CONSERVATION OF AFROTROPICAL ANTELOPES - CONSEQUENCES AND EFFICIENCY OF USING DIFFERENT SITE SELECTION METHODS AND DIVERSITY CRITERIA

被引：63

作者：

KERSHAW, M

WILLIAMS, PH

MACE, GM

机构：

[1] Institute of Zoology, London, NW1 4RY, Regent's Park

[2] Biogeography and Conservation Laboratory, Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, London, SW7 5BD, Cromwell Road

[3] Institute of Zoology, London, NW1 4RY, Regent's Park

来源：

BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION | 1994年 / 3卷 / 04期

关键词：

SPECIES RICHNESS; TAXONOMIC DIVERSITY; RARITY; ITERATIVE SELECTION; RESERVE NETWORKS;

D O I：

10.1007/BF00056508

中图分类号：

X176 [生物多样性保护];

学科分类号：

090705 ;

摘要：

The consequences of different measures of biotic diversity for the selection of priority sites for conservation were investigated using a dataset on Afrotropical antelopes. Site networks were selected using species richness, taxonomic diversity and restricted-range diversity as selection criteria. Restricted-range diversity was the most efficient criterion at representing all the species in the dataset. However when only a few sites could be conserved (insufficient to include all species) restricted-range diversity was relatively poor at representing absolute numbers of species and also taxonomic diversity. Use of unweighted species richness rather than a taxonomically weighted score did not significantly reduce the amount of taxonomic diversity represented. As expected an iterative selection of sites was considerably more efficient at representing all aspects of diversity than selection of the top-scoring sites. However the efficiency of an iterative selection procedure was reduced when some areas were already part of the reserve network. Since none of the criteria for selecting reserves maximizes all aspects of biodiversity under all circumstances, it is necessary to be clear about the objectives of a reserve network when deciding on a method for site selection.

引用

页码：354 / 372

页数：19

共 16 条

[1]

Bedward M., Pressey R.L., Nicholls A.O., Scores and score classes for evaluation criteria: a comparison based on the cost of reserving all natural features, Biol. Conserv., 56, pp. 281-94, (1991)

[2]

Antelopes. Global survey and regional action plans. Part 1. East and North Africa, (1988)

[3]

Antelopes. Global survey and regional action plans. Part 2. South and South-Central Africa, (1989)

[4]

Antelopes. Global survey and regional action plans. Part 3. West and Central Africa, (1990)

[5]

Gentry A.W., The subfamilies and tribes of the family Bovidae, Mammal Rev., 22, pp. 1-32, (1992)

[6]

Kirkpatrick J.B., An iterative method for establishing priorities for the selection of nature reserves: an example from Tasmania, Biol. Conserv., 25, pp. 127-34, (1983)

[7]

Margules C.R., Nicholls A.O., Pressey R.L., Selecting networks of reserves to maximise biological diversity, Biol. Conserv., 43, pp. 63-70, (1988)

[8]

Noss R.F., From endangered species to biodiversity, Balancing on the brink of extinction: the Endangered Species Act and lessons for the future, pp. 227-46, (1991)

[9]

Pressey R.L., Nicholls A.O., Efficiency in conservation evaluation: scoring versus iterative approaches, Biol. Conserv., 50, pp. 199-218, (1989)

[10]

Pressey R.L., Nicholls A.O., Application of a numerical algorithm to the selection of reserves in semi-arid New South Wales, Biol. Conserv., 50, pp. 263-78, (1989)

← 1 2 →