Sensitivity of systematic reserve selection to decisions about scale, biological data, and targets: case study from southern British Columbia
Warman, Leanna D., Sinclair, A.R.E., Scudder, G.G.E., Klinkenberg, Brian, and Presey, Robert L. (2004) Sensitivity of systematic reserve selection to decisions about scale, biological data, and targets: case study from southern British Columbia. Conservation Biology, 18 (3). pp. 655-666.
|PDF (Published Version) - Repository staff only - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader|
View at Publisher Website: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.20...
The identification of conservation areas based on systematic reserve-selection algorithms requires decisions related to both spatial and ecological scale. These decisions may affect the distribution and number of sites considered priorities for conservation within a region. We explored the sensitivity of systematic reserve selection by altering values of three essential variables. We used a 1:20,000-scale terrestrial ecosystem map and habitat suitability data for 29 threatened vertebrate species in the Okanagan region of British Columbia, Canada. To these data we applied a reserve-selection algorithm to select conservation sites while altering selection unit size and shape, features of biodiversity (i.e., vertebrate species), and area conservation targets for each biodiversity feature. The spatial similarity, or percentage overlap, of selected sets of conservation sites identified (1) with different selection units was 40%, (2) with different biodiversity features was 59%, and (3) with different conservation targets was greater than or equal to94%. Because any selected set of sites is only one of many possible sets, we also compared the conservation value (irreplaceability) of all sites in the region for each variation of the data. The correlations of irreplaceability were weak for different selection units (0.23 less than or equal to r less than or equal to 0.67), strong for different biodiversity features (r = 0.84), and mixed for different conservation targets (r = 0.16; 0.16; 1.00). Because of the low congruence of selected sites and weak correlations of irreplaceability for different selection units, recommendations from studies that have been applied at only one spatial scale must be considered cautiously.
|Item Type:||Article (Refereed Research - C1)|
|Keywords:||biodiversity; conservation targets; irreplaceability; minimum sets; reserve selection; spatial scale; surrogates|
|FoR Codes:||05 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES > 0502 Environmental Science and Management > 050205 Environmental Management @ 100%|
|SEO Codes:||96 ENVIRONMENT > 9606 Environmental and Natural Resource Evaluation > 960605 Institutional Arrangements for Environmental Protection @ 100%|
|Deposited On:||01 Apr 2010 11:17|
|Last Modified:||18 Oct 2013 00:59|
Last 12 Months: 0
|Citation Counts with External Providers:|
Repository Staff Only: item control page