Literature DB >> 20337671

Terrestrial reserve networks do not adequately represent aquatic ecosystems.

Matthew E Herbert1, Peter B McIntyre, Patrick J Doran, J David Allan, Robin Abell.   

Abstract

Protected areas are a cornerstone of conservation and have been designed largely around terrestrial features. Freshwater species and ecosystems are highly imperiled, but the effectiveness of existing protected areas in representing freshwater features is poorly known. Using the inland waters of Michigan as a test case, we quantified the coverage of four key freshwater features (wetlands, riparian zones, groundwater recharge, rare species) within conservation lands and compared these with representation of terrestrial features. Wetlands were included within protected areas more often than expected by chance, but riparian zones were underrepresented across all (GAP 1-3) protected lands, particularly for headwater streams and large rivers. Nevertheless, within strictly protected lands (GAP 1-2), riparian zones were highly represented because of the contribution of the national Wild and Scenic Rivers Program. Representation of areas of groundwater recharge was generally proportional to area of the reserve network within watersheds, although a recharge hotspot associated with some of Michigan's most valued rivers is almost entirely unprotected. Species representation in protected areas differed significantly among obligate aquatic, wetland, and terrestrial species, with representation generally highest for terrestrial species and lowest for aquatic species. Our results illustrate the need to further evaluate and address the representation of freshwater features within protected areas and the value of broadening gap analysis and other protected-areas assessments to include key ecosystem processes that are requisite to long-term conservation of species and ecosystems. We conclude that terrestrially oriented protected-area networks provide a weak safety net for aquatic features, which means complementary planning and management for both freshwater and terrestrial conservation targets is needed.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20337671     DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01460.x

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


  6 in total

1.  Fresh waters and fish diversity: distribution, protection and disturbance in tropical Australia.

Authors:  Stephanie R Januchowski-Hartley; Richard G Pearson; Robert Puschendorf; Thomas Rayner
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-10-06       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  Assessing threats of non-native species to native freshwater biodiversity: Conservation priorities for the United States.

Authors:  Stephanie Panlasigui; Amy J S Davis; Michael J Mangiante; John A Darling
Journal:  Biol Conserv       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 5.990

3.  Spatial priorities for freshwater biodiversity conservation in light of catchment protection and connectivity in Europe.

Authors:  Márton Szabolcs; Felícia Kapusi; Savrina Carrizo; Danijela Markovic; Jörg Freyhof; Núria Cid; Ana Cristina Cardoso; Mathias Scholz; Hans D Kasperidus; William R T Darwall; Szabolcs Lengyel
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-05-17       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Tourism and the conservation of critically endangered frogs.

Authors:  Clare Morrison; Clay Simpkins; J Guy Castley; Ralf C Buckley
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-09-12       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Understanding the Groundwater Hydrology of a Geographically-Isolated Prairie Fen: Implications for Conservation.

Authors:  Prasanna Venkatesh Sampath; Hua-Sheng Liao; Zachary Kristopher Curtis; Patrick J Doran; Matthew E Herbert; Christopher A May; Shu-Guang Li
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-10-09       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  The potential connectivity of waterhole networks and the effectiveness of a protected area under various drought scenarios.

Authors:  Georgina O'Farrill; Kim Gauthier Schampaert; Bronwyn Rayfield; Örjan Bodin; Sophie Calmé; Raja Sengupta; Andrew Gonzalez
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-05-15       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.