Protected areas don't always protect food webs

In the face of global biodiversity loss, protected areas have emerged as a crucial conservation strategy. These regions are set aside to limit human interference and provide wildlife with a safe space.

Conservationists often focus on species counts when measuring success. But are these protected zones doing enough to preserve the entire structure of ecosystems?

This question is at the heart of a new study from Swansea University. Instead of focusing only on species richness, the researchers examined how protected areas affect the complex interactions between species.

These species interactions – especially predator-prey relationships – build the food webs that make ecosystems stable and functional.

Species count is not enough 

Species richness is important. However, ecosystems are more than a list of species. The relationships between organisms play a key role in ecological balance. A hawk hunting smaller birds or a songbird feeding on insects reflects interactions that keep ecosystems working.

The Swansea team wanted to understand if protected areas help maintain this ecological balance. They examined the structure of food webs rather than just counting how many species lived in each location.

A food web includes all the feeding relationships between animals in a region. It shows who eats whom and how energy flows through the environment.

To conduct this study, the researchers turned to citizen science. They used data from platforms like eBird, where volunteers record bird sightings. This allowed the experts to track 509 bird species across 45 ecological networks from Spain to Finland.

Food webs inside and outside reserves

Using this large database, the team combined observational bird records with known predator-prey links. For example, if a particular raptor feeds on smaller birds, that relationship was mapped. Each network captured the structure of a local bird community and its food web.

The team compared food webs inside protected areas to those in surrounding, non-protected landscapes. These comparisons were not simple.

The researchers controlled for many variables. They looked at habitat diversity, the percentage of forest and agricultural land, and levels of human pressure.

The experts also considered the designation status of the protected areas. Some zones were part of the European Bird Directives, which provide stronger conservation measures. Others had more general protections.

These different conservation levels allowed the team to ask whether clearer goals led to better ecological outcomes.

Protected areas help in some places

So, what did the researchers find? In some cases, protected areas improved the structure of food webs. The networks inside protected zones tended to have more species overall. Intermediate-level species – those neither top predators nor at the bottom – were more common.

Also, predators inside protected areas tended to be larger in body size, both at the top and middle levels of the food web.

However, not all of the results were encouraging. The length of food chains and the connectivity of species within the web did not show consistent improvement. In other words, simply having more species did not guarantee a healthier or more connected ecosystem.

The effects varied across Europe. Food webs in Spain responded differently from those in Finland or central Europe. This suggests that local conditions still matter greatly. Protection alone cannot guarantee the same results everywhere.

Factors behind food web differences

What caused the variation in results? Several environmental factors played a role. Areas that were more remote generally had healthier food webs. Places with higher habitat diversity also performed better. Human pressure and the amount of nearby farmland had a strong influence too.

Interestingly, areas under the European Bird Directives showed stronger positive trends. This suggests that clearer conservation planning makes a real difference. Just designating a region as “protected” is not enough. What matters is how that protection is implemented.

Study co-author Dr. Miguel Lurgi, who leads the Computational Ecology Lab, emphasized the significance of the research.

“Studies like ours highlight the complexity of conservation action and the importance of considering key aspects of biodiversity beyond species richness, such as ecological interactions and the tangled networks that they form, into biodiversity assessments,” noted Dr. Lurgi.

“These networks not only structure communities and enable their persistence, but they also play important roles in the functions that ecosystems fulfil in nature.”

We must protect species and their roles 

This study challenges a common assumption in conservation planning. Many projects measure success by the number of species saved. The research shows that relationships between species are equally vital.

Protecting one bird species is good. Ensuring that it still plays its ecological role – as predator, prey, or pollinator – is better.

Protected areas clearly help in some ways. They offer space for species to live and grow. But without active planning, their impact on food webs may fall short. Conservation needs to think about networks, not just numbers.

By looking at predator-prey relationships, this research opens a path to more holistic conservation strategies. It also highlights the value of citizen science.

Platforms like eBird make this kind of large-scale ecological work possible. Every birdwatcher’s observation helps build a clearer picture of how our ecosystems function.

Protected areas need better plans

Europe’s protected areas are not failing, but they are not universally succeeding either. They need tailored strategies, grounded in ecological data. Simple protection does not always support complex ecosystems.

This study gives policymakers a reason to refine their approaches. If the goal is to protect ecosystems, not just individual species, then conservation must shift. It must include ecological interactions, food web structures, and the subtle forces that hold nature together.

As this research shows, conservation cannot afford to stay simple. Nature is complex. Our strategies must match that complexity.

The study is published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences.

—–

Like what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter for engaging articles, exclusive content, and the latest updates. 

Check us out on EarthSnap, a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls and Earth.com.

—–