Selecting networks of nature reserves: methods do affect the long-term outcome

Data on vascular plants of boreal lakes in Finland were used to compare the efficiency of reserve selection methods in representing four aspects of biodiversity over a 63 year period. These aspects included species richness, phylogenetic diversity, restricted range diversity and threatened species. Our results show that the efficiency of reserve selection methods depends on the selection criteria used and on the aspect of biodiversity under consideration. Heuristic methods and optimizing algorithms were nearly equally efficient in selecting lake networks over a small geographical range. In addition, a scoring procedure was observed to be efficient in maintaining different aspects of biodiversity over time. However, the random selection of lakes seems to be the most inefficient option for a reserve network. In general, reserve selection methods seem to favour lakes that maximize one aspect of diversity at the time of selection, but the network may not be the best option for maintaining the maximum diversity over time. The reserve selection methods do affect the long-term outcome but it is impossible to recommend one method over the others unequivocally.

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

[2]  Robert L. Pressey,et al.  A Comparison of Richness Hotspots, Rarity Hotspots, and Complementary Areas for Conserving Diversity of British Birds , 1996 .

[3]  Graeme Caughley,et al.  Directions in conservation biology , 1994 .

[4]  A. O. Nicholls,et al.  Apparent species turnover, probability of extinction and the selection of nature reserves A case study of the Ingleborough limestone pavements , 1994 .

[5]  Daniel P. Faith,et al.  Genetic diversity and taxonomic priorities for conservation , 1994 .

[6]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Effectiveness of alternative heuristic algorithms for identifying indicative minimum requirements for conservation reserves , 1997 .

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

[8]  K. D. Cocks,et al.  Using mathematical programming to address the multiple reserve selection problem: An example from the Eyre Peninsula, South Australia , 1989 .

[9]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Optimality in reserve selection algorithms: When does it matter and how much? , 1996 .

[10]  D. Faith.  Conservation evaluation and phylogenetic diversity , 1992 .

[11]  Amanda T. Lombard,et al.  Where Should Nature Reserves Be Located in South Africa? A Snake's Perspective , 1995 .

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

[13]  Paul H. Williams,et al.  Measuring biodiversity for choosing conservation areas. , 1993 .

[14]  Georgina M. Mace,et al.  Threatened Status, Rarity, and Diversity as Alternative Selection Measures for Protected Areas: A Test Using Afrotropical Antelopes , 1995 .

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

[16]  Systematics and the Conservation of Biological Diversity , 1996 .

[17]  Amanda T. Lombard,et al.  Reserve systems for limestone endemic flora of the Cape Lowland Fynbos: Iterative versus linear programming , 1996 .

[18]  C. Humphries,et al.  MEASURING BIODIVERSITY VALUE FOR CONSERVATION , 1995 .

[19]  Robert L. Pressey,et al.  Efficiency in conservation evaluation: Scoring versus iterative approaches , 1989 .

[20]  Richard L. Church,et al.  Reserve selection as a maximal covering location problem , 1996 .

[21]  Paul H. Williams,et al.  What to protect?—Systematics and the agony of choice , 1991 .

[22]  C. Margules,et al.  Criteria used in assessing wildlife conservation potential: A review , 1981 .

[23]  Andrew R. Solow,et al.  A note on optimal algorithms for reserve site selection , 1996 .