Connectivity, Probabilities and Persistence: Comparing Reserve Selection Strategies

Reserve selection methods are often based on information on species’ occurrence. This can be presence–absence data, or probabilities of occurrence estimated with species distribution models. However, the effect of the choice of distribution model on the outcome of a reserve selection method has been ignored. Here we test a range of species distribution models with three different reserve selection methods. The distribution models had different combinations of variables related to habitat quality and connectivity (which incorporates the effect of spatial habitat configuration on species occurrence). The reserve selection methods included (i) a minimum set approach without spatial considerations; (ii) a clustering reserve selection method; and (iii) a dynamic approach where probabilities of occurrence are re-evaluated according to the spatial pattern of selected sites. The sets of selected reserves were assessed by re-computing species probability of occurrence in reserves using the best probability model and assuming loss of non-selected habitat. The results show that particular choices of distribution model and selection method may lead to reserves that overestimate the achieved target; in other words, species may seem to be represented but the reserve network may actually not be able to support them in the long-term. Instead, the use of models that incorporated connectivity as a variable resulted in the selection of aggregated reserves with higher potential for species long-term persistence. As reserve design aims at the long-term protection of species, it is important to be aware of the uncertainties related to model and method choice and their implications.

[1]  R. Holt,et al.  A Survey and Overview of Habitat Fragmentation Experiments , 2000 .

[2]  S. Andelman,et al.  Mathematical Methods for Identifying Representative Reserve Networks , 2000 .

[3]  Paul H. Williams,et al.  Using probability of persistence to identify important areas for biodiversity conservation , 2000, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[4]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  Single‐species dynamic site selection , 2002 .

[5]  Simon Ferrier,et al.  Evaluating the predictive performance of habitat models developed using logistic regression , 2000 .

[6]  J. Elith.  Quantitative Methods for Modeling Species Habitat: Comparative Performance and an Application to Australian Plants , 2000 .

[7]  John Sessions,et al.  Designing Compact and Contiguous Reserve Networks with a Hybrid Heuristic Algorithm , 2002, Forest Science.

[8]  Helen M. Regan,et al.  Mapping epistemic uncertainties and vague concepts in predictions of species distribution , 2002 .

[9]  Monica G. Turner,et al.  Landscape connectivity and population distributions in heterogeneous environments , 1997 .

[10]  Miguel B. Araújo,et al.  Selecting areas for species persistence using occurrence data , 2000 .

[11]  S. Ferson,et al.  Quantitative Methods for Conservation Biology , 2002, Springer New York.

[12]  Chris Margules,et al.  Patterns in the distributions of species and the selection of nature reserves: An example from Eucalyptus forests in South-eastern New South Wales , 1989 .

[13]  Michael Drielsma,et al.  Extended statistical approaches to modelling spatial pattern in biodiversity in northeast New South Wales. II. Community-level modelling , 2002, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[14]  C. Grashof-Bokdam,et al.  Forest species in an agricultural landscape in The Netherlands: effects of habitat fragmentation , 1997 .

[15]  Jessica Gurevitch,et al.  Ecography 25: 601 -- 615, 2002 , 2022 .

[16]  Mar Cabeza,et al.  Habitat loss and connectivity of reserve networks in probability approaches to reserve design , 2003 .

[17]  Robert A. Briers,et al.  Incorporating connectivity into reserve selection procedures , 2002 .

[18]  M. Araújo,et al.  Apples, Oranges, and Probabilities: Integrating Multiple Factors into Biodiversity Conservation with Consistency , 2002 .

[19]  R L Pressey,et al.  Beyond opportunism: Key principles for systematic reserve selection. , 1993, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[20]  Robert G. D'Eon,et al.  Landscape Connectivity as a Function of Scale and Organism Vagility in a Real Forested Landscape , 2002 .

[21]  Paul H. Williams,et al.  A sequential approach to minimise threats within selected conservation areas , 2002, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[22]  J A Swets,et al.  Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. , 1988, Science.

[23]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  Combining probabilities of occurrence with spatial reserve design , 2004 .

[24]  Manuela M. P. Huso,et al.  A comparison of reserve selection algorithms using data on terrestrial vertebrates in Oregon , 1997 .

[25]  S. Ferrier,et al.  Extended statistical approaches to modelling spatial pattern in biodiversity in northeast New South Wales. I. Species-level modelling , 2004, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[26]  C. Braak,et al.  Weighted averaging, logistic regression and the Gaussian response model , 2004, Vegetatio.

[27]  R. Cowling,et al.  Picking up the pieces: a biosphere reserve framework for a fragmented landscape – The Coastal Lowlands of the Western Cape, South Africa , 1999, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[28]  A. O. Nicholls,et al.  Selecting networks of reserves to maximise biological diversity , 1988 .

[29]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Metapopulation dynamics and reserve network design , 2004 .

[30]  Andrew Balmford,et al.  Complementarity and the use of indicator groups for reserve selection in Uganda , 1998, Nature.

[31]  I. Hanski.  A Practical Model of Metapopulation Dynamics , 1994 .

[32]  J. Hanley,et al.  The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. , 1982, Radiology.

[33]  F. van Langevelde,et al.  Competing land use in the reserve site selection problem , 2000, Landscape Ecology.

[34]  J. Kalkhoven,et al.  Ecoprofielen voor soortanalyses van ruimtelijke samenhang met LARCH , 2002 .

[35]  Peter L. Forey,et al.  Systematics and conservation evaluation , 1994 .

[36]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  Site‐Selection Algorithms and Habitat Loss , 2003 .

[37]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  SIMPLE CONNECTIVITY MEASURES IN SPATIAL ECOLOGY , 2002 .

[38]  R. Foppen,et al.  Introducing the key patch approach for habitat networks with persistent populations: an example for marshland birds , 2001 .

[39]  Dr Robert Bryant,et al.  Modelling landscape-scale habitat use using GIS and remote sensing : a case study with great bustards , 2001 .

[40]  A. O. Nicholls,et al.  An upgraded reserve selection algorithm , 1993 .

[41]  Helen M. Regan,et al.  A TAXONOMY AND TREATMENT OF UNCERTAINTY FOR ECOLOGY AND CONSERVATION BIOLOGY , 2002 .

[42]  M. Austin,et al.  New approaches to direct gradient analysis using environmental scalars and statistical curve-fitting procedures , 1984, Vegetatio.

[43]  Georgina M. Mace,et al.  Conservation in a Changing World , 1999 .

[44]  Frank van Langevelde,et al.  Scale of habitat connectivity and colonization in fragmented nuthatch populations , 2000 .

[45]  S. Manel,et al.  Evaluating presence-absence models in ecology: the need to account for prevalence , 2001 .

[46]  J. Ginsberg,et al.  Edge effects and the extinction of populations inside protected areas , 1998, Science.

[47]  John Bell,et al.  A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models , 1997, Environmental Conservation.

[48]  Jamie B. Kirkpatrick,et al.  An iterative method for establishing priorities for the selection of nature reserves: An example from Tasmania , 1983 .

[49]  Nathan H. Schumaker,et al.  Using Landscape Indices to Predict Habitat Connectivity , 1996 .

[50]  K. Gaston,et al.  Robustness of reserve selection procedures under temporal species turnover , 2000, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[51]  M Cabeza,et al.  Design of reserve networks and the persistence of biodiversity. , 2001, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[52]  M. McCarthy,et al.  PRECISION AND BIAS OF METHODS FOR ESTIMATING POINT SURVEY DETECTION PROBABILITIES , 2004 .

[53]  Markku Kuitunen,et al.  Selecting networks of nature reserves: methods do affect the long-term outcome , 1999, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.