Using biodiversity features to promote an Ecosystem-Based Conservation framework in terrestrial ecosystems

PLOS One | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0336705 November 21, 2025 13 / 18 often undervalued for biodiversity conservation in Africa due to their limited populations of large charismatic mammals [86]. Similarly, unprotected areas of ecosystems remained overlooked, as conservation frameworks and funding continue to prioritise PAs, assuming that they are the most cost-effective and logistically feasible option (Cuthbert et al., 2022; Gal- lardo et al., 2022). Yet evidence shows that substantial biodiversity exists outside PA boundaries, and in some cases even exceeds that within [90]. This highlights the need of complementary conservation approaches at ecosystem scale. The EBC framework can address these gaps by treating ecosystems as social-ecological units, where native biota and human communities have co-evolved over time, generating traditional ecological knowledge that underpins both coex- istence and resource use. By linking biodiversity features with ecosystem service bundles, the EBC framework provides a mechanism to incentivise communities to engage in conservation beyond PAs. For instance, in Tanzania’s montane forest ecosystem, bundles of services such as water provision, carbon storage, and ecotourism have been demonstrated [29–31], while in savanna rangelands, fodder and grazing resources play a critical role [91]. The generation of these ecosystem service bundles shows how sustaining native biota in these ecosystems generates multiple benefits that can

continuously support human well-being and biodiversity simultaneously. Importantly, the EBC framework remains highly relevant for Tanzania, where PA coverage already exceeds global recommendations but biodiversity loss continues. This paradox reflects the fact that biodiversity does not follow administrative or PA boundaries. By building on TEK and the incentives provided by ecosystem service bundles, EBC can mobilise local stewardship, promote sustainable use, and help reverse biodiversity loss, particularly in unprotected areas of these ecosystems. In Tan- zania, different ecosystems are inhabited by diverse ethnic communities that interact with biodiversity features, particularly plant taxa, which are unique to their respective ecosystems and provide multiple values and ecosystem services. Among biodiversity features of these terrestrial ecosystems, some plant species occur in multiple locations and are known by different vernacular names and primary uses [92]. Of the various known plant species in these ecosystems, most are used for food, while others serve medicinal, material, or ritual purposes. The EBC framework can serve as an operational and inclusive strategy to incentivise communities to actively conserve plant species that sustain their livelihoods and support their well-being in these ecosystems in Tanzania and beyond. By encompassing both formal PAs and their contiguous surroundings, the EBC framework aligns with IUCN connec- tivity conservation guidelines [69] and safeguards biodiversity, cultural values, and traditional resource management

systems, particularly those practiced by indigenous and local communities. This way, EBC provides not only a framework to expand conservation beyond PAs but also a pathway for equitable cost-benefit sharing between communities and ecosystems. Implementing this framework requires context-specific prioritisation, ecosystem-level biodiversity monitoring, and engagement with communities who hold the knowledge and incentives to sustain biodiversity over the long term. Positioned alongside PAs, the EBC framework can enhance the resilience of ecosystems, maintain nature’s contributions to people, and ensure that conservation efforts respond to both ecological and social realities. Although advances in connectivity science, biodiversity data availability, and computational modelling now enable more sophisticated assessments of functional diversity [93–97], keeping track of these advances is challenging for practitioners and stakeholders. Our study relies on literature-based biodiversity features as proxies for species distribution estimates. Accordingly, our analysis focuses on the presence or absence of key biodiversity features rather than unique species, since not all studies reported individual species. To allow comparisons across ecosystems, combined totals were stan- dardised per 100 km²; however, these values should be interpreted as indicative of biodiversity representation rather than absolute measures. While this approach is constrained by uneven research effort, publication bias, and unequal ecosys-

tem and taxon representation, it provides a reasonable estimate of the distribution of the three key biodiversity features across ecosystems [96,97]. Whilst PAs remain crucial for biodiversity conservation, our study has demonstrated that effective biodiversity conservation requires a broader ecosystem-level framework engaging all stakeholders. Implement- ing the EBC framework alongside PAs can help to better address biodiversity loss, particularly outside PAs, and enhance the long-term resilience of both ecosystems and human communities. Conservation or restoration of multiple patches of