Samantha L. L. Hill
American Museum of Natural History
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Samantha L. L. Hill.
Nature | 2015
Tim Newbold; Lawrence N. Hudson; Samantha L. L. Hill; Sara Contu; Igor Lysenko; Rebecca A. Senior; Luca Börger; Dominic J. Bennett; Argyrios Choimes; Ben Collen; Julie Day; Adriana De Palma; Sandra Díaz; Susy Echeverría-Londoño; Melanie J Edgar; Anat Feldman; Morgan Garon; Michelle L. K. Harrison; Tamera I. Alhusseini; Daniel J. Ingram; Yuval Itescu; Jens Kattge; Victoria Kemp; Lucinda Kirkpatrick; Michael Kleyer; David Laginha Pinto Correia; Callum D. Martin; Shai Meiri; Yuan Pan; Helen Phillips
Human activities, especially conversion and degradation of habitats, are causing global biodiversity declines. How local ecological assemblages are responding is less clear—a concern given their importance for many ecosystem functions and services. We analysed a terrestrial assemblage database of unprecedented geographic and taxonomic coverage to quantify local biodiversity responses to land use and related changes. Here we show that in the worst-affected habitats, these pressures reduce within-sample species richness by an average of 76.5%, total abundance by 39.5% and rarefaction-based richness by 40.3%. We estimate that, globally, these pressures have already slightly reduced average within-sample richness (by 13.6%), total abundance (10.7%) and rarefaction-based richness (8.1%), with changes showing marked spatial variation. Rapid further losses are predicted under a business-as-usual land-use scenario; within-sample richness is projected to fall by a further 3.4% globally by 2100, with losses concentrated in biodiverse but economically poor countries. Strong mitigation can deliver much more positive biodiversity changes (up to a 1.9% average increase) that are less strongly related to countries socioeconomic status.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY B-BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES , 281 (1792) (2014) | 2014
Tim Newbold; Lawrence N. Hudson; Helen Phillips; Samantha L. L. Hill; Sara Contu; Igor Lysenko; A. Blandon; Stuart H. M. Butchart; Hollie Booth; Julie Day; A. De Palma; Michelle L. K. Harrison; L. Kirkpatrick; E. Pynegar; Alexandra Robinson; Jake Simpson; Georgina M. Mace; Jörn P. W. Scharlemann; Andy Purvis
Habitat loss and degradation, driven largely by agricultural expansion and intensification, present the greatest immediate threat to biodiversity. Tropical forests harbour among the highest levels of terrestrial species diversity and are likely to experience rapid land-use change in the coming decades. Synthetic analyses of observed responses of species are useful for quantifying how land use affects biodiversity and for predicting outcomes under land-use scenarios. Previous applications of this approach have typically focused on individual taxonomic groups, analysing the average response of the whole community to changes in land use. Here, we incorporate quantitative remotely sensed data about habitats in, to our knowledge, the first worldwide synthetic analysis of how individual species in four major taxonomic groups—invertebrates, ‘herptiles’ (reptiles and amphibians), mammals and birds—respond to multiple human pressures in tropical and sub-tropical forests. We show significant independent impacts of land use, human vegetation offtake, forest cover and human population density on both occurrence and abundance of species, highlighting the value of analysing multiple explanatory variables simultaneously. Responses differ among the four groups considered, and—within birds and mammals—between habitat specialists and habitat generalists and between narrow-ranged and wide-ranged species.
Nature Communications | 2016
Claudia L. Gray; Samantha L. L. Hill; Tim Newbold; Lawrence N. Hudson; Luca Börger; Sara Contu; Andrew J. Hoskins; Simon Ferrier; Andy Purvis; Jörn P. W. Scharlemann
Protected areas are widely considered essential for biodiversity conservation. However, few global studies have demonstrated that protection benefits a broad range of species. Here, using a new global biodiversity database with unprecedented geographic and taxonomic coverage, we compare four biodiversity measures at sites sampled in multiple land uses inside and outside protected areas. Globally, species richness is 10.6% higher and abundance 14.5% higher in samples taken inside protected areas compared with samples taken outside, but neither rarefaction-based richness nor endemicity differ significantly. Importantly, we show that the positive effects of protection are mostly attributable to differences in land use between protected and unprotected sites. Nonetheless, even within some human-dominated land uses, species richness and abundance are higher in protected sites. Our results reinforce the global importance of protected areas but suggest that protection does not consistently benefit species with small ranges or increase the variety of ecological niches.
bioRxiv | 2018
Samantha L. L. Hill; Ricardo Gonzalez; Katia Sanchez-Ortiz; Emma Caton; Felipe Espinoza; Tim Newbold; Jason M. Tylianakis; Jörn P. W. Scharlemann; Adriana De Palma; Andy Purvis
Although people have modified the world around us throughout human history, the ‘Great Acceleration’ has seen drivers such as land conversion, exploitation of natural populations, species introductions, pollution and human-induced climate change placing biodiversity under increasing pressure. In this paper we examine 1) how terrestrial species communities have been impacted over the last thousand years of human development and 2) how plausible futures defined by alternative socio-economic scenarios are expected to impact species communities in the future. We use the PREDICTS (Projecting Responses of Ecological Diversity In Changing Terrestrial Systems) database to model impacts of land-use change and human population on local species richness, community abundance, and biodiversity intactness using a mixed-effects modelling structure. Historical impacts are inferred through projection of model results onto maps of historical land use, provided by the land-use harmonization project, and gridded human population density (HYDE 3.1). Future impacts are explored using the Shared Socio-economic Pathway (SSP) scenarios. These scenarios detail five plausible global futures based upon socio-economic factors such as wealth, population, education, technology, and reliance on fossil fuels, and can be combined with Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) scenarios to consider climate mitigation strategies. We project model results onto the gridded outputs of six SSP/RCP scenario combinations: SSP1/RCP2.6, SSP2/RCP4.5, SSP3/RCP7.0, SSP4/RCP3.4, SSP4/RCP6.0, and SSP5/RCP8.5. Historical trend lines show that most losses in local biodiversity are relatively recent, with 75% of all loss in both abundance-based Biodiversity Intactness Index and species richness occurring post-1800. Stark regional differences emerge in all future scenarios, with biodiversity in African regions undergoing greater losses than Oceania, North America and the European regions. Although climate change is expected to have severe detrimental impacts to biodiversity – which are not quantified in these results – it is important to consider how the climate change mitigation itself may also impact biodiversity. Our results suggest that strong climate change mitigation through biofuel production will detrimentally impact biodiversity: SSP4/RCP3.4 (with high biofuel mitigation) is predicted to see two times the decrease in abundance-based biodiversity intactness and three times the decrease in local species richness between 2015–2100 as is predicted for SSP4/RCP6.0 (with lower levels of mitigation). SSP4/RCP3.4 forecasts the greatest impact to average local species richness of all the SSP/RCP combinations with an average loss of 13% of local species richness projected to have occurred by 2100. SSP3/RCP7.0 – a scenario describing a globally segregated, and economically protectionist future with low climate change mitigation – has the worst impacts on abundance-based biodiversity intactness with an average loss of 26% of intactness by 2100. However, a brighter future is possible; SSP1/RCP2.6 describes a more sustainable future, where human populations are provided for without further jeopardising environmental integrity – in this scenario we project that biodiversity will recover somewhat, with gains in biodiversity intactness and species richness in many regions of the world by 2100.
Archive | 2018
David Leclère; Michael Obersteiner; Rob Alkemade; R. Almond; M. Barrett; G. Bunting; N. Burgess; S. Butchart; Abhishek Chaudhary; S. Cornell; A. De Palma; F. DeClerck; F. Di Fulvio; M. Di Marco; Jonathan C. Doelman; M. Dürauer; Simon Ferrier; R. Freeman; Steffen Fritz; Shinichiro Fujimori; M. Grooten; Mike Harfoot; Tom Harwood; Tomoko Hasegawa; Petr Havlik; Stefanie Hellweg; Mario Herrero; J. Hilbers; Samantha L. L. Hill; Andrew J. Hoskins
Unless actions are taken to reduce multiple anthropogenic pressures, biodiversity is expected to continue declining at an alarming rate. Models and scenarios can be used to help design the pathways to sustain a thriving nature and its ability to contribute to people. This approach has so far been hampered by the complexity associated with combining projections of pressures on, and subsequent responses from, biodiversity. Most previous assessments have projected continuous biodiversity declines and very few have identified pathways for reversing the loss of biodiversity without jeopardizing other objectives such as development or climate mitigation. The Bending The Curve initiative set out to advance quantitative modelling techniques towards ambitious scenarios for biodiversity. In this proof-of-concept analysis, we developed a modelling approach that demonstrates how global land use and biodiversity models can shed light on wedges able to bend the curve of biodiversity trends as affected by land-use change, the biggest current threat to biodiversity. In order to address the uncertainties associated with such pathways we used a multi-model framework and relied on the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway/Representative Concentration Pathway scenario framework. This report describes the details of this modelling approach.
Ecography | 2016
Tim Newbold; Lawrence N. Hudson; Samantha L. L. Hill; Sara Contu; Claudia L. Gray; Jörn P. W. Scharlemann; Luca Börger; Helen Phillips; Douglas Sheil; Igor Lysenko; Andy Purvis
Diversity and Distributions | 2016
Susy Echeverría-Londoño; Tim Newbold; Lawrence N. Hudson; Sara Contu; Samantha L. L. Hill; Igor Lysenko; Enrique Arbeláez-Cortés; Inge Armbrecht; Teun Boekhout; Jimmy Cabra-García; Yamileth Dominguez-Haydar; Guiomar Nates‐Parra; Diego Higuera; Paola Isaacs-Cubides; Carlos A. López-Quintero; E Martinez; Daniel Rafael Miranda-Esquivel; Luis Navarro-Iriarte; Jorge Ari Noriega; Samuel Otavo; Alejandro Parra-H; Katja Poveda; Martha Patricia Ramírez-Pinilla; Juan Carlos Rey-Velasco; Loreta Rosselli; Allan H. Smith-Pardo; José Nicolás Urbina‐Cardona; Andy Purvis
Archive | 2018
Adriana De Palma; Katia Sanchez-Ortiz; Philip A. Martin; Amy Chadwick; Guillermo Gilbert; Amanda E. Bates; Luca Börger; Sara Contu; Samantha L. L. Hill; Andy Purvis
Advances in Ecological Research , 58 pp. 201-241. (2018) | 2018
Andy Purvis; Tim Newbold; Adriana De Palma; Sara Contu; Samantha L. L. Hill; Katia Sanchez-Ortiz; Helen Phillips; Lawrence N. Hudson; Igor Lysenko; Luca Börger; Jörn P. W. Scharlemann
Oikos | 2017
Tim Newbold; Elizabeth H. Boakes; Samantha L. L. Hill; Michael B. J. Harfoot; Ben Collen
Collaboration
Dive into the Samantha L. L. Hill's collaboration.
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
View shared research outputs