Literature DB >> 18445075

Influence of representation targets on the total area of conservation-area networks.

James Justus1, Trevon Fuller, Sahotra Sarkar.   

Abstract

Systematic conservation planning typically requires specification of quantitative representation targets for biodiversity surrogates such as species, vegetation types, and environmental parameters. Targets are usually specified either as the minimum total area in a conservation-area network in which a surrogate must be present or as the proportion of a surrogate's existing spatial distribution required to be in the network. Because the biological basis for setting targets is often unclear, a better understanding of how targets affect selection of conservation areas is needed. We studied how the total area of conservation-area networks depends on percentage targets ranging from 5% to 95%. We analyzed 12 data sets of different surrogate distributions from 5 regions: Korea, Mexico, Québec, Queensland, and West Virginia. To assess the effect of spatial resolution on the target-area relationship, we also analyzed each data set at 7 spatial resolutions ranging from 0.01 degrees x 0.01 degrees to 0.10 degrees x 0.10 degrees. Most of the data sets showed a linear relationship between representation targets and total area of conservation-area networks that was invariant across changes in spatial resolution. The slope of this relationship indicated how total area increased with target level, and our results suggest that greater surrogate representation requires significantly more area. One data set exhibited a highly nonlinear relationship. The results for this data set suggest a new method for setting targets on the basis of the functional form of target-area relationships. In particular, the method shows how the target-area relationship can provide a rationale for setting targets solely on the basis of distributional information about surrogates.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18445075     DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00928.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Conserv Biol        ISSN: 0888-8892            Impact factor:   6.560


  6 in total

1.  How much does it cost to expand a protected area system? Some critical determining factors and ranges of costs for Queensland.

Authors:  Vanessa M Adams; Daniel B Segan; Robert L Pressey
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-09-28       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  Opuntia in México: identifying priority areas for conserving biodiversity in a multi-use landscape.

Authors:  Patricia Illoldi-Rangel; Michael Ciarleglio; Leia Sheinvar; Miguel Linaje; Victor Sánchez-Cordero; Sahotra Sarkar
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-05-14       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Mapping evolutionary process: a multi-taxa approach to conservation prioritization.

Authors:  Henri A Thomassen; Trevon Fuller; Wolfgang Buermann; Borja Milá; Charles M Kieswetter; Pablo Jarrín-V; Susan E Cameron; Eliza Mason; Rena Schweizer; Jasmin Schlunegger; Janice Chan; Ophelia Wang; Manuel Peralvo; Christopher J Schneider; Catherine H Graham; John P Pollinger; Sassan Saatchi; Robert K Wayne; Thomas B Smith
Journal:  Evol Appl       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 5.183

4.  Sympathy for the Devil: Detailing the Effects of Planning-Unit Size, Thematic Resolution of Reef Classes, and Socioeconomic Costs on Spatial Priorities for Marine Conservation.

Authors:  Jessica Cheok; Robert L Pressey; Rebecca Weeks; Serge Andréfouët; James Moloney
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-11-09       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Conservation in the context of climate change: practical guidelines for land protection at local scales.

Authors:  Kevin Ruddock; Peter V August; Christopher Damon; Charles Labash; Pamela Rubinoff; Donald Robadue
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-11-20       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Model systems to elucidate minimum requirements for protected areas networks.

Authors:  Yolanda F Wiersma; R Troy McMullin; Darren J H Sleep
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-12-20       Impact factor: 4.379

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.