Ecological Assessment of the Terrestrial Biomes for Wildlife in Iran

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2841298/v1

Man-made activities owing to damage and fragmentation of habitat are the biggest threats to the biodiversity of Iran's Terrestrial Biomes in recent years. To fully understand the treats, we must first identify and map those biomes. Data sources used to do that included: For this study, IDRISI TerrSet 18.31 Software, Iranian Roads, Iran Protected Areas, Iran Terrestrial Biomes, Iran-wide Land cover maps of 2017, and the Terrestrial Biomes Ecosystem Service Modeler on the InVEST toolkit (TBESMI) were used to map biomes. The results show that the largest terrestrial biome in Iran is Deserts and Xeric Shrublands (DXS) (57.77%) and the smallest is Flooded Grasslands and Savannas (FGS) (0.44%). Roads, and urban and agricultural development are among the largest threats and most destructive stressors in terrestrial biomes. This study shows that there is a growth in destruction of habitat in the Temperate Broadleaf and Mixed Forest (TBMF) (11.08%), Temperate Coniferous Forest (TCF) (8.84%), and Flooded Grasslands and Savannas (FGS) (7.77%); and a decrease in the DXS (5.14%). There is also an increase in habitat landscape quality in the DXS (62.91%), FGS (57.44%), and Montane Grasslands and Shrublands (MGS) (47.44%); and a decrease in the TGSS (23.19%) and TBMF (26.59%). Finally, there are an increase in the cumulative risk of habitat degradation in the TCF (86.61), Temperate-Grasslands-Savannas-Shrublands (TGSS) (85.83%), and TBMF (83.1%); and a decrease in cumulative risk in the DXS (41.12%). The Iran Terrestrial Biomes include areas protected for quality (11.68%), degradation (8.04%), and risk (8.5%). The FGS Terrestrial Biome with the highest cumulative risk and the MGS Terrestrial Biome with the highest cumulative risk exposure are at the highest risk from man-made activities. Stressors from Agriculture and Urbanization have the highest exposure scores in the MGS, and Roads have the highest exposure scores in the TBMF and DXS Terrestrial Biomes.

Iran Terrestrial Biomes

Habitat Quality and Rarity

Habitat Risk Assessment

Habitat landscape quality

Habitat degradation

Protected Areas

The 846 terrestrial ecoregions on Earth are classified into 14 biomes and 8 realms. Six of the biomes are forest biomes and eight are non-forest biomes. In Iran, there are six important Terrestrial Biomes and six important Terrestrial Ecoregions (Dinerstein et al. 2017). Biodiversity in Iran is threatened, about 100 species of vertebrate fauna are vulnerable to or threatened with extinction. Man-made activities and population growth, drought, desertification, climate change, poaching, agriculture and sanctions of economic have been major contributors to the crisis (Jowkar et al. 2016). Hotspots of biodiversity for mammal species of endangered are placed in the west, north, and center of Iran along the Alborz and Zagros mountains. So, habitats of endangered mammal species are restricted to small areas of Iran (about 27% of the country). These regions are intensely fragmented and alone 57% of them are enunciated protected by the system of current conservation.

As the sustainability of these habitats depends on the maintenance of scattered corridors to comfort the animals move among habitat fragments, efforts of conservation should club on hotspots that are not officially protected under laws of conservation (Farashi et al. 2017). Studies by Mittermeier et al (Mittermeier et al. 2011), Myers et al (Myers et al. 2000), and Farashi et al (Farashi et al. 2017) identified the west and north of Iran as sector of the hotspots of Irano-Anatolian biodiversity, the so-called 20th region of global hotspot. These mountains are also defined by high levels of plant endemism, even higher than mountains of temperate European such as the Alps (Noroozi et al. 2008;Tribsch and Schönswetter 2003). Most maybe many factors conferred to the endemism. As the snow line fell in Southwest Asia during the late Pleistocene glaciations, the wide Alborz and Zagros mountains emerged from the ice. As a result, the Irano-Turanian high-altitude plant species saw a downward migration (Djamali et al. 2012). The Alborz mountain range seems to be rather separated from the Zagros mountain range by arid lowlands, and this effective dispersal barrier intensified the escalation in the richness of the limited plant species in both ranges (Noroozi et al. 2016).

Dispersal corridors are essential to facilitate the animals among of movement habitats fragments, and that connectivity is essential to ensure the dispersal, conservation and survival of animal populations (Roscioni et al. 2014; Cushman et al. 2013; Saura et al. 2014). Connection adverts to the manufacture and force in which species, or social stagers diffuse, sources, habitats, interact or migrate among patches and social extents (Iran Statistical Yearbook 2019). Risk Assessment of Habitat can be discussed in the first stage of analyzing functional junctions at various scales by taking patches owning high human risk.

The two implicates of connectivity assessment and habitat risk have never been used in toto in framework of a biodiversity conservation. Since the 1950s, there has been an increase in the overall size of protected areas in Iran. However, a composition of many man-made factors threatens service capacity of ecosystem (Kolahi 2014). The Service Modeler of Ecosystem, is based on the toolkit of InVEST. The Rarity and Quality model of ecosystem evaluates the effects of threats of man-made on the habitats rarity and quality. This is a model of general used to recognize sensitivity of habitat owing to changes of landscape that probably affected by destruction of land and stressors of other. Quality of habitat is determined through the proximity of land cover change and rarity of habitat by examining land degradation based on historic status. This model permits a fast evaluation of terrestrial habitat status which can be used as an agent for rather in-depth research to the species adaptability condition in an ecosystem.

The model too produces maps as if highlight changes of habitat due to the rarity and quality of the species among a special time plate. The Risk Assessment of Habitat model assesses the risk agent dependents on management strategies and man-made activities on species' habitats. The model usages data from a maps to assess the man-made activity measure on an ecosystem, and the size of risk due to habitat changes depends on the extent to which the habitat is exposed to man-made and the outcomes of which exposure.

A database routes the time and severity of man-made activity and the management method's effectiveness of potential, and the data are used to produce maps of cumulative risk to any habitat. It too products a merged potential for all recovering risk for total habitat changes (Ronald Eastman 2015). This study purposes to assess the Habitat's Rarity, Quality and supply an assessment of risk criterion to the habitat of wildlife, in the IranTerrestrial Biomes.

2.1. Area of Study

The study region is the nation of Iran (Fig. 1), located in Asia of northeastern among latitudes 24-40^O N and longitudes 44-64^O E. With a region of around 164,800,000 ha, Iran is the seventeenth country of largest in the world. Iran includes of mountain ranges and highland basins. Its geographical characteristics and vast latitudinal range mean the climate varies of arid at subtropical throughout the country (Alizadeh-Choobari and Najafi 2018; Haftlang and Lang 2003). The altitude range is of -26 at 5671 m above level of sea, and the average of annual temperature ranges of 8 at 55°C. Due to this geographic variety, many flora and fauna Iran of species inhabit. The country eastern part is enveloped with desert while the northern part is enveloped with the east-west trending Alborz mountains, the Caspian Sea and forests of dense. Another second major mountain range, the Zagros, is located in the country western part and extends of north at south. Finally, the Oman Sea and Persian Gulf coastlines form the country southern border (Ghorbanian et al. 2020). The interplay of the climatic and topographic features in the country are the two main factors in the biodiversity formation. Three eminent realms of Afrotropic, Palearctic, and Indomalayan also affect the natural characteristics in Iran (Azizi Jalilian et al. 2020).

2.2. Data layers

2.2.1. Protected Areas

Iran’s layer Protected Areas is mapped to the scale of 1:50,000. It was prepared with the Department of Environment (DOE) and includes Protected Areas three types: Protected Areas, National Parks, and Wildlife refuges as of 2017 (Karami et al. 2015). It covers an area of about 16,323,560 ha (Fig. 1).

2.2.2. Roads

The layer of Iran’s Roads types is mapped at the scale of 1:50,000. It was prepared by the Ministry of Roads & Urban Development (MRUD) and consists of four types of roads with an overall length of about 103,393 km,,: highways (20,523 km), main roads (25,866 km), side roads (42,926 km) and railways (14,078km) in Iran as of 2017 (Karami et al. 2015)(Fig. 1).

2.2.3. Terrestrial Biomes and important species

The World Terrestrial Biomes types were used to know and support the Terrestrial Biomes boundaries in Iran (Dinerstein et al. 2017). Iran’s layer Terrestrial Biomes types is to the scale of 1:50,000 and includes six Terrestrial Biomes types (Fig. 2) and 19 Terrestrial Ecoregions types (Fig. 3), both with an area of about 162,629,464 ha. Based on Dinerstein et al. (Dinerstein et al. 2017), Farashi et al. (Farashi et al. 2017), and Karami et al. (Karami et al. 2015) the six Terrestrial Biomes and their representative fauna of mammalian are listed in Table 1:

Table 1

Terrestrial Biomes and Representative Fauna of Mammalian in Iran
Terrestrial Biome	Mammalian Fauna
Deserts and xeric shrublands (DXS)	Acinonyx jubatus, Gazella subgutturosa, Equus onager, Podoces pleskei, Chlamydotis macqueenii and Allactaga Firouzi
Flooded grasslands and savannas (FGS)	Dama dama mesopotamica, Crocidura susiana
Montane grasslands and shrublands (MGS)	Panther pardus saxicolor, Capra aegagrus aegagrus
Temperate broadleaf and mixed forest (TBMF)	Sciurus anomalus
Temperate coniferous forest (TCF)	Cervus elaphus maral, Capreolus capreolus
Temperate grasslands, savannas, and shrublands (TGSS)	Otis Tarda, Ovis orientalis gmelini, Lyrurus mlokosiewiczi

2.2.4. Land cover

Land cover types of the Iran Terrestrial Biomes were used to know and support the Iran-wide land cover map boundaries. The layer of Iran-wide land cover (Fig. 4) is at a scale of 1:50,000 at includes 13 classes of ground cover with an area of about 162,629,464 ha. Following Ghorbanian et al (Ghorbanian et al. 2020), it includes Rangeland, Kalut Desert, Salty Land, Clay, Outcrop, Uncovered Plain, Sand and Rangeland, Farmland, Urban, Wetland, Water, Marshland, and Forest.

2.3. Methods

IDRISI TerrSet 18.31 software, Iran roads map, Iran Protected Areas map, Iran Terrestrial Biomes map, Iran-wide Land cover map of 2017, and the Ecosystem Service Modeler (ESM) were used to identify the geographic features of present study. We too usaged variables such as roads, agricultural and urban (both residential and industrial) lands to Habitat Risk Assessment (HRA) and Habitat Quality and Rarity (HQR) evaluation (Arekhi 2014). The Terrestrial Biomes Modeler of Ecosystem Service, this is founded on the toolkit of InVEST (TBESMI) in the Habitat Rarity and Quality model, assesses the impacts of the human threat, on the habitats rarity and quality. This is a total model for evaluating the habitat's sensitivity, to changes in landscape both by land threats and land decay.

The results of the model permit a fast evaluation of territorial habitat status that can be used as an agent for more in-depth research on species adaptability conditions. The table of threats is called the threats that have affected Iran's Terrestrial Biomes' habitats. The table of Sensitivity contains data about habitats and their relevant sensitivity to any threat determined in the threats table. The Habitat Risk Assessment model assesses the man-made activities risk and management programs on habitats. The risk level that a habitat experiment depends on the exposure grade of the habitat to man-made processes and the outcomes that effect from this exposure. The model uses information from maps on habitat size and man-made activities also a database on the human’s processes intensity and timing and the habitat management potential effectiveness exercises to produce the maps of cumulative risk for any habitat and a merged recovery potential of all risk for habitats of total. The files of Raster for Terrestrial Biomes are stressors and habitats. Total images of Raster have a system of reference specified in the meter and images of Boolean. The threats of the Dirt Roads, Agricultural Patchs, and Urban are man-made that have affected Terrestrial Biomes. The distance of maximum (Max_Dist) used to determine trouble zones around the threat of Dirt Road is 2km, the threat of Agr_Patch is 1km and the threat of Urban is 5km in the Terrestrial Biomes landscape. It is provided based on field visits and review of sources. The threat weight of Dirt Road is 0.8, the threat of Agr_Patch is 0.6 and the threat of Urban is 1. The threat decay of Dirt Road t is 1, the threat of Agr_Patch is 0.8 and the threat of Urban is 1. The types of land cover are Residential, Wetland, Rangeland, Forest, and Cropland in the Terrestrial Biomes. Rangeland, Wetland, and Forest are the suitability of habitats with a value of 1, and Residential and Cropland are unsuitability of habitats with a value of 0 for Wildlife. The value of threat of the sensitivity of Dirt Road on Residential and Cropland is 0, Rangeland is 1, Wetland is 0.4 and Forest is 0.8. The sensitivity of Agr_Patch on Residential and Cropland is 0, Rangeland is 0.8, Wetland, and Forest is 0.6. Urban sensitivity on Rangeland, Wetland, and Forest are 1 and on Residential and Cropland is 0.

The most main threats known in the zone contain agricultural patches, roads, and urban areas. The tables the following show the size of threats and the sensitivity of Terrestrial Biomes (Tables 2, Table 3). Using (HRA) and (HQR) models and data created from the Terrestrial Biomes, we assessed the biome threats, and biome sensitivity in Table 3 and Table 4, respectively, and derived Table 3 showing the degree of stress in Terrestrial Biomes (Ronald Eastman 2015). The maps were classified into 5 classes based on the weight (0–1) in the idrisi software (Malekmohammadi and Rahimi Blouchi, 2014).

Table 2

Terrestrial Biomes threats
Threat	max_dist	Weight	Decay
Dirt Road	2	0.8	1
Agr_Patch	1	0.6	0.8
Urban	5	1	1

Table 3

Terrestrial Biomes sensitivity
Lulc	Name	Habitat	L_dirt_Road	L_agr_patch	L_Urban
1	Residential	0	0	0	0
2	Wetland	1	0.4	0.6	1
3	Rangeland	1	1	0.8	1
4	Forest	1	0.8	0.6	1
5	Cropland	0	0	0	0

Table 4

Habitat_Stressor_Rating_Table
Habitat	CONSEQUENCE and IMPORTANCE WEIGHTS
Habitat ID	Frequency of Natural Disturbance	Change in Structure	Change in Area	Regeneration Rate	Connectivity	Recruitment pattern	Natural Mortality Rate
Habitat Name	Weight Frequency of Natural Disturbance	Weight Change in Structure	Weight Change in Area	Weight Regeneration Rate	Weight Connectivity	Weight Recruitment pattern	Weight Natural Mortality Rate
Stressor	CONSEQUENCE and IMPORTANCE WEIGHTS
Stressor ID	Frequency of Natural Disturbance	Change in Structure	Change in Area	Regeneration Rate	Connectivity	Recruitment pattern	Natural Mortality Rate
Stressor Name	Weight Frequency of Natural Disturbance	Weight Change in Structure	Weight Change in Area	Weight Regeneration Rate	Weight Connectivity	Weight Recruitment pattern	Weight Natural Mortality Rate

3.1. Iran Terrestrial Biomes

The important fauna species live in the 6 major Iran Terrestrial Biomes. The largest area is DXS (57.77%) and the smallest FGS (0.44%) in the Iran Terrestrial Biomes (Table 5).

Table 5

Area and percent of Major Terrestrial Biomes in Iran
Terrestrial biomes	DXS	FGS	MGS	TBMF	TCF	TGSS	Total
Area(ha)	93,962,024	720,760	14,955,512	40,212,864	6,344,008	643,4296	162,629,464
%	57.77	0.44	9.19	24.73	3.90	3.96	100

3.2. Land Cover Types in the Terrestrial Biomes

There are five major types of land cover in Iran's Terrestrial Biomes: Rangeland, Farmland, Urban, Wetland, and Forest. Rangeland included the Kalut Desert, Salty Land, Clay, Outcrop, Uncovered Plain, Sand, and Rangeland. Wetland included Water, Wetland, and Marshland. Table 6 shows the size of each land cover type and the percentage it represents in each Terrestrial Biome and this is shown graphically in Fig. 5.

Table 6

Area and Percent of Land Cover in the Terrestrial Biomes.
Terrestrial biomes		Urban	Wetland	Rangeland	Forest	Farmland	Total
DXS	Area(ha)	3243892	10037128	69819040	16040	10657484	93962024
DXS	%	3.45	10.70	74.30	0.01	11.34	100
FGS	Area(ha)	9028	147864	447124	0	111628	720760
FGS	%	1.25	20.51	62.03	0	15.49	100
MGS	Area(ha)	244572	1296420	10955016	1036	2444640	14955512
MGS	%	1.63	8.67	73.25	0	16.34	100
TBMF	Area(ha)	1320960	1399972	22781500	1478848	13188604	40212864
TBMF	%	3.28	3.48	56.65	3.67	32.80	100
TCF	Area(ha)	88912	256516	4042132	173896	1782552	6344008
TCF	%	1.40	4.04	63.71	2.74	28.01	100
TGSS	Area(ha)	87520	305880	2522644	11824	3489864	6434296
TGSS	%	1.36	4.75	39.20	0.18	54.24	100
Total	Area(ha)	4994884	13443780	110567456	1681644	31674772	162629464
Total	%	3.07	8.26	67.99	1.03	19.47	100

3.3. Iran Terrestrial Biomes Quality and Rarity Assessment

Figure 6 and Table 7 show that there is an increase in habitat degradation due to roads, agriculture, and urbanization in the TBMF (11.08%), TCF (8.84%), and FGS (7.77%) biomes and that there is a decrease in the DXS (5.14%) biomes.

Table 7

Area and Percent of Habitats Degradation in Iran's Terrestrial Biomes
Terrestrial Biomes		Very low	Low	Medium	High	Very high	Total
DXS	Area(ha)	47975980	21184408	19968420	4128820	704396	93962024
DXS	%	51.06	22.54	21.25	4.39	0.75	100
FGS	Area(ha)	351652	167204	145956	44296	11652	720760
FGS	%	48.79	23.20	20.25	6.15	1.62	100
MGS	Area(ha)	5486548	3638488	4793544	901704	135228	14955512
MGS	%	36.68	24.33	32.05	6.03	0.90	100
TBMF	Area(ha)	18211696	5816204	11724788	3633076	827100	40212864
TBMF	%	45.29	14.46	2.91	9.03	2.05	100
TCF	Area(ha)	2586884	1210816	1985048	459072	102188	6344008
TCF	%	40.77	19.08	31.30	7.23	1.61	100
TGSS	Area(ha)	4198004	751456	1127152	281696	75988	6434296
TGSS	%	66.17	11.84	17.76	4.44	1.20	100
Total	Area(ha)	78810764	32768576	39744908	9448664	1856552	162629464
Total	%	48.46	20.15	24.44	5.81	1.41	100

Figure 7 and Table 8 show there is an increase of the quality of habitat landscape in the DXS (62.91%), FGS (57.44%), and MGS (47.44%) biomes and a decrease in the quality of habitat landscape in the TGSS (23.19%) and TBMF (26.59%) biomes.

Table 8

Area and Percent of Habitat Quality in the Iran Terrestrial Biomes
Terrestrial Biomes			Low	Medium	High	Very high	Total
DXS	Area(ha)	14390476	5040808	15412192	17789040	41329508	93962024
DXS	%	15.31	5.36	16.40	18.93	43.98	100
FGS	Area(ha)	130680	56588	119404	118456	295632	720760
FGS	%	18.13	7.85	16.56	16.43	41.01	100
MGS	Area(ha)	2755180	1143516	3960908	3072448	4023460	14955512
MGS	%	18.42	7.64	26.48	20.54	26.90	100
TBMF	Area(ha)	14913744	4610656	9992964	5141424	5554076	40212864
TBMF	%	37.08	11.46	24.85	12.78	13.81	100
TCF	Area(ha)	1913236	595276	1684044	1021572	1129880	6344008
TCF	%	30.16	9.38	26.54	16.10	17.81	100
TGSS	Area(ha)	3628328	363600	949624	623104	869640	6434296
TGSS	%	56.39	5.65	14.76	9.68	13.51	100
Total	Area(ha)	37731644	11810444	32119136	27766044	53202196	162629464
Total	%	23.20	7.26	19.75	17.07	32.71	100

3.4. Iran Terrestrial Biomes Risk Assessment

Figure 8 and Table 9 show there are an increased cumulative risk in the TCF (86.61), TGSS (85.83%), and TBMF (83.1) biomes, and a decrease in the cumulative risk in the DXS (41.12) biome.

Table 9

Area and Percent of Habitat Risk in the Iran Terrestrial Biomes
Terrestrial Biomes		Very low	Low	Medium	High	Very high	Total
DXS	Area(ha)	19306912	35570308	446760	31600116	7037928	93962024
DXS	%	20.54	37.85	0.47	33.63	7.49	100
FGS	Area(ha)	82944	62008	150636	315500	109672	720760
FGS	%	11.51	8.60	20.90	43.77	15.21	100
MGS	Area(ha)	891028	744912	3517792	8459008	1342772	14955512
MGS	%	5.96	4.98	23.52	56.56	8.96	100
TBMF	Area(ha)	736536	5406316	652748	25174140	8243124	40212864
TBMF	%	1.83	13.44	1.62	62.60	20.50	100
TCF	Area(ha)	131248	717780	0	4484000	1010980	6344008
TCF	%	2.06	11.31	0	70.68	15.93	100
TGSS	Area(ha)	109516	716272	85816	4032356	1490336	6434296
TGSS	%	1.70	11.13	1.33	62.67	23.16	100
Total	Area(ha)	21258184	43217596	4853752	74065120	19234812	162629464
Total	%	13.07	26.57	2.98	45.54	11.83	100

3.5. Iran Protected areas

Table 10 shows an increase of the quality of habitat landscape in the Protected Area (57.95%). There is a decrease in the habitat degradation in the Road, Agriculture, and Urban areas in the Protected area (5.56%) and an increase in the cumulative risk in the Protected areas (48.67%).

Table 10

Area and Percent of Protected Areas in the Iran Terrestrial Biomes.
Habitat variables		Very low	Low	Medium	High	Very high	Total
Quality	Area(ha)	2325372	992856	3545740	3114308	6345284	16323560
Quality	%	14.24	6.08	21.72	19.08	38.87	100
Degradation	Area(ha)	7364320	3651220	4398788	807284	101948	16323560
Degradation	%	45.11	22.37	26.94	4.94	0.62	100
Risk	Area(ha)	2714984	5392604	270696	6989420	955856	16323560
Risk	%	16.63	33.03	1.66	42.82	5.85	100

Figure 9 shows the risk of cumulative for each Terrestrial Biome in the area of study. This shape can be used to define that Terrestrial Biomes are at the risk of highest by man-made processes, and if this risk is frequently owing to cumulative of high exposure to outside factors which can be relieved from management, or to consequences of high cumulative by internal effects which are lower responsive to the intermediation of human. Scores of Cumulative exposure are isolated by summing the scores of exposure for any stressor and all exposure to total stressors in the study area. Scores of Cumulative consequences are created in the same way. Terrestrial Biomes with high cumulative consequences and high cumulative exposure are at the highest risk by human processes. Shows of Fig. 9 the risk of cumulative for FGS, TCF, and MGS Terrestrial Biomes in Iran, respectively. DXS Terrestrial Biome with a low cumulative consequence, and TCF and TGSS Terrestrial Biomes with low cumulative exposure are at the highest risk by human processes. FGS Terrestrial Biome with a high cumulative consequence and MGS Terrestrial Biome with high cumulative exposure are at the highest risk by human processes.

Figure 10 shows the consequence and exposure scores by each stressor and Terrestrial Biome composition in the area of study. Stressors which have high exposure scores and high consequence scores pose the risk of greatest to Terrestrial Biomes. Risk of reducing by management is probably to be rather efficient in conditions whence high risk is taken from exposure of high, none a consequence of high. These figures show the consequence and exposure scores by Agriculture stressors, Road, and Urban. in the Terrestrial Biomes of Deserts and xeric shrublands (DXS) (plot a), Flooded grasslands and savannas (FGS) (plot b), Montane grasslands and shrublands (MGS) (plot c), Temperate broadleaf and mixed forest (TBMF) (plot d), Temperate coniferous forest (TCF) (plot e) and Temperate grasslands, savannas, and shrublands (TGSS) (plot f) in Iran.

Stressors having high exposure scores cause the greatest risk to the MGS biome. Stressors having scores of high consequence cause the risk of greatest to the FGS biome. Urban and Agriculture Stressors have scores of high exposure in the MGS biome, and Roads have high exposure scores case in the TBMF and DXS Biomes. Stressors of Roads, Agriculture, and Urban have high consequence scores in the FGS Terrestrial Biome.

The Terrestrial Biomes Modeler of Service, which is founded on the toolkit of InVEST (TBESMI), has transferred the integrating idea " habitat- impact of source " risk paths to the large-scale regional Iran Terrestrial Biomes. Within the context of a Model of Relative Risk (RRM), the TBESMI focuses on risk of environmental and so is sincerely concerned by destructive stressors and the corresponding impacts on habitats susceptible to degradation. TBESMI enables Terrestrial Biome-scale assessments of risk to be tackled involving complicated multiple sources of interrelationships, habitats, and impacts whither effects of cumulative and cascading are embedded. Furthermore, TBESMI has improved the ranking sources (stressors) process using criteria of multiple that make detailed use of the available information of source. The approach is able of providing quantitative data with that to know the most important sources of risk in Terrestrial Biomes, and thus enhance assessment accuracy.

We evaluated the risks of cumulative posed to Terrestrial Biomes patches with man-made activities and explored options to the biodiversity and of ecosystem services delivery with employing InVEST to project levels of patch fragmentation into the future. The HRA, that uses a framework of exposure consequence to evaluate variation to spatial in risk of cumulative of multiple man-made activities such as land cover change, agriculture, roads and landscape of urban, was too used in our analysis. This was considered important as risk of cumulative evaluation provides an framework of analytical for combining the impact of multiple man-made stressors across Terrestrial Biomes, and support of decision to balancing man-made use and health of ecosystem (Wyatt et al. 2017).

Our findings show by accuracy of high as if the maximum distance (Max_Dist), weight, and sensitivity for defining disturbance zones around Dirt Road, Agr_Patch, and Urban landscape is the greatest threat to wildlife in the Forest, Wetland, Rangeland, Cropland, and Residential Iran Terrestrial Biomes. The largest area of the Iran Terrestrial Biomes is the DXS and is the smallest the FGS. There is an increase in habitat destruction in the road, Agriculture, and Urban areas around the TBMF, TCF, FGS, and a decrease in the DXS. There is an increase to the quality of habitat landscape in the DXS, FGS, and MGS, and a decrease in the TGSS and TBMF. These results are in accord by past studies, regarding cascading effects (Malekmohammadi and Blouchi 2014; Crooks et al. 2017; Habibzadeh and Ashrafzadeh 2018).

There is an increase to the quality of habitat landscape in the Protected area, but a decrease in the Road, Agriculture, and human-made landscape around the Protected area. Thus, there is an increased cumulative risk in the Protected area. This is in agreement with findings by other scientists (Ashrafi 2016) than showed great differences in Iran's biomes covered with protected areas categories. Given that any class of the protected area has different goals, and the all categories existence is necessary to achieve the biodiversity conservation goal, it is recommended than in the protected areas future development in the country, each biome appropriate coverage should be discussed. This means that the country's biomes map should be the basis for selecting protected areas of new in the country. These discoveris are same to the outcomes of other studies in Iran (Bashari and Hemami 2013; Makki et al. 2013), where it was found than topography and food availability of the region were the variables of main that define suitability of habitat for Ovis orientalis. Mohammadi et al (Mohammadian 2015) showed that land cover and distance from human activities and roads are of most significant variables in the big mammal species suitability of habitat(Erfanian et al. 2013; Mohammadi et al. 2014; Sani 2015; Madadi et al. 2019; Shams-Esfandabad et al. 2021). There is an increased cumulative risk in the TCF, TGSS, TBMF and a decreased cumulative risk in the DXS of the Terrestrial Biomes. The main threats to wildlife are land use changes and road deaths in Iran (Karami et al. 2015; Dinerstein et al. 2017). Degradation and habitats fragmentation, road deaths, illegal hunting, periodical droughts, and the prevalence of diseases are the major threats factor of wildlife in Iran.

Our findings also support that the most stressful factor in agricultural lands, Following other studies (Farashi et al. 2017; Habibzadeh and Ashrafzadeh 2018; Liu et al. 2018; Ansari and Golabi 2019a, b; Ghehi et al. 2020). The increased cumulative risk is for the FGS, TCF, and MGS Terrestrial Biomes in Iran, respectively. DXS Terrestrial Biome with a low cumulative consequence, and TCF and TGSS Terrestrial Biomes with low cumulative exposure, are at the risk of highest by human processes. FGS Terrestrial Biome with high cumulative consequences and MGS Terrestrial Biome with exposure of high cumulative are at the risk of highest by man-made processes. The supposition than the mutability is influenced with other factors, so biodiversity, is confirmed with Sauvage et al. (Sauvage et al. 2018) and Yao et al. (Yao et al. 2017). Due to demands of high man-made (Cumming 2016), protected areas are decisive to the survival of those species and threatened of ecosystems by changes of land use and loss of habitat (Graves et al. 2019). Stressors with high exposure scores cause the greatest risk to MGS Terrestrial Biome. Stressors with scores of high consequence cause the risk of greatest to FGS Terrestrial Biome. Urban and Agriculture Stressors have high exposure scores in the MGS Terrestrial Biome, and Roads have high exposure scores in the TBMF and DXS Terrestrial Biomes. The stressors of Roads, Agriculture, and Urban have high consequence scores in the FGS Terrestrial Biome. These discoveris are like to the outcomes of next studies in Iran (Jowkar et al. 2016; Farashi et al. 2017; Ansari and Golabi 2019a, b; Ghehi et al. 2020). They found that biodiversity is threatened in Iran by factors including population of increased and man-made activity, drought, climate change, agriculture, desertification, and violating and then sanctions of economic have helped make this tension.

Hotspots of biodiversity for endangered species of mammal are located in the west, center and north of Iran along the Alborz and Zagros mountain areas, and the habitats for those mammal species of threatened are restricted to small areas of Iran (the country almost 27%). These regions are seriously fragmented and alone 57% of them are declared protected with the system of current conservation. It is suggested than, as the sustainability of these habitats belongs powerfully on holding corridors of dispersal to comfort the animal’s movement among the fragments of habitat, efforts of conservation should be on those hotspots that are not officially protected under laws of conservation. Pending the late 50 years, Iran of eastern is the late shelter for some surviving Cheetahs of Asiatic. Construction road and deforestation, as for development of wood harvesting or urban or village, are a threat of specific to populations of big mammal. The roads disrupt the forest totality, provide availability to the forest of heart for hunters of illegal, and reason road-kill mortality. It shows than the threat of main to mammals in the forests of caspian is degradation and loss of habitat, as well as the large herbivores illegal hunting and too Brown bear. Agricultural cultivation and overgrazing significantly contribute to the reduction in natural vegetation areas and continue to pose significant threats in the Zagros Mountains forest. The main threats to biodiversity include water scarcity and land degradation, Pollution, and dust (Karami et al. 2015).

As described by Sabater et al. (Sabater et al. 2019), the time stressor focused individually on disturbances of human. Man-made activities leading to fragmentation and habitat loss are the threats of greatest to vulnerabilities of biodiversity (Fischer and Lindenmayer 2007; Fahrig 1997; Segan et al. 2016; Lindenmayer and Fischer 2013). Grasslands of mountain are very vulnerable to changes of land use (Schirpke et al. 2017; Houet et al. 2010) and lose much of their main width and grow increasingly fragmented because of man-made stressors (Poniatowski et al. 2018). Identifying habitats of suitable and connectivity of evaluating is acute to maintaining landscapes of key. Fragmented habitats can be caused by biotic and abiotic factors than produce patchiness of natural in landscapes, also human disturbances that quickly accelerate and intensify habitat fragmentation globally (Poniatowski et al. 2018). The state of protection of the Terrestrial Biomes in Iran shows that the protection status of Deserts and xeric shrublands (DXS) is Nature Could Reach Half Protected. Flooded grasslands and savannas (FGS) and Montane grasslands and shrublands (MGS) are Nature Could Recover. Temperate broadleaf and mixed forest (TBMF), Temperate coniferous forest (TCF), and Temperate grasslands, savannas, and shrublands (TGSS) are Nature Imperiled (Dinerstein et al. 2017).

TBESMI enables Terrestrial Biome-scale risk assessment. In the Iran Terrestrial Biome, habitats of fauna species are fragmented into multiple patches located relative to human-based processes. The DXS Terrestrial Biome has reduced habitat degradation and increased habitat landscape quality with decreased cumulative risk. The low cumulative risk consequence and Stressors of Roads result in high exposure scores. The TBMF Terrestrial Biome has increased habitat degradation with increased habitat landscape quality and increased cumulative risk. The Stressors of Roads result in a high exposure score. The FGS Terrestrial Biome has increased habitat degradation and increased cumulative risk. The Stressors of Agriculture and Urban result in a high consequence score. The TCF Terrestrial Biome has increased habitat degradation and thus an increased cumulative risk with Stressors that result in a high consequence score. The MGS Terrestrial Biome has an increased habitat landscape quality and an increased cumulative risk. the Stressors of Agriculture and Urban have scores of high exposure and the greatest risk of pose. The TGSS Terrestrial Biome has decreased habitat landscape quality and increased cumulative risk.

The following are suggested as reduction strategies:

1- Preparation of a management plan for the Iran Terrestrial Biomes.

2- Prevention of land use changes and land destruction in the TGSS and DXS Terrestrial Biomes.

3- Development of protected areas in the MGS Terrestrial Biome.

4- Development of National Parks in the MGS, TBMF, and DXS Terrestrial Biomes.

5- Risk Assessment of the Iran Terrestrial Ecoregions.

6- Decrease the impacts of Agriculture and Urban in the MGS Terrestrial Biome.

7- Decrease the impacts of Roads in the TBMF of the Terrestrial Biome.

8- Risk Assessment of the Terrestrial Biomes in other parts of the world by TBESMI model in comparison with Iran.

9- Decrease impacts of cumulative risk in the TBMF, FGS, and MGS of the Iran Terrestrial Biomes.

Ethics approval

This material is the authors own original work, which has not been previously published elsewhere. Also, the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere. This manuscript reflects the authors’ own research and analysis in a truthful and complete manner.

Consent to participate

All authors have been personally and actively involved in substantial work leading to the manuscript and will take public responsibility for its content.

Consent for publication

All authors have agreed to submit the manuscript in its current form for consideration and possible publication in Wetlands Ecology and Management.

Funding

Not applicable

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Acknowledgements

All personnel and the Department of Environment and Arak University who have collaborated with the authors in the recent study are appreciated.

Author’s contribution

A.A. performed the experiment and wrote manuscript; A.K. contributed to statistical analyses; M.G. revised the manuscript critically. Authors read and approved the final manuscript version.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

Alizadeh-Choobari O, Najafi MS (2018) Extreme weather events in Iran under a changing climate. Climate Dynamics 50:249–260
Ansari A, Golabi MH (2019a) Prediction of spatial land use changes based on LCM in a GIS environment for Desert Wetlands–A case study: Meighan Wetland, Iran. International Soil and Water Conservation Research 7:64–70
Ansari A, Golabi MH (2019b) Using Ecosystem Service Modeler (ESM) for Ecological Quality, rarity and Risk Assessment of the wild goat habitat, in the Haftad-Gholleh protected area. International Soil and Water Conservation Research 7:346–353
Arekhi S (2014) Prediction of spatial land use changes based on LCM in a GIS environment (A case study of Sarabeleh (Ilam), Iran. Iranian Journal of Forest and Range Protection Research 12:1–19
Ashrafi S (2016) Protected area coverage for terrestrial biomes in Iran. Journal of Natural Environment 69:581–595
Azizi Jalilian M, Shayesteh K, Danehkar A, Salmanmahiny A (2020) A new ecosystem-based land classification of Iran for conservation goals. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 192:1–17
Bashari H, Hemami M-R (2013) A predictive diagnostic model for wild sheep (Ovis orientalis) habitat suitability in Iran. Journal for Nature Conservation 21:319–325
Crooks KR, Burdett CL, Theobald DM, et al (2017) Quantification of habitat fragmentation reveals extinction risk in terrestrial mammals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114:7635–7640
Cumming GS (2016) The relevance and resilience of protected areas in the Anthropocene. Anthropocene 13:46–56
Cushman SA, McRae B, Adriaensen F, et al (2013) Biological corridors and connectivity [Chapter 21]. In: Macdonald, DW; Willis, KJ, eds Key Topics in Conservation Biology 2 Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell p 384–404 384–404
Dinerstein E, Olson D, Joshi A, et al (2017) An ecoregion-based approach to protecting half the terrestrial realm. BioScience 67:534–545
Djamali M, Baumel A, Brewer S, et al (2012) Ecological implications of Cousinia Cass.(Asteraceae) persistence through the last two glacial–interglacial cycles in the continental Middle East for the Irano-Turanian flora. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 172:10–20
Erfanian B, Mirkarimi SH, Mahini AS, Rezaei HR (2013) A presence-only habitat suitability model for Persian leopard Panthera pardus saxicolous in Golestan National Park, Iran. Wildlife Biology 19:170–178
Fahrig L (1997) Relative effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on population extinction. The Journal of wildlife management 603–610
Farashi A, Shariati M, Hosseini M (2017) Identifying biodiversity hotspots for threatened mammal species in Iran. Mammalian Biology 87:71–88
Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2007) Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: a synthesis. Global ecology and biogeography 16:265–280
Ghehi NK, Malek Mohammadi B, Jafari H (2020) Integrating habitat risk assessment and connectivity analysis in ranking habitat patches for conservation in protected areas. Journal for Nature Conservation 56:125867
Ghorbanian A, Kakooei M, Amani M, et al (2020) Improved land cover map of Iran using Sentinel imagery within Google Earth Engine and a novel automatic workflow for land cover classification using migrated training samples. ISPRS journal of photogrammetry and remote sensing 167:276–288
Graves RA, Williamson MA, Belote RT, Brandt JS (2019) Quantifying the contribution of conservation easements to large-landscape conservation. Biological Conservation 232:83–96
Habibzadeh N, Ashrafzadeh MR (2018) Habitat suitability and connectivity for an endangered brown bear population in the Iranian Caucasus. Wildlife Research 45:602–610
Haftlang KK, Lang KKH (2003) The book of Iran: a survey of the geography of Iran. Alhoda UK
Houet T, Loveland TR, Hubert-Moy L, et al (2010) Exploring subtle land use and land cover changes: a framework for future landscape studies. Landscape Ecology 25:249–266
Iran Statistical Yearbook (2019) Strategic Planning and Supervision Statistical Centre of Iran, Bushehr (Iran: Province).
Jowkar H, Ostrowski S, Tahbaz M, Zahler P (2016) The conservation of biodiversity in Iran: threats, challenges and hopes. Iranian Studies 49:1065–1077
Karami M, Ghadirian T, Faizolahi K (2015) The atlas of the mammals of Iran. Department of the Environment, Tehran, Iran
Kolahi M (2014) Protected areas management and environmental sociology in Iran
Lindenmayer DB, Fischer J (2013) Habitat fragmentation and landscape change: an ecological and conservation synthesis. Island Press
Liu RZ, Zhang K, Zhang ZJ, Borthwick AGL (2018) Watershed-scale environmental risk assessment of accidental water pollution: the case of Laoguan River, China
Madadi M, Varasteh Moradi H, Karimi A (2019) Habitat evaluation and the most important factors affecting the distribution of Red Deer (Cervus elaphus maral) in Golestan National Park. Journal of Animal Environment 11:111–118
Makki T, Fakheran S, Moradi H, et al (2013) Landscape-scale impacts of transportation infrastructure on spatial dynamics of two vulnerable ungulate species in Ghamishloo Wildlife Refuge, Iran. Ecological indicators 31:6–14
Malek Mohammadi B, Blouchi LR (2014) Ecological risk assessment of wetland ecosystems using multi-criteria decision making and geographic information system. Ecological Indicators 41:133–144
Mittermeier RA, Turner WR, Larsen FW, et al (2011) Global biodiversity conservation: the critical role of hotspots. In: Biodiversity hotspots. Springer, pp 3–22
Mohammadi H, Karami M, Hasanzadeh Kiabi B, Monavari SM (2014) Trend of habitat change for Persian fallow deer (Dama dama mesopotamicus) in Dez and Karkhe National Park and Protected Area using GIS and RS. Journal of Animal Environment 6:153–160
Mohammadian H (2015) The fifth national report to the convention on biological diversity. Deputy of Natural Environment, Department of Environment, Tehran
Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, et al (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858
Noroozi J, Akhani H, Breckle S-W (2008) Biodiversity and phytogeography of the alpine flora of Iran. Biodiversity and Conservation 17:493–521
Noroozi J, Moser D, Essl F (2016) Diversity, distribution, ecology and description rates of alpine endemic plant species from Iranian mountains. Alpine botany 126:1–9
Poniatowski D, Stuhldreher G, Löffler F, Fartmann T (2018) Patch occupancy of grassland specialists: Habitat quality matters more than habitat connectivity. Biological Conservation 225:237–244
Ronald Eastman J (2015) TerrSet Tutorial, Production of Clark University
Roscioni F, Rebelo H, Russo D, et al (2014) A modeling approach to infer the effects of wind farms on landscape connectivity for bats. Landscape Ecology 29:891–903
Sabater S, Elosegi A, Ludwig R (2019) Defining multiple stressor implications. In: Multiple Stressors in River Ecosystems. Elsevier, pp 1–22
Sani NA (2015) Habitat Suitability Modeling of Great Bustard, Otis tarda, using ENFA and GIS. Pakistan Journal of Zoology 47:
Saura S, Bodin Ö, Fortin M (2014) EDITOR’S CHOICE: Stepping stones are crucial for species’ long-distance dispersal and range expansion through habitat networks. Journal of Applied Ecology 51:171–182
Sauvage S, Sánchez-Pérez J-M, Vervier P, et al (2018) Modelling the role of riverbed compartments in the regulation of water quality as an ecological service. Ecological Engineering 118:19–30
Schirpke U, Kohler M, Leitinger G, et al (2017) Future impacts of changing land-use and climate on ecosystem services of mountain grassland and their resilience. Ecosystem Services 26:79–94
Segan DB, Murray KA, Watson JEM (2016) A global assessment of current and future biodiversity vulnerability to habitat loss–climate change interactions. Global Ecology and Conservation 5:12–21
Shams-Esfandabad B, Nezami B, Najafi Siavashan N, et al (2021) Asiatic Cheetah’s (Acinonyx jubatus venaticus Griffith, 1821)(Felidae: Carnivora) habitat suitability modeling in Iran. Journal of Wildlife and Biodiversity 5:15–31
Tribsch A, Schönswetter P (2003) Patterns of endemism and comparative phylogeography confirm palaeo-environmental evidence for Pleistocene refugia in the Eastern Alps. Taxon 52:477–497
Wyatt KH, Griffin R, Guerry AD, et al (2017) Habitat risk assessment for regional ocean planning in the US Northeast and Mid-Atlantic. PloS one 12:e0188776.
Yao J, Sánchez-Pérez JM, Sauvage S, et al (2017) Biodiversity and ecosystem purification service in an alluvial wetland. Ecological Engineering 103:359–371.

No competing interests reported.

Ecological Assessment of the Terrestrial Biomes for Wildlife in Iran

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1. Introduction

2. Material and methods