ORCID Profile
0000-0001-9940-8767
Current Organisation
University of Queensland
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 09-2020
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 11-2021
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 19-11-2022
DOI: 10.1111/CSP2.12806
Abstract: Mining companies increasingly commit to a net positive impact on bio ersity. However, assessing the industry's progress toward achieving this goal is limited by knowledge of current mining threats to bio ersity and the relevant opportunities available for them to improve conservation outcomes. Here, we investigate the global exposure of terrestrial mammal habitat to mining activities, revealing the 136 species with % of their habitat within 10 km of a mining property or exploration site. One third ( n = 42) of these species are already threatened with extinction according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), suggesting projected increased demand for minerals may push some species beyond critical thresholds. Moreover, 28% ( n = 33) of species are Data Deficient, illustrating tangible ways for industry to fill current knowledge gaps. However, large discrepancies between our results and the species currently listed as threatened by mining in the IUCN Red List, suggest other species may be at risk and that conservation tools and analyses based on these data may underestimate the benefits of averting such threats. We recommend ways to better capture mining threats to species within IUCN Red List assessments and discuss how these changes could improve conservation outcomes in mineral‐rich areas.
Publisher: American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
Date: 08-11-2019
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 09-07-2023
DOI: 10.1111/DDI.13753
Abstract: Mining is increasingly pressuring areas of critical importance for bio ersity conservation, such as the Brazilian Amazon. Bio ersity data are limited in the tropics, restricting the scope for risks to be appropriately estimated before mineral licensing decisions are made. As the distributions and range sizes of other taxa differ markedly from those of vertebrates—the common proxy for analysis of risk to bio ersity from mining—whether mining threatens lesser‐studied taxonomic groups differentially at a regional scale is unclear. Brazilian Amazon. We assess risks to several facets of bio ersity from industrial mining by comparing mining areas (within 70 km of an active mining lease) and areas unaffected by mining, employing species richness, species endemism, phylogenetic ersity and phylogenetic endemism metrics calculated for angiosperms, arthropods and vertebrates. Mining areas contained higher densities of species occurrence records than the unaffected landscape, and we accounted for this s ling bias in our analyses. None of the four bio ersity metrics differed between mining and nonmining areas for vertebrates. For arthropods, species endemism was greater in mined areas. Mined areas also had greater angiosperm species richness, phylogenetic ersity and phylogenetic endemism, although less species endemism than unmined areas. Unlike for vertebrates, facets of angiosperm and arthropod ersity are relatively higher in areas of mining activity, underscoring the need to consider multiple taxonomic groups and bio ersity facets when assessing risk and evaluating management options for mining threats. Particularly concerning is the proximity of mining to areas supporting deep evolutionary history, which may be impossible to recover or replace. As pressures to expand mining in the Amazon grow, impact assessments with broader taxonomic reach and metric focus will be vital to conserving bio ersity in mining regions.
No related grants have been discovered for Tom Lloyd.