The value of biodiversity in reserve selection: Representation, species weighting, and benefit functions

被引:128
作者
Arponen, A
Heikkinen, RK
Thomas, CD
Moilanen, A
机构
[1] Univ Helsinki, Dept Biol & Environm Sci, Metapopulat Res Grp, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland
[2] Finnish Environm Inst, Res Dept, Res Programme Biodivers, FIN-00251 Helsinki, Finland
[3] Univ York, Dept Biol, York YO10 5YW, N Yorkshire, England
关键词
complementarity; maximum species coverage; overrepresentation of species; site-selection algorithim; underrepresentation of species;
D O I
10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00218.x
中图分类号
X176 [生物多样性保护];
学科分类号
090705 ;
摘要
The limited availability of resources for conservation has led to the development of many quantitative methods for selecting reserves that aim to maximize The biodiversity value of reserve networks, in published analyses, species are often considered equal, although some are in much greater need of protection than others. Furthermore, representation is usually treated as a threshold a species is either represented or not, but varying levels of representation over or under a given target level are not valued differently. We propose that a higher representation level should also have higher value. We introduce a framework for reserve selection that includes species weights and benefit functions for under- and overrepresentation (number of locations for each species). We applied the method to conservation planning for herb-rich forests in southern Finland. Our use of benefit functions and weighting changed the identity of about 50% of the selected sites at different funding levels and improved the representation of rare and threatened species. We also identified a small area of additional land that would substantially enhance the existing reserve network. We suggest that benefit functions and species weighting should be considered as standard options in reserve-selection applications.
引用
收藏
页码:2009 / 2014
页数:6
相关论文
共 20 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1998, RETKEILYKASVIO
[2]   Analysis of the threshold and expected coverage approaches to the probabilistic reserve site selection problem [J].
Arthur, JL ;
Haight, RG ;
Montgomery, CA ;
Polasky, S .
ENVIRONMENTAL MODELING & ASSESSMENT, 2002, 7 (02) :81-89
[3]  
Cabeza Mar, 2004, P541, DOI 10.1016/B978-012323448-3/50024-6
[4]   Nature reserve site selection to maximize expected species covered [J].
Camm, JD ;
Norman, SK ;
Polasky, S ;
Solow, AR .
OPERATIONS RESEARCH, 2002, 50 (06) :946-955
[5]   Reserve selection as a maximal covering location problem [J].
Church, RL ;
Stoms, DM ;
Davis, FW .
BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, 1996, 76 (02) :105-112
[6]   Complementarity and other key criteria in the conservation of herb-rich forests in Finland [J].
Heikkinen, RK .
BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION, 2002, 11 (11) :1939-1958
[7]   ARE SMALL POPULATIONS OF PLANTS WORTH PRESERVING [J].
LESICA, P ;
ALLENDORF, FW .
CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, 1992, 6 (01) :135-139
[8]   CRITERIA USED IN ASSESSING WILDLIFE CONSERVATION POTENTIAL - A REVIEW [J].
MARGULES, C ;
USHER, MB .
BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, 1981, 21 (02) :79-109
[9]   Systematic conservation planning [J].
Margules, CR ;
Pressey, RL .
NATURE, 2000, 405 (6783) :243-253
[10]   TAXONOMY AS DESTINY [J].
MAY, RM .
NATURE, 1990, 347 (6289) :129-130