 29,545 14,911 0.14 0.08–0.22
      Neotropic 75,010 11,025 28.39 23.84–34.02
      Palearctic 61,082 7,441 9.50 3.58–19.70

      All costs are in 2023 US$. The mean total cost and 90% probability intervals are reported in billions of dollars.

      Adjacency analysis

      Adjacency analysis of Conservation Imperative sites relative to existing protected areas revealed that 38% (SD = 36.01) of the 16,825 sites either bordered or were within 2.5 km of a nearby existing protected area ( Table 6 ). The five countries with the most Conservation Imperatives had at least 20% adjacency to existing protected areas ( Presentation 1 : Supplementary Figure 3 ). Colombia ranked highest among the top 30 countries with 56% of all Conservation Imperatives bordering protected areas.

      Discussion Key findings

      Five key insights emerging from this study highlight the need to prioritize the conservation of rare and threatened species and their habitats as an urgent near-term target within a larger global biodiversity strategy: i) Conservation Imperatives identified in this study represent a mere 1.2% of the Earth’s terrestrial surface (0.74% in the tropical belt); ii) Conservation Imperatives were underrepresented in the creation of new protected areas over the last 5 years, indicating that a focus on species rarity is necessary; iii) if new protected areas created from 2018 to 2023 had been more strategically located to cover polygons identified as Conservation Imperatives, 73% of them could have been protected; iv) the bulk of the world’s rare and endangered species could be represented in protected areas for approximately US$25 billion/year for 5 years, and for only US$5 billion/year for 5 years in the Neotropics, where ecoregions contain the largest number of Conservation Imperatives; and v) the proximity of 38% of the 16,825 Conservation Imperatives to existing protected areas could greatly reduce barriers to protection and the costs of subsequent management of these areas while enhancing connectivity and augmenting climate adaptation strategies.

      Preventing extinction is an unfulfilled conservation mandate

      These insights raise a strategic question: Why have sites harboring rarity and impending global extinction been overlooked? Numerous studies have shown that stabilizing the Earth’s climate and reversing biodiversity loss are interdependent goals (4, 27, 28). Efforts and investments to address the climate crisis have overshadowed the attention governments and intergovernmental processes have paid to the biodiversity crisis. The recent Biodiversity COP held in Montreal, Canada in December 2022 (1) was an important milestone that helped spur more urgent and ambitious efforts to protect biodiversity. The COP also linked nature conservation with climate interventions that maintain the Earth’s forest cover and carbon sinks, sometimes referred to as nature-based climate solutions (29). Major investments to prevent forest conversion in carbon-rich regions, such as the Amazon Basin, the Congo Basin, and boreal regions, are essential and must be afforded a high priority as some of the last remaining wilderness areas. However, a focus on unprotected rare species areas is needed as the world sets about to expand the protected area network from 17% today to 30% or more by 2030.

      Our results corroborate observations that conservation efforts are failing to target regions rich in rare species (30). Only 7% of the 1.2 million km2 added to the global protected area estate over the past 5 years covered unprotected species rarity sites. These included protected areas that had been established prior but had only recently been recorded in the WDPA—the actual expansion of protection during this period could be even smaller. Several analyses point to a pattern where the addition of new protected areas to the global coverage is largely attributable to areas characterized by low agricultural productivity (31) and has had limited success in protecting threatened species (32). Clearly, the combined efforts of international and local conservation NGOs, foundations, and government agencies to increase protected area coverage to avoid extinctions and extirpations of species need greater support. This analysis shows that this will not happen de facto even with 30x30 goals given the limited progress over the past 5 years.

      Of most concern is that only 2.4% of newly created protected areas added to the WDPA were in the tropical and subtropical moist forest biome, which contains by far the highest numbers of Conservation Imperatives. In contrast, 69% of protection occurred in the temperate broadleaf and mixed forests biome, 14% in the boreal forest/taiga biome, and 6% in the temperate conifer forest biome—none of which contain high numbers of Conservation Imperatives. As a result, a targeted effort is now required to secure the remaining fraction of rare unprotected species sites before more land conversion occurs and without leaving to chance the selection of new protected areas. Our results yield a surprisingly low number of Conservation Imperatives in the five ecoregion complexes that make up the endemism-rich Mediterranean scrub biome. This finding may be because this biome is one of the most heavily converted among the 14 terrestrial biomes and much of what remains is either protected or so degraded that the fractional land cover analysis inadvertently removed areas that are still viable.

      Preventing extinction is affordable and doable

      Using the Conservation Imperatives identified in this analysis, a starting strategy that targets the 10 ecoregions within each of the four tropical realms containing the highest number of sites could put 63% of all identified sites under conservation stewardship and represent 12 different biomes. With the geographic concentration of Conservation Imperative sites, this approach will retain representation across distinct biomes and realms (7, 33). The land value for those sites is estimated at US$59 billion (90% probability of US$29–US$108 billion). Focusing more narrowly on the 10 Neotropic ecoregions containing the largest number of Conservation Imperatives would reach 23% of all identified sites, involving a land acquisition cost of US$1.4 billion/year for 5 years in this realm. Several studies have suggested that up to US$224 billion per year for 10 years would be needed to protect nature globally (34). The Conservation Imperatives could help focus these investments in the next 5 years to protect sites where irreplaceable biodiversity is concentrated while allowing individual nation-states to formulate longer-term strategies to address fewer threatened taxa, habitats, and ecological processes.

      Factors affecting the cost of Conservation Imperatives

      While land purchase or leasing values provide a starting point for costs, a diversity of approaches will be needed to secure the protection of Conservation Imperatives. Whereas traditional land trust models focus on the purchase of land for private management, options such as community reserves, government re-designations, private sector commitments, and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) may be more effective, less costly, and more sustainable. Where national governments incorporate the creation of new protected areas into their sovereign biodiversity strategies as a unique contribution, the global cost of the initial protection of Conservation Imperatives will drop dramatically.

      Conservation Imperatives that are adjacent to or within 2.5 km of an existing reserve could be much cheaper to manage than isolated Conservation Imperatives. This would especially be true where entities or agencies responsible for protecting nearby reserves could extend management protocols to the adjacent Conservation Imperatives. Alternatively, where these adjacent lands constitute buffer areas or corridors, they could be managed as community reserves. Promoting this landscape approach to reserve management will help ensure these protected areas remain home to the rare and endangered species they protect, even in a rapidly changing world.

      As the best conservation strategy will depend on site conditions and land tenure, much of the work to secure Conservation Imperatives will depend on close collaboration with local groups, communities, and governments. For example, 17% of Conservation Imperatives are located within current and historical Indigenous lands (4). Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) have been among the most effective stewards of biodiversity, and recognition of land rights can play an outsized role in protecting people and biodiversity (4, 3537). Resource management by local communities can further secure the protection of millions of hectares of critical habitat within sustainable-use forest reserves, such as Amazonian floodplains (38), with the added bonus of raising thousands of local households above the poverty line (39). Where this strategy is appropriate, funding through conservation payments could provide a viable means to pay for site protection and restoration (40, 41).

      Finer scale assessment of Conservation Imperatives

      Conservation Imperatives can serve as a starting point to guide biodiversity protection commitments from the public and private sectors. Efforts are now underway to finance Conservation Imperatives in 5 of the top 10 countries ( Table 6 ) for sites deemed appropriate for land purchase through private philanthropy. By the end of 2024, similar initiatives could be underway in all of the top 30 countries. Many companies are now developing strategies to become “nature positive” by avoiding impacts on biodiversity-sensitive sites and increasing financial commitments to nature and biodiversity. Conservation Imperatives should be considered for such plans, and can guide the direction of globally flexible resources toward the highest priority targets. These discrete sites are measurable and relatively straightforward to monitor and thus could appeal to companies concerned about clearly defined nature-positive outcomes. Of course, in all cases, the local context must be assessed to ensure that conservation actions will be sustainable and support local and Indigenous communities where applicable.

      Conservation Imperatives can also act as “anchor points” or connectivity nodes in comprehensive conservation planning efforts. Multicriteria analysis and decision-making platforms can utilize Conservation Imperatives to optimize broader strategies for designing compact and connected protected area networks at the national, ecoregional, or subnational levels (42). Systematic conservation planning can also prove valuable, although these assessments must take into account natural, financial, social, human, and institutional factors that are best assessed and finer spatial scales (8). Existing planning tools such as Marxan (9) and new tools allowing dynamic conservation planning from automated satellite-based habitat monitoring (43) could underpin these regional assessments.

      One of the most critical aspects of these fine-scale assessments is determining the viability of sites. A number of Conservation Imperatives that are not adjacent to existing protected areas are small fragments. The long-term viability of these sites and the endangered populations they contain must be subjected to feasibility analyses, such as those conducted recently for a subset of mammal species (10). These in-depth analyses can also better assess the dynamic nature of threats, model the effects of climate change, and incorporate other features.

      Efforts to reach the 30×30 goal will incur long-term costs for protection and restoration. As assessments of Conservation Imperatives move to the country, ecoregional, or landscape scales, the work of local teams of scientists and planners to identify critical areas for restoration and tap into these resources could help safeguard many threatened Conservation Imperatives. Such funding is typically earmarked for restoring lands by allowing for natural regeneration or targeted re-planting (preferably with native species) and is not applicable to land purchase. However, time frames for restoration of degraded habitats can be on the order of 5–20 years or more. A central point of our paper is that the Conservation Imperatives require protection within the next 5 years. This urgency is underlined by two levels of extinction crisis documented by conservation biologists: the accelerated rates of species extinction compared to the historical background rate (32, 44) and the extinction of small populations (45). So, these conservation targets—safeguarding the last populations of rare and endangered species and the protection and restoration of habitats—exist on different timelines.

      Gaps in our approach

      The largest gap in our approach occurs where adding new parcels alone will not achieve the desired outcome of avoiding extinctions. The best examples of this problem are where exotic invasive species are introduced into tropical archipelagos and where poaching of endangered species, particularly keystone species, remains unchecked. In the first instance, simply setting aside land will not guarantee a future for island endemics that have evolved in the absence of exotic invasive herbivores, omnivores, and carnivores, invasive plants, or new diseases. Even those archipelagos that contain formally protected areas are subjected to these threats. Here, targeted eradication and control campaigns are the primary approaches to prevent extinctions, and funding is desperately needed to conserve the large number of tropical flora and fauna on remote islands facing these threats. In the second instance, excessive hunting and poaching of large mammal species could remove critical species whose presence or abundance is essential to maintain critical ecological function. New technologies are emerging to assist those charged with protecting endangered populations and should be part of this global funding effort to avoid extinctions (46).

      Conclusion

      Conservation Imperatives can contribute to a science-based priority-setting strategy for expanding the global protected area network to at least 30% by 2030, which is in line with ambitious targets outlined in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Area-based conservation targets have moved to the forefront of conservation, and we welcome this approach. Embedded in the area-based approach, however, should be the commitment to protecting irreplaceable sites harboring rare and endangered biodiversity as we strive towards 30×30. Conservation Imperatives occupy only a small portion of the emerging global conservation portfolio but offer high-quality opportunities to protect the diversity of life on Earth.

      Supplementary material

      The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: /articles/10.3389/fsci.2024.1349350/full#supplementary-material. See Appendix for additional details.

      Acknowledgments

      This paper is dedicated to a visionary in biodiversity conservation, Dr. Thomas Lovejoy: a friend of wild nature, colleague, mentor, and inspiration to us all. We would like to thank R. Naidoo, S. Butchart, and S. Pimm for their helpful comments on the manuscript. We thank N. D. Burgess and A. Arnell at UNEP-WCMC for providing support and verification of the use of the World Database on Protected Area data in the analysis and for valuable editorial comments. A pre-print version of this manuscript was submitted to Preprints.org, and the most recent version is available online at https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202309.1827/v2 (47).

      Author contributions

      ED: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Validation. AJ: Investigation, Methodology, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis. NH: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software, Validation, Visualization. AL: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Project administration, Validation, Visualization. CVy: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Validation. KB: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Supervision, Validation. GA: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Software. CB: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Resources. GC: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. RC: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Resources. RD: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. OF: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. SH: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Funding acquisition. BL: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. HM: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. FP: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Visualization. DO: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. BP: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. CP: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. RP: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AR: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. CVe: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Resources. EW: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AZ: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

      Data availability statement

      The datasets presented in this study can be found in online repositories. The names of the repository/repositories and accession number(s) can be found in the article/ Supplementary Material . Shape files of Conservation Imperative sites are not publicly available due to restrictions of the original data layers from which they are derived. Land price data is not publicly available due to privacy restrictions from the data owners and the sites that were funded.

      Funding

      The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This work was supported by a grant from the non‐profit organization One Earth (https://www.oneearth.org).

      Conflict of interest

      Authors AR and AZ are employed by the company Planet Labs PBC. The company was not involved in the study design, collection, analysis, interpretation of data, the writing of this article, or the decision to submit it for publication.

      This study received funding from the non‐profit organization One Earth (https://www.oneearth.org), which KB and SH are employed by. KB was responsible for manuscript writing and reviewing, study conceptualization, funding acquisition, supervision, and validation. SH was responsible for manuscript writing and reviewing, and funding acquisition.

      The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

      The handling editor HP declared a past collaboration with the author KB. The reviewer JK declared a shared research project Global Renewables Watch with the author AZ to the handling editor, and declared a collaboration with the author KB which started after peer review of the present manuscript.

      The author BL declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.

      Publisher’s note

      All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

      Author disclaimer

      The findings and perspectives in this paper do not necessarily reflect the position of Planet Labs PBC.

      References Convention on Biological Diversity . COP15: nations adopt four goals 23 targets for 2030 in landmark UN biodiversity agreement (2022). Available at: https://www.cbd.int/article/cop15-cbd-press-release-final-19dec2022. Locke H . Nature needs (at least) half: a necessary new agenda for protected areas. In: Wuerthner G Crist E Butler T eds. Protecting the Wild: Parks and Wilderness, the Foundation for Conservation. Washington, DC: Island Press. p. 3–15. doi: 10.5822/978-1-61091-551-9_1 Pimm SL Jenkins CN Li BV . How to protect half of Earth to ensure it protects sufficient biodiversity. Sci Adv (2018) 4(8):eaat2616. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aat2616 Dinerstein E Joshi AR Vynne C Lee ATL Pharand-Deschênes F França M . A “Global Safety Net” to reverse biodiversity loss and stabilize Earth’s climate. Sci Adv (2020) 6(36):eabb2824. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abb2824 International Union for Conservation of Nature World Conservation Congress . “101 - Setting area-based conservation targets based on evidence of what nature and people need to thrive.” IUCN World Conservation Congress Marseille (2021). Available at: https://www.iucncongress2020.org/motion/101. Kuempel CD Chauvenet ALM Possingham HP . Equitable representation of ecoregions is slowly improving despite strategic planning shortfalls. Conserv Lett (2016) 9(6):422–8. doi: 10.1111/conl.12298 Margules CR Pressey RL . Systematic conservation planning. Nature (2000) 405(6783):243–53. doi: 10.1038/35012251 Bottrill MC Pressey RL . The effectiveness and evaluation of conservation planning. Conserv Lett (2012) 5(6):407–20. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00268.x Watts ME Stewart RR Martin TG Klein CJ Carwardine J Possingham HP . Systematic conservation planning with Marxan. In: Learn Landsc Ecol Pract Guid Concepts Tech (2017). p. 211–27. Wolff NH Visconti P Kujala H Santini L Hilbers JP Possingham HP . Prioritizing global land protection for population persistence can double the efficiency of habitat protection for reducing mammal extinction risk. One Earth (2023) 6(11):1564–75. doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2023.10.001 United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre and International Union for Conservation of Nature . Protected planet: the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) and world database on other effective area-based conservation measures (WD-OECM) (2023). Available at: www.protectedplanet.net. Buchhorn M Smets B Bertels L De Roo B Lesiv M Tsendbazar N-E . Copernicus global land service: land cover 100m: collection 3: epoch 2019: Globe. Version V3. 0.1. (2020). doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3939038. Gorelick N Hancher M Dixon M Ilyushchenko S Thau D Moore R . Google Earth Engine: planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone. Remote Sens Environ (2017) 202:1827. doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2017.06.031 Brooks TM Pimm SL Akçakaya HR Buchanan GM Butchart SHM Foden W . Measuring terrestrial area of habitat (AOH) and its utility for the IUCN Red List. Trends Ecol Evol (2019) 34(11):977–86. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2019.06.009 Dinerstein E Olson D Joshi A Vynne C Burgess ND Wikramanayake E . An ecoregion-based approach to protecting half the terrestrial realm. BioScience (2017) 67(6):534–45. doi: 10.1093/biosci/bix014 Beier P . A rule of thumb for widths of conservation corridors. Conserv Biol (2019) 33(4):976–8. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13256 Naidoo R Iwamura T . Global-scale mapping of economic benefits from agricultural lands: implications for conservation priorities. Biol Conserv (2007) 140(1–2):40–9. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2007.07.025 Strassburg BBN Iribarrem A Beyer HL Cordeiro CL Crouzeilles R Jakovac CC . Global priority areas for ecosystem restoration. Nature (2020) 586(7831):724–9. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2784-9 Coomes OT MacDonald GK de Waroux YP . Geospatial land price data: A public good for global change science and policy. BioScience (2018) 68(7):481–4. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biy047 White TB Petrovan SO Christie AP Martin PA Sutherland WJ . What is the price of conservation? A review of the status quo and recommendations for improving cost reporting. BioScience (2022) 72(5):461–71. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biac007 Quick Response Fund for Nature (n.d.). Available at: www.quickrespondfund.org. Tulloch VJD Atkinson S Possingham HP Peterson N Linke S Allan JR . Minimizing cross-realm threats from land-use change: a national-scale conservation framework connecting land, freshwater and marine systems. Biol Conserv (2021) 254:108954. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2021.108954 World Bank . World databank. World Development Indicators (2022). Available at: https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators. Burnham KP Anderson DR . Multimodel inference: understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociol Methods Res (2004) 33(2):261304. doi: 10.1177/0049124104268644 Dormann CF Elith J Bacher S Buchmann C Carl G Carré G . Collinearity: a review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. Ecography (2013) 36(1):2746. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2012.07348.x Mooney CZ . Monte Carlo Simulation. USA: Sage Publications Inc (1997). doi: 10.4135/9781412985116 Arneth A Shin Y-J Leadley P Rondinini C Bukvareva E Kolb M . Post-2020 biodiversity targets need to embrace climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2020) 117(49):30882–91. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2009584117 Shin YJ Midgley GF Archer ERM Arneth A Barnes DKA Chan L . Actions to halt biodiversity loss generally benefit the climate. Glob Chang Biol (2022) 28(9):2846–74. doi: 10.1111/gcb.16109 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources . Global standard for nature-based solutions. A user-friendly framework for the verification, design and scaling up of NbS. Switzerland: Gland (2020). Maxwell SL Cazalis V Dudley N Hoffman M Rodrigues ASL Stolton S . Area-based conservation in the twenty-first century. Nature (2020) 586:217–27. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2773-z Venter O Magrach A Outram N Klein CJ Possingham HP Di Marco M . Bias in protected-area location and its effects on long-term aspirations of biodiversity conventions. Conserv Biol (2018) 32(1):127–34. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12970 Pimm SL Jenkins CN Abell R Brooks TM Gittleman JL Joppa LN . The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science (2014) 344(6187):1246752. doi: 10.1126/science.1246752 Pressey RL Cabeza M Watts ME Cowling RM Wilson KA . Conservation planning in a changing world. Trends Ecol Evol (2007) 22(11):583–92. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2007.10.001 Waldron A Adams V Allan J Arnell A Asner G Atkinson S . Protecting 30% of the planet for nature: costs, benefits and economic implications. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (2020). Available at: https://www.conservation.cam.ac.uk/files/waldron_report_30_by_30_publish.pdf. doi: 10.17863/CAM.56764 Ban NC Frid A Reid M Edgar B Shaw D Siwallace P . Incorporate Indigenous perspectives for impactful research and effective management. Nat Ecol Evol (2018) 2(11):1680–3. doi: 10.1038/s41559-018-0706-0 Dawson NM Coolsaet B Sterling EJ Loveridge R Gross-Camp ND Wongbusarakum S . The role of Indigenous peoples and local communities in effective and equitable conservation. E&S (2021) 26(3):19. doi: 10.5751/ES-12625-260319 Prioli Duarte DP Peres CA Perdomo EFC Guizar-Coutiño A Nelson BW . Reducing natural vegetation loss in Amazonia critically depends on the formal recognition of indigenous lands. Biol Conserv (2023) 279:109936. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2023.109936 Campos-Silva JV Peres CA . Community-based management induces rapid recovery of a high-value tropical freshwater fishery. Sci Rep (2016) 6:34745. doi: 10.1038/srep34745 Campos-Silva JV Peres CA Hawes JE Haugaasen T Freitas CT Ladle RJ . Sustainable-use protected areas catalyze enhanced livelihoods in rural Amazonia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2021) 118(40):e2105480118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2105480118 Börner J Wunder S Wertz-Kanounnikoff S Tito MR Pereira L Nascimento N . Direct conservation payments in the Brazilian Amazon: scope and equity implications. Ecol Econ (2010) 69(6):1272–82. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.003 Zander KK Garnett ST . The economic value of environmental services on indigenous-held lands in Australia. PloS One (2011) 6(8):e23154. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0023154 Zhang R Lu Y Adams K Sefair JA Mellin H Acevedo MA . A visual analytics framework for conservation planning optimization. Environ Modell Softw (2021) 145:105178. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2021.105178 Shirk AJ Jones GM Yang Z Davis RJ Ganey JL Gutiérrez RJ . Automated habitat monitoring systems linked to adaptive management: a new paradigm for species conservation in an era of rapid environmental change. Landsc Ecol (2023) 38(1):722. doi: 10.1007/s10980-022-01457-1 Ceballos G Ehrlich PR Barnosky AD García A Pringle RM Palmer TM . Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: entering the sixth mass extinction. Sci Adv (2015) 1(5):e1400253. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1400253 Ceballos G Ehrlich PR Dirzo R . Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2017) 114(30):E6089–96. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1704949114 Dertien JS Negi H Dinerstein E Krishnamurthy R Negi HS Gopal R . Mitigating human–wildlife conflict and monitoring endangered tigers using a real-time camera-based alert system. BioScience (2023) 73(10):748–57. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biad076 Dinerstein E Joshi AR Hahn NR Lee ATL Vynne C Burkart K . Conservation Imperatives: securing the last unprotected terrestrial sites harboring irreplaceable biodiversity. [Preprint] (2023). doi: 10.20944/preprints202309.1827.v2 Appendix

      See Supplementary Material ( Presentation 1 ) for information on the creation of the species rarity layer (2018), caveats and sources of error of the fractional analysis and cost assessment, and supplementary tables and figures:

      SM Table 1. The six biodiversity datasets comprising the species rarity layer and their 923 terrestrial areas.

      SM Table 2. Distribution of Conservation Imperative sites by ecoregion. (See Supplementary Spreadsheet.)

      SM Table 3. Distribution of Conservation Imperative sites by administration. (See Supplementary Spreadsheet.)

      SM Table 4. Model selection table with AIC and R2 values.

      SM Table 5. Model estimates for the top candidate model using realm purchase size, purchase type per capita GDP, and population size.

      SM Figure 1. Locations of project cost data.

      SM Figure 2. Probability distributions for the predicted mean cost per hectare and total land costs.

      SM Figure 3. Maps of Conservation Imperatives in A) the Philippines, B) Brazil, C) Indonesia, D) Madagascar, and E) Colombia.

      SM File. R Code for land cost model fitting and simulation.

      ‘Oh, my dear Thomas, you haven’t heard the terrible news then?’ she said. ‘I thought you would be sure to have seen it placarded somewhere. Alice went straight to her room, and I haven’t seen her since, though I repeatedly knocked at the door, which she has locked on the inside, and I’m sure it’s most unnatural of her not to let her own mother comfort her. It all happened in a moment: I have always said those great motor-cars shouldn’t be allowed to career about the streets, especially when they are all paved with cobbles as they are at Easton Haven, which are{331} so slippery when it’s wet. He slipped, and it went over him in a moment.’ My thanks were few and awkward, for there still hung to the missive a basting thread, and it was as warm as a nestling bird. I bent low--everybody was emotional in those days--kissed the fragrant thing, thrust it into my bosom, and blushed worse than Camille. "What, the Corner House victim? Is that really a fact?" "My dear child, I don't look upon it in that light at all. The child gave our picturesque friend a certain distinction--'My husband is dead, and this is my only child,' and all that sort of thing. It pays in society." leave them on the steps of a foundling asylum in order to insure [See larger version] Interoffice guff says you're planning definite moves on your own, J. O., and against some opposition. Is the Colonel so poor or so grasping—or what? Albert could not speak, for he felt as if his brains and teeth were rattling about inside his head. The rest of[Pg 188] the family hunched together by the door, the boys gaping idiotically, the girls in tears. "Now you're married." The host was called in, and unlocked a drawer in which they were deposited. The galleyman, with visible reluctance, arrayed himself in the garments, and he was observed to shudder more than once during the investiture of the dead man's apparel. HoME香京julia种子在线播放 ENTER NUMBET 0016www.ielrtn.com.cn
      www.lnsncp.com.cn
      www.foncti.org.cn
      ihaitou.com.cn
      imlark.com.cn
      www.qynye.com.cn
      www.tmoqcw.com.cn
      smartro.com.cn
      wdclqz.org.cn
      www.nvjiao.com.cn
      处女被大鸡巴操 强奸乱伦小说图片 俄罗斯美女爱爱图 调教强奸学生 亚洲女的穴 夜来香图片大全 美女性强奸电影 手机版色中阁 男性人体艺术素描图 16p成人 欧美性爱360 电影区 亚洲电影 欧美电影 经典三级 偷拍自拍 动漫电影 乱伦电影 变态另类 全部电 类似狠狠鲁的网站 黑吊操白逼图片 韩国黄片种子下载 操逼逼逼逼逼 人妻 小说 p 偷拍10幼女自慰 极品淫水很多 黄色做i爱 日本女人人体电影快播看 大福国小 我爱肏屄美女 mmcrwcom 欧美多人性交图片 肥臀乱伦老头舔阴帝 d09a4343000019c5 西欧人体艺术b xxoo激情短片 未成年人的 插泰国人夭图片 第770弾み1 24p 日本美女性 交动态 eee色播 yantasythunder 操无毛少女屄 亚洲图片你懂的女人 鸡巴插姨娘 特级黄 色大片播 左耳影音先锋 冢本友希全集 日本人体艺术绿色 我爱被舔逼 内射 幼 美阴图 喷水妹子高潮迭起 和后妈 操逼 美女吞鸡巴 鸭个自慰 中国女裸名单 操逼肥臀出水换妻 色站裸体义术 中国行上的漏毛美女叫什么 亚洲妹性交图 欧美美女人裸体人艺照 成人色妹妹直播 WWW_JXCT_COM r日本女人性淫乱 大胆人艺体艺图片 女同接吻av 碰碰哥免费自拍打炮 艳舞写真duppid1 88电影街拍视频 日本自拍做爱qvod 实拍美女性爱组图 少女高清av 浙江真实乱伦迅雷 台湾luanlunxiaoshuo 洛克王国宠物排行榜 皇瑟电影yy频道大全 红孩儿连连看 阴毛摄影 大胆美女写真人体艺术摄影 和风骚三个媳妇在家做爱 性爱办公室高清 18p2p木耳 大波撸影音 大鸡巴插嫩穴小说 一剧不超两个黑人 阿姨诱惑我快播 幼香阁千叶县小学生 少女妇女被狗强奸 曰人体妹妹 十二岁性感幼女 超级乱伦qvod 97爱蜜桃ccc336 日本淫妇阴液 av海量资源999 凤凰影视成仁 辰溪四中艳照门照片 先锋模特裸体展示影片 成人片免费看 自拍百度云 肥白老妇女 女爱人体图片 妈妈一女穴 星野美夏 日本少女dachidu 妹子私处人体图片 yinmindahuitang 舔无毛逼影片快播 田莹疑的裸体照片 三级电影影音先锋02222 妻子被外国老头操 观月雏乃泥鳅 韩国成人偷拍自拍图片 强奸5一9岁幼女小说 汤姆影院av图片 妹妹人艺体图 美女大驱 和女友做爱图片自拍p 绫川まどか在线先锋 那么嫩的逼很少见了 小女孩做爱 处女好逼连连看图图 性感美女在家做爱 近距离抽插骚逼逼 黑屌肏金毛屄 日韩av美少女 看喝尿尿小姐日逼色色色网图片 欧美肛交新视频 美女吃逼逼 av30线上免费 伊人在线三级经典 新视觉影院t6090影院 最新淫色电影网址 天龙影院远古手机版 搞老太影院 插进美女的大屁股里 私人影院加盟费用 www258dd 求一部电影里面有一个二猛哥 深肛交 日本萌妹子人体艺术写真图片 插入屄眼 美女的木奶 中文字幕黄色网址影视先锋 九号女神裸 和骚人妻偷情 和潘晓婷做爱 国模大尺度蜜桃 欧美大逼50p 西西人体成人 李宗瑞继母做爱原图物处理 nianhuawang 男鸡巴的视屏 � 97免费色伦电影 好色网成人 大姨子先锋 淫荡巨乳美女教师妈妈 性nuexiaoshuo WWW36YYYCOM 长春继续给力进屋就操小女儿套干破内射对白淫荡 农夫激情社区 日韩无码bt 欧美美女手掰嫩穴图片 日本援交偷拍自拍 入侵者日本在线播放 亚洲白虎偷拍自拍 常州高见泽日屄 寂寞少妇自卫视频 人体露逼图片 多毛外国老太 变态乱轮手机在线 淫荡妈妈和儿子操逼 伦理片大奶少女 看片神器最新登入地址sqvheqi345com账号群 麻美学姐无头 圣诞老人射小妞和强奸小妞动话片 亚洲AV女老师 先锋影音欧美成人资源 33344iucoom zV天堂电影网 宾馆美女打炮视频 色五月丁香五月magnet 嫂子淫乱小说 张歆艺的老公 吃奶男人视频在线播放 欧美色图男女乱伦 avtt2014ccvom 性插色欲香影院 青青草撸死你青青草 99热久久第一时间 激情套图卡通动漫 幼女裸聊做爱口交 日本女人被强奸乱伦 草榴社区快播 2kkk正在播放兽骑 啊不要人家小穴都湿了 www猎奇影视 A片www245vvcomwwwchnrwhmhzcn 搜索宜春院av wwwsee78co 逼奶鸡巴插 好吊日AV在线视频19gancom 熟女伦乱图片小说 日本免费av无码片在线开苞 鲁大妈撸到爆 裸聊官网 德国熟女xxx 新不夜城论坛首页手机 女虐男网址 男女做爱视频华为网盘 激情午夜天亚洲色图 内裤哥mangent 吉沢明歩制服丝袜WWWHHH710COM 屌逼在线试看 人体艺体阿娇艳照 推荐一个可以免费看片的网站如果被QQ拦截请复制链接在其它浏览器打开xxxyyy5comintr2a2cb551573a2b2e 欧美360精品粉红鲍鱼 教师调教第一页 聚美屋精品图 中韩淫乱群交 俄罗斯撸撸片 把鸡巴插进小姨子的阴道 干干AV成人网 aolasoohpnbcn www84ytom 高清大量潮喷www27dyycom 宝贝开心成人 freefronvideos人母 嫩穴成人网gggg29com 逼着舅妈给我口交肛交彩漫画 欧美色色aV88wwwgangguanscom 老太太操逼自拍视频 777亚洲手机在线播放 有没有夫妻3p小说 色列漫画淫女 午间色站导航 欧美成人处女色大图 童颜巨乳亚洲综合 桃色性欲草 色眯眯射逼 无码中文字幕塞外青楼这是一个 狂日美女老师人妻 爱碰网官网 亚洲图片雅蠛蝶 快播35怎么搜片 2000XXXX电影 新谷露性家庭影院 深深候dvd播放 幼齿用英语怎么说 不雅伦理无需播放器 国外淫荡图片 国外网站幼幼嫩网址 成年人就去色色视频快播 我鲁日日鲁老老老我爱 caoshaonvbi 人体艺术avav 性感性色导航 韩国黄色哥来嫖网站 成人网站美逼 淫荡熟妇自拍 欧美色惰图片 北京空姐透明照 狼堡免费av视频 www776eom 亚洲无码av欧美天堂网男人天堂 欧美激情爆操 a片kk266co 色尼姑成人极速在线视频 国语家庭系列 蒋雯雯 越南伦理 色CC伦理影院手机版 99jbbcom 大鸡巴舅妈 国产偷拍自拍淫荡对话视频 少妇春梦射精 开心激动网 自拍偷牌成人 色桃隐 撸狗网性交视频 淫荡的三位老师 伦理电影wwwqiuxia6commqiuxia6com 怡春院分站 丝袜超短裙露脸迅雷下载 色制服电影院 97超碰好吊色男人 yy6080理论在线宅男日韩福利大全 大嫂丝袜 500人群交手机在线 5sav 偷拍熟女吧 口述我和妹妹的欲望 50p电脑版 wwwavtttcon 3p3com 伦理无码片在线看 欧美成人电影图片岛国性爱伦理电影 先锋影音AV成人欧美 我爱好色 淫电影网 WWW19MMCOM 玛丽罗斯3d同人动画h在线看 动漫女孩裸体 超级丝袜美腿乱伦 1919gogo欣赏 大色逼淫色 www就是撸 激情文学网好骚 A级黄片免费 xedd5com 国内的b是黑的 快播美国成年人片黄 av高跟丝袜视频 上原保奈美巨乳女教师在线观看 校园春色都市激情fefegancom 偷窥自拍XXOO 搜索看马操美女 人本女优视频 日日吧淫淫 人妻巨乳影院 美国女子性爱学校 大肥屁股重口味 啪啪啪啊啊啊不要 操碰 japanfreevideoshome国产 亚州淫荡老熟女人体 伦奸毛片免费在线看 天天影视se 樱桃做爱视频 亚卅av在线视频 x奸小说下载 亚洲色图图片在线 217av天堂网 东方在线撸撸-百度 幼幼丝袜集 灰姑娘的姐姐 青青草在线视频观看对华 86papa路con 亚洲1AV 综合图片2区亚洲 美国美女大逼电影 010插插av成人网站 www色comwww821kxwcom 播乐子成人网免费视频在线观看 大炮撸在线影院 ,www4KkKcom 野花鲁最近30部 wwwCC213wapwww2233ww2download 三客优最新地址 母亲让儿子爽的无码视频 全国黄色片子 欧美色图美国十次 超碰在线直播 性感妖娆操 亚洲肉感熟女色图 a片A毛片管看视频 8vaa褋芯屑 333kk 川岛和津实视频 在线母子乱伦对白 妹妹肥逼五月 亚洲美女自拍 老婆在我面前小说 韩国空姐堪比情趣内衣 干小姐综合 淫妻色五月 添骚穴 WM62COM 23456影视播放器 成人午夜剧场 尼姑福利网 AV区亚洲AV欧美AV512qucomwwwc5508com 经典欧美骚妇 震动棒露出 日韩丝袜美臀巨乳在线 av无限吧看 就去干少妇 色艺无间正面是哪集 校园春色我和老师做爱 漫画夜色 天海丽白色吊带 黄色淫荡性虐小说 午夜高清播放器 文20岁女性荫道口图片 热国产热无码热有码 2015小明发布看看算你色 百度云播影视 美女肏屄屄乱轮小说 家族舔阴AV影片 邪恶在线av有码 父女之交 关于处女破处的三级片 极品护士91在线 欧美虐待女人视频的网站 享受老太太的丝袜 aaazhibuo 8dfvodcom成人 真实自拍足交 群交男女猛插逼 妓女爱爱动态 lin35com是什么网站 abp159 亚洲色图偷拍自拍乱伦熟女抠逼自慰 朝国三级篇 淫三国幻想 免费的av小电影网站 日本阿v视频免费按摩师 av750c0m 黄色片操一下 巨乳少女车震在线观看 操逼 免费 囗述情感一乱伦岳母和女婿 WWW_FAMITSU_COM 偷拍中国少妇在公车被操视频 花也真衣论理电影 大鸡鸡插p洞 新片欧美十八岁美少 进击的巨人神thunderftp 西方美女15p 深圳哪里易找到老女人玩视频 在线成人有声小说 365rrr 女尿图片 我和淫荡的小姨做爱 � 做爱技术体照 淫妇性爱 大学生私拍b 第四射狠狠射小说 色中色成人av社区 和小姨子乱伦肛交 wwwppp62com 俄罗斯巨乳人体艺术 骚逼阿娇 汤芳人体图片大胆 大胆人体艺术bb私处 性感大胸骚货 哪个网站幼女的片多 日本美女本子把 色 五月天 婷婷 快播 美女 美穴艺术 色百合电影导航 大鸡巴用力 孙悟空操美少女战士 狠狠撸美女手掰穴图片 古代女子与兽类交 沙耶香套图 激情成人网区 暴风影音av播放 动漫女孩怎么插第3个 mmmpp44 黑木麻衣无码ed2k 淫荡学姐少妇 乱伦操少女屄 高中性爱故事 骚妹妹爱爱图网 韩国模特剪长发 大鸡巴把我逼日了 中国张柏芝做爱片中国张柏芝做爱片中国张柏芝做爱片中国张柏芝做爱片中国张柏芝做爱片 大胆女人下体艺术图片 789sss 影音先锋在线国内情侣野外性事自拍普通话对白 群撸图库 闪现君打阿乐 ady 小说 插入表妹嫩穴小说 推荐成人资源 网络播放器 成人台 149大胆人体艺术 大屌图片 骚美女成人av 春暖花开春色性吧 女亭婷五月 我上了同桌的姐姐 恋夜秀场主播自慰视频 yzppp 屄茎 操屄女图 美女鲍鱼大特写 淫乱的日本人妻山口玲子 偷拍射精图 性感美女人体艺木图片 种马小说完本 免费电影院 骑士福利导航导航网站 骚老婆足交 国产性爱一级电影 欧美免费成人花花性都 欧美大肥妞性爱视频 家庭乱伦网站快播 偷拍自拍国产毛片 金发美女也用大吊来开包 缔D杏那 yentiyishu人体艺术ytys WWWUUKKMCOM 女人露奶 � 苍井空露逼 老荡妇高跟丝袜足交 偷偷和女友的朋友做爱迅雷 做爱七十二尺 朱丹人体合成 麻腾由纪妃 帅哥撸播种子图 鸡巴插逼动态图片 羙国十次啦中文 WWW137AVCOM 神斗片欧美版华语 有气质女人人休艺术 由美老师放屁电影 欧美女人肉肏图片 白虎种子快播 国产自拍90后女孩 美女在床上疯狂嫩b 饭岛爱最后之作 幼幼强奸摸奶 色97成人动漫 两性性爱打鸡巴插逼 新视觉影院4080青苹果影院 嗯好爽插死我了 阴口艺术照 李宗瑞电影qvod38 爆操舅母 亚洲色图七七影院 被大鸡巴操菊花 怡红院肿么了 成人极品影院删除 欧美性爱大图色图强奸乱 欧美女子与狗随便性交 苍井空的bt种子无码 熟女乱伦长篇小说 大色虫 兽交幼女影音先锋播放 44aad be0ca93900121f9b 先锋天耗ばさ无码 欧毛毛女三级黄色片图 干女人黑木耳照 日本美女少妇嫩逼人体艺术 sesechangchang 色屄屄网 久久撸app下载 色图色噜 美女鸡巴大奶 好吊日在线视频在线观看 透明丝袜脚偷拍自拍 中山怡红院菜单 wcwwwcom下载 骑嫂子 亚洲大色妣 成人故事365ahnet 丝袜家庭教mp4 幼交肛交 妹妹撸撸大妈 日本毛爽 caoprom超碰在email 关于中国古代偷窥的黄片 第一会所老熟女下载 wwwhuangsecome 狼人干综合新地址HD播放 变态儿子强奸乱伦图 强奸电影名字 2wwwer37com 日本毛片基地一亚洲AVmzddcxcn 暗黑圣经仙桃影院 37tpcocn 持月真由xfplay 好吊日在线视频三级网 我爱背入李丽珍 电影师傅床戏在线观看 96插妹妹sexsex88com 豪放家庭在线播放 桃花宝典极夜著豆瓜网 安卓系统播放神器 美美网丝袜诱惑 人人干全免费视频xulawyercn av无插件一本道 全国色五月 操逼电影小说网 good在线wwwyuyuelvcom www18avmmd 撸波波影视无插件 伊人幼女成人电影 会看射的图片 小明插看看 全裸美女扒开粉嫩b 国人自拍性交网站 萝莉白丝足交本子 七草ちとせ巨乳视频 摇摇晃晃的成人电影 兰桂坊成社人区小说www68kqcom 舔阴论坛 久撸客一撸客色国内外成人激情在线 明星门 欧美大胆嫩肉穴爽大片 www牛逼插 性吧星云 少妇性奴的屁眼 人体艺术大胆mscbaidu1imgcn 最新久久色色成人版 l女同在线 小泽玛利亚高潮图片搜索 女性裸b图 肛交bt种子 最热门有声小说 人间添春色 春色猜谜字 樱井莉亚钢管舞视频 小泽玛利亚直美6p 能用的h网 还能看的h网 bl动漫h网 开心五月激 东京热401 男色女色第四色酒色网 怎么下载黄色小说 黄色小说小栽 和谐图城 乐乐影院 色哥导航 特色导航 依依社区 爱窝窝在线 色狼谷成人 91porn 包要你射电影 色色3A丝袜 丝袜妹妹淫网 爱色导航(荐) 好男人激情影院 坏哥哥 第七色 色久久 人格分裂 急先锋 撸撸射中文网 第一会所综合社区 91影院老师机 东方成人激情 怼莪影院吹潮 老鸭窝伊人无码不卡无码一本道 av女柳晶电影 91天生爱风流作品 深爱激情小说私房婷婷网 擼奶av 567pao 里番3d一家人野外 上原在线电影 水岛津实透明丝袜 1314酒色 网旧网俺也去 0855影院 在线无码私人影院 搜索 国产自拍 神马dy888午夜伦理达达兔 农民工黄晓婷 日韩裸体黑丝御姐 屈臣氏的燕窝面膜怎么样つぼみ晶エリーの早漏チ○ポ强化合宿 老熟女人性视频 影音先锋 三上悠亚ol 妹妹影院福利片 hhhhhhhhsxo 午夜天堂热的国产 强奸剧场 全裸香蕉视频无码 亚欧伦理视频 秋霞为什么给封了 日本在线视频空天使 日韩成人aⅴ在线 日本日屌日屄导航视频 在线福利视频 日本推油无码av magnet 在线免费视频 樱井梨吮东 日本一本道在线无码DVD 日本性感诱惑美女做爱阴道流水视频 日本一级av 汤姆avtom在线视频 台湾佬中文娱乐线20 阿v播播下载 橙色影院 奴隶少女护士cg视频 汤姆在线影院无码 偷拍宾馆 业面紧急生级访问 色和尚有线 厕所偷拍一族 av女l 公交色狼优酷视频 裸体视频AV 人与兽肉肉网 董美香ol 花井美纱链接 magnet 西瓜影音 亚洲 自拍 日韩女优欧美激情偷拍自拍 亚洲成年人免费视频 荷兰免费成人电影 深喉呕吐XXⅩX 操石榴在线视频 天天色成人免费视频 314hu四虎 涩久免费视频在线观看 成人电影迅雷下载 能看见整个奶子的香蕉影院 水菜丽百度影音 gwaz079百度云 噜死你们资源站 主播走光视频合集迅雷下载 thumbzilla jappen 精品Av 古川伊织star598在线 假面女皇vip在线视频播放 国产自拍迷情校园 啪啪啪公寓漫画 日本阿AV 黄色手机电影 欧美在线Av影院 华裔电击女神91在线 亚洲欧美专区 1日本1000部免费视频 开放90后 波多野结衣 东方 影院av 页面升级紧急访问每天正常更新 4438Xchengeren 老炮色 a k福利电影 色欲影视色天天视频 高老庄aV 259LUXU-683 magnet 手机在线电影 国产区 欧美激情人人操网 国产 偷拍 直播 日韩 国内外激情在线视频网给 站长统计一本道人妻 光棍影院被封 紫竹铃取汁 ftp 狂插空姐嫩 xfplay 丈夫面前 穿靴子伪街 XXOO视频在线免费 大香蕉道久在线播放 电棒漏电嗨过头 充气娃能看下毛和洞吗 夫妻牲交 福利云点墦 yukun瑟妃 疯狂交换女友 国产自拍26页 腐女资源 百度云 日本DVD高清无码视频 偷拍,自拍AV伦理电影 A片小视频福利站。 大奶肥婆自拍偷拍图片 交配伊甸园 超碰在线视频自拍偷拍国产 小热巴91大神 rctd 045 类似于A片 超美大奶大学生美女直播被男友操 男友问 你的衣服怎么脱掉的 亚洲女与黑人群交视频一 在线黄涩 木内美保步兵番号 鸡巴插入欧美美女的b舒服 激情在线国产自拍日韩欧美 国语福利小视频在线观看 作爱小视颍 潮喷合集丝袜无码mp4 做爱的无码高清视频 牛牛精品 伊aⅤ在线观看 savk12 哥哥搞在线播放 在线电一本道影 一级谍片 250pp亚洲情艺中心,88 欧美一本道九色在线一 wwwseavbacom色av吧 cos美女在线 欧美17,18ⅹⅹⅹ视频 自拍嫩逼 小电影在线观看网站 筱田优 贼 水电工 5358x视频 日本69式视频有码 b雪福利导航 韩国女主播19tvclub在线 操逼清晰视频 丝袜美女国产视频网址导航 水菜丽颜射房间 台湾妹中文娱乐网 风吟岛视频 口交 伦理 日本熟妇色五十路免费视频 A级片互舔 川村真矢Av在线观看 亚洲日韩av 色和尚国产自拍 sea8 mp4 aV天堂2018手机在线 免费版国产偷拍a在线播放 狠狠 婷婷 丁香 小视频福利在线观看平台 思妍白衣小仙女被邻居强上 萝莉自拍有水 4484新视觉 永久发布页 977成人影视在线观看 小清新影院在线观 小鸟酱后丝后入百度云 旋风魅影四级 香蕉影院小黄片免费看 性爱直播磁力链接 小骚逼第一色影院 性交流的视频 小雪小视频bd 小视频TV禁看视频 迷奸AV在线看 nba直播 任你在干线 汤姆影院在线视频国产 624u在线播放 成人 一级a做爰片就在线看狐狸视频 小香蕉AV视频 www182、com 腿模简小育 学生做爱视频 秘密搜查官 快播 成人福利网午夜 一级黄色夫妻录像片 直接看的gav久久播放器 国产自拍400首页 sm老爹影院 谁知道隔壁老王网址在线 综合网 123西瓜影音 米奇丁香 人人澡人人漠大学生 色久悠 夜色视频你今天寂寞了吗? 菲菲影视城美国 被抄的影院 变态另类 欧美 成人 国产偷拍自拍在线小说 不用下载安装就能看的吃男人鸡巴视频 插屄视频 大贯杏里播放 wwwhhh50 233若菜奈央 伦理片天海翼秘密搜查官 大香蕉在线万色屋视频 那种漫画小说你懂的 祥仔电影合集一区 那里可以看澳门皇冠酒店a片 色自啪 亚洲aV电影天堂 谷露影院ar toupaizaixian sexbj。com 毕业生 zaixian mianfei 朝桐光视频 成人短视频在线直接观看 陈美霖 沈阳音乐学院 导航女 www26yjjcom 1大尺度视频 开平虐女视频 菅野雪松协和影视在线视频 华人play在线视频bbb 鸡吧操屄视频 多啪啪免费视频 悠草影院 金兰策划网 (969) 橘佑金短视频 国内一极刺激自拍片 日本制服番号大全magnet 成人动漫母系 电脑怎么清理内存 黄色福利1000 dy88午夜 偷拍中学生洗澡磁力链接 花椒相机福利美女视频 站长推荐磁力下载 mp4 三洞轮流插视频 玉兔miki热舞视频 夜生活小视频 爆乳人妖小视频 国内网红主播自拍福利迅雷下载 不用app的裸裸体美女操逼视频 变态SM影片在线观看 草溜影院元气吧 - 百度 - 百度 波推全套视频 国产双飞集合ftp 日本在线AV网 笔国毛片 神马影院女主播是我的邻居 影音资源 激情乱伦电影 799pao 亚洲第一色第一影院 av视频大香蕉 老梁故事汇希斯莱杰 水中人体磁力链接 下载 大香蕉黄片免费看 济南谭崔 避开屏蔽的岛a片 草破福利 要看大鸡巴操小骚逼的人的视频 黑丝少妇影音先锋 欧美巨乳熟女磁力链接 美国黄网站色大全 伦蕉在线久播 极品女厕沟 激情五月bd韩国电影 混血美女自摸和男友激情啪啪自拍诱人呻吟福利视频 人人摸人人妻做人人看 44kknn 娸娸原网 伊人欧美 恋夜影院视频列表安卓青青 57k影院 如果电话亭 avi 插爆骚女精品自拍 青青草在线免费视频1769TV 令人惹火的邻家美眉 影音先锋 真人妹子被捅动态图 男人女人做完爱视频15 表姐合租两人共处一室晚上她竟爬上了我的床 性爱教学视频 北条麻妃bd在线播放版 国产老师和师生 magnet wwwcctv1024 女神自慰 ftp 女同性恋做激情视频 欧美大胆露阴视频 欧美无码影视 好女色在线观看 后入肥臀18p 百度影视屏福利 厕所超碰视频 强奸mp magnet 欧美妹aⅴ免费线上看 2016年妞干网视频 5手机在线福利 超在线最视频 800av:cOm magnet 欧美性爱免播放器在线播放 91大款肥汤的性感美乳90后邻家美眉趴着窗台后入啪啪 秋霞日本毛片网站 cheng ren 在线视频 上原亚衣肛门无码解禁影音先锋 美脚家庭教师在线播放 尤酷伦理片 熟女性生活视频在线观看 欧美av在线播放喷潮 194avav 凤凰AV成人 - 百度 kbb9999 AV片AV在线AV无码 爱爱视频高清免费观看 黄色男女操b视频 观看 18AV清纯视频在线播放平台 成人性爱视频久久操 女性真人生殖系统双性人视频 下身插入b射精视频 明星潜规测视频 mp4 免賛a片直播绪 国内 自己 偷拍 在线 国内真实偷拍 手机在线 国产主播户外勾在线 三桥杏奈高清无码迅雷下载 2五福电影院凸凹频频 男主拿鱼打女主,高宝宝 色哥午夜影院 川村まや痴汉 草溜影院费全过程免费 淫小弟影院在线视频 laohantuiche 啪啪啪喷潮XXOO视频 青娱乐成人国产 蓝沢润 一本道 亚洲青涩中文欧美 神马影院线理论 米娅卡莉法的av 在线福利65535 欧美粉色在线 欧美性受群交视频1在线播放 极品喷奶熟妇在线播放 变态另类无码福利影院92 天津小姐被偷拍 磁力下载 台湾三级电髟全部 丝袜美腿偷拍自拍 偷拍女生性行为图 妻子的乱伦 白虎少妇 肏婶骚屄 外国大妈会阴照片 美少女操屄图片 妹妹自慰11p 操老熟女的b 361美女人体 360电影院樱桃 爱色妹妹亚洲色图 性交卖淫姿势高清图片一级 欧美一黑对二白 大色网无毛一线天 射小妹网站 寂寞穴 西西人体模特苍井空 操的大白逼吧 骚穴让我操 拉好友干女朋友3p