DOI: 10.5061/dryad.79cnp5hw5
title: Map of the proportion of threatened endemic species per country in relation with environmental and socioeconomic drivers

description: This dataset is a shapefile representing the proportion of threatened
 endemic species (both plants and animals) in 247 countries along with
 associated environmental and socioeconomic drivers. The geographic
 coordinate system is World Geodetic System 1984 (EPSG: 4326).
description: Information on a total of 65,125 endemic species including 27,294
 globally threatened endemic species (55% threatened plant species, 45%
 threatened animal species) was extracted from the IUCN Red List. The
 categories of threatened species used in the analyses included vulnerable
 (VU), endangered (EN), critically endangered (CR), extinct in the wild
 (EW) and globally extinct (EX). We calculated the proportion of globally
 threatened endemic species among the total number of assessed endemic
 species per country (Chamberlain et al., 2020).<br> Associated
 environmental socioeconomic regional correlates included: 1) Cropland: The
 proportion of each country covered by crops (including food, fibre and
 fodder crops and pasture grasses) was determined based on a FAO global map
 with a resolution of 5 arc-minutes (von Velthuizen et al., 2007); 2)
 HANPP: The proportion of net primary production appropriated by humans
 (HANPP) by harvesting or burning biomass and by converting natural
 ecosystems to managed lands with lower productivity was derived for the
 year 2010 from Krausmann et al. (2013); 3) Delta HANPP: We also computed
 the increase in HANPP over the period 1962-2010 (Krausmann et al., 2013);
 4) per area GDP: The per area gross domestic product (GDP, in
 international $) was obtained by calculating the median value over each
 country of all 5 arcmin cells of a recently gridded GDP dataset (Kummu et
 al., 2018); 5) Human Footprint (HFP): The global terrestrial human
 footprint (HFP) is an index integrating the influence of built
 environments, population density, electric infrastructure, croplands,
 pasture lands, roads, railways, and navigable waterways on the environment
 based on remotely-sensed and bottom-up survey information (Venter et al.,
 2016). We extracted from a 1 km resolution HFP map the median value over
 each country in 2009; 6) Delta HFP: We also calculated the increase in
 median HFP over the period 1993-2009 (Venter et al., 2016); 7) Invasive
 alien plants: The richness of invasive alien vascular plant species
 recorded in each country was compiled by Essl et al. (2019); 8) Invasive
 alien animals: The richness of invasive alien animal species was derived
 from the Global Register of Introduced and Invasive Species database
 (http://griis.org/ accessed on 27-6-2018); 9) Delta temperature: Based on
 decadal climate maps produced by the IPCC over the last century with a
 0.5° resolution, we calculated the median of the change in annual mean
 temperature (in °C) between 1901-1910 and 1981-1990 (Mitchell &
 Jones, 2005); 10) Delta rainfall: The same for annual precipitation (in
 mm); 11) Velocity temperature: We also calculated the median velocity of
 climate change based on the formula from Hamann et al. (2015) to evaluate
 the distance (in °) over which a species must migrate over the surface of
 the earth to maintain constant temperature conditions; 12) Velocity
 rainfall: The same for precipitation; 13) Roadless areas: The median area
 of a roadless fragment (in km²) was calculated from the global map of
 roadless areas published by Ibisch et al. (2016); 14) Wilderness areas:
 The proportion of wildlands (categories ‘wild woodlands’ and ‘wild
 treeless and barren lands’) was calculated from the anthropogenic biome
 map of Ellis et al. (2010); 15) Protected areas: The proportion of
 protected areas was estimated from the IUCN’s shapefile of World Database
 on Protected Areas
 (https://www.iucn.org/theme/protected-areas/our-work/world-database-protected-areas); 16) Conservation spending: The mean annual conservation spending of each country (in international $) was taken from Waldron et al. (2017) to quantify investment to mitigate biodiversity loss; 17) Completeness of biodiversity information: We used data on the estimated percentage completeness of species records in GBIF, as assessed through comparison with independent estimates of native richness. Inventory effort indices available for vertebrates (Meyer et al., 2015) and vascular plants (Meyer et al., 2016) were merged into a single metric based upon an average weighted by estimated native species richness.