Threats to biodiversity are a matter of significant concern nowadays as there are many species all around the globe which endangered due to different reasons. Some of those species may even face extinction, which is why many people and organizations take action to protect them. The main threats to biodiversity have been identified by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, or IUCN for short (IUCN, 2022). The Union provides lists of endangered species, making it possible to determine how many of them are threatened in different areas. The IUCN data shows some differences between the threat rankings for various land regions (see Appendix). This paper compares the threats to biodiversity in the United States and Brazil to identify what might account for the corresponding differences and propose potentially effective actions to prevent extinction. Although threats to biodiversity significantly differ in the U. S. and Brazil, both countries have many endangered species, which is why they should take action to prevent animal extinction.
First of all, it is essential to determine the major threats to various species in the countries under discussion. According to IUCN (2022), species in the United States are threatened mainly by biological resource use, invasive and other problematic species, genes, and diseases, and natural system modifications. Each of the first two threats endangers almost 2,000 species, while the latter one endangers almost 1,500 of them (IUCN, 2022). Leu et al. (2019) report that specific phenomena threatening most animals include habitat loss, environmental stochasticity, and interaction between different species. As for the developing country, Brazil, most species there are threatened by agriculture and aquaculture, biological resource use, and residential and commercial development (IUCN, 2022). In comparison to the United States, there are many more endangered types of animals in Brazil: the first two categories threaten more than 3,000 species each. The third category of threats is associated with more than 2,000 species (IUCN, 2022). Overall, many animals in both countries are endangered for various reasons.
There are significant differences between the two lists of threats made for the United States and Brazil. The most noteworthy of those differences is the ratio between the numbers of endangered animals in the category of agriculture and aquaculture. This category takes first place in Brazil with 3535 endangered species and only seventh place in the United States with 1099 endangered species (IUCN, 2022). The reason for such inequality is the fact that Brazil “harbors the highest terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity and the highest volume of surface freshwater of any country” (Thomaz et al., 2020, p. 295). Although there are distinct differences between the fauna conditions in different countries, the developing country has an excessive number of water species inhabiting its water area. Therefore, all the activities related to aquaculture in Brazil can endanger more species than in any other country, including the United States.
Specific actions should be taken in order to prevent animal species in the United States from extinction. According to Leu et al. (2019), most endangered species inhabit private lands, while those animals that live on federal lands are more likely to improve in terms of biodiversity indicators. The government should reach private landowners and work directly with them, discussing how to improve biodiversity on their lands. Additionally, Leu et al. (2019) report that one of the most dangerous threats for animals on the United States’ territory is habitat loss, and researchers see the problem in the current laws. Thus, another step required for saving species is reconsidering federal and state regulations as they currently cannot prevent habitat loss. Communicating with private landowners and granting more federal protection to endangered species can help save many animals and increase the United States’ biodiversity.
The threat rankings in Brazil are not similar to those in the U. S., meaning that the measures for preserving animal species have to be different. Tulloch et al. (2020) suggest that ecological forecasts can be especially effective in sea applications, which Brazil needs as its most significant problem is associated with aquaculture. The ecological forecasts can predict the fauna’s response to various interventions, and that data can be further used to create a list of measures to prevent dangers to Brazilian water species. In addition, threats to Brazilian biodiversity have increased since the National Environmental Policy has weakened, and the president’s administration has dismantled many corresponding environmental regulations (Thomaz et al., 2020). Reconsideration of the amendments made in those regulations may be vital for saving many animal species and improving Brazil’s biodiversity.
The United States and Brazil have many endangered species, and even though the reasons for biodiversity threats are different, both countries should act immediately to save animals and prevent their extinction. Brazil has many more threatened species compared to the U. S. However, that inequality seems to relate to the general number of species inhabiting the country and not to the fact that this country is a developing one. Brazil and the United States should both take action to save their endangered species, starting with reconsidering the corresponding regulations and granting federal protection to animals.
References
IUCN (2022). Red list of threatened species.
Leu, M., Haines, A. M., Check, C. E., Costante, D. M., Evans, J. C., Hollingsworth, M. A., & Treakle, T. C. (2019). Temporal analysis of threats causing species endangerment in the United States. Conservation Science and Practice, 1(8).
Thomaz, S. M., Barbosa, L. G., de Souza Duarte, M. C., & Panosso, R. (2020). Opinion: The future of nature conservation in Brazil. Inland Waters, 10(2), 295-303.
Tulloch, A. I., Hagger, V., & Greenville, A. C. (2020). Ecological forecasts to inform near‐term management of threats to biodiversity. Global Change Biology, 26(10), 5816-5828.