Is maximizing protection the same as minimizing loss? Efficiency and retention as alternative measures of the effectiveness of proposed reserves

We used two measures to compare the effectiveness of 52 conservation criteria in achieving conservation targets for forest types. The first measure was efficiency. Although widely used, efficiency assumes no loss or reduction of biodiversity features before conservation is implemented. This is invalid in many situations. Often, it is more realistic to assume gradual implementation accompanied by incremental, predictable reduction and loss of biodiversity features. We simulated future landscapes resulting from the annual interplay of loss and conservation of forest types. We then based our second measure, retention, on how well criteria scheduled conservation action to prevent targets being compromised. The simulations partly support predictions about the best criteria for scheduling implementation with continuing biodiversity loss. Retention was weakly related or unrelated to efficiency across 52 criteria. Although retention values were sensitive to changes in targets and rates of conservation and forest loss, one criterion consistently produced highest retention values.

[1]  C. Chatfield.  Model uncertainty, data mining and statistical inference , 1995 .

[2]  J. Diamond,et al.  Island biogeography and conservation: strategy and limitations. , 1976, Science.

[3]  Robert L. Pressey,et al.  The expert or the algorithm?—comparison of priority conservation areas in the Cape Floristic Region identified by park managers and reserve selection software , 2003 .

[4]  R. L. Knight,et al.  Private Lands: The Neglected Geography , 1999 .

[5]  M. Usher,et al.  Wildlife conservation evaluation: attributes, criteria and values , 1986 .

[6]  S. Polasky,et al.  Dynamic reserve site selection , 2004 .

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

[8]  David N. Cole,et al.  Threats to Wilderness Ecosystems: Impacts and Research Needs , 1996 .

[9]  I. R. Johnson,et al.  Shades of irreplaceability: towards a measure of the contribution of sites to a reservation goal , 1994, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[10]  Simon Ferrier,et al.  A new predictor of the irreplaceability of areas for achieving a conservation goal, its application to real-world planning, and a research agenda for further refinement , 2000 .

[11]  Les G. Underhill,et al.  Optimal and suboptimal reserve selection algorithms , 1994 .

[12]  Jeffrey L. Arthur,et al.  Finding all optimal solutions to the reserve site selection problem: formulation and computational analysis , 1997, Environmental and Ecological Statistics.

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

[14]  Robert L. Pressey,et al.  Scheduling conservation action in production landscapes: priority areas in western New South Wales defined by irreplaceability and vulnerability to vegetation loss , 2001 .

[15]  Carlos Carroll,et al.  A Multicriteria Assessment of the Irreplaceability and Vulnerability of Sites in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem , 2002 .

[16]  Robert L. Pressey,et al.  From representation to persistence: requirements for a sustainable system of conservation areas in the species‐rich mediterranean‐climate desert of southern Africa , 1999 .

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

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

[19]  Hong S. He,et al.  Integrating Landscape and Metapopulation Modeling Approaches: Viability of the Sharp‐Tailed Grouse in a Dynamic Landscape , 2004 .

[20]  William F. Laurance,et al.  The Future of the Brazilian Amazon , 2001, Science.

[21]  R. L. Pressey,et al.  Reserve selection in the Succulent Karoo, South Africa: coping with high compositional turnover , 1999, Plant Ecology.

[22]  Amy W. Ando,et al.  Species distributions, land values, and efficient conservation , 1998, Science.

[23]  F. James Rohlf,et al.  Biometry: The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research , 1969 .

[24]  B. Manly.  Randomization, Bootstrap and Monte Carlo Methods in Biology , 2018 .

[25]  R. Mittermeier,et al.  Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities , 2000, Nature.

[26]  N. Schumaker,et al.  USE OF POPULATION VIABILITY ANALYSIS AND RESERVE SELECTION ALGORITHMS IN REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS , 2003 .

[27]  R L Pressey,et al.  Rapid plant diversification: Planning for an evolutionary future , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[28]  R. G. Wright,et al.  NATURE RESERVES: DO THEY CAPTURE THE FULL RANGE OF AMERICA'S BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY? , 2001 .

[29]  V. Loeschcke,et al.  Biodiversity conservation: Reserve optimization or loss minimization? , 1993, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[30]  S. Sarkar,et al.  Systematic conservation planning , 2000, Nature.

[31]  Kevin J. Gaston,et al.  Optimisation in reserve selection procedures—why not? , 2002 .

[32]  Joseph A. Veech,et al.  Incorporating socioeconomic factors into the analysis of biodiversity hotspots , 2003 .

[33]  Denis White,et al.  INTEGRATING REPRESENTATION AND VULNERABILITY: TWO APPROACHES FOR PRIORITIZING AREAS FOR CONSERVATION , 2003 .

[34]  N. Myers.  Threatened biotas: "Hot spots" in tropical forests , 1988, The Environmentalist.

[35]  Andrew Balmford,et al.  Avian endemism and forest loss , 1994, Nature.

[36]  Richard M. Cowling,et al.  A conservation plan for a global biodiversity hotspot— the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa , 2003 .

[37]  Volker Loeschcke,et al.  The optimization of biodiversity conservation , 1995 .

[38]  Simon Ferrier,et al.  Using abiotic data for conservation assessments over extensive regions : quantitative methods applied across New South Wales, Australia , 2000 .