Testing the effectiveness of discrete and continuous environmental diversity as a surrogate for species diversity

Abstract Biodiversity surrogates are needed because detailed data on the distributions of species and communities is very limited. Among alternative surrogate strategies there is an environmental diversity (ED) framework, which uses the p -median model to sample environmental space as evenly as possible. The underlying idea is that such a sample would represent underlying species diversity well. However, tests of the effectiveness of ED as a surrogate for species diversity have been inconclusive, and there is a debate concerning the usefulness of different implementations of ED. In particular, it has been argued that tests of the ED framework are flawed because they used discrete algorithms (calculating the p -median from an observed environmental space), while continuous versions of ED should be preferred (i.e. calculating the p -median from a theoretical, continuously spaced, environmental space). Unfortunately, progress has been hampered by lack of independent testing of the two ED approaches. Here, we provide the first empirical test of the effectiveness of both continuous and discrete ED using European distributions of amphibians and reptiles. Analyses were implemented considering two different extents: (1) western Europe and (2) the Iberian Peninsula. In both cases, implementations of ED represented species at a lower rate than expected by chance ( P p -median algorithm used.

[1]  Ronen Kadmon,et al.  ENVIRONMENTAL CLUSTER ANALYSIS AS A TOOL FOR SELECTING COMPLEMENTARY NETWORKS OF CONSERVATION SITES , 2005 .

[2]  G. Park,et al.  Gradient Analysis in Nature Reserve Design: A New Zealand Example , 1988 .

[3]  James Justus,et al.  Effectiveness of Environmental Surrogates for the Selection of Conservation Area Networks , 2005 .

[4]  Michael F. Goodchild,et al.  Extending geographical representation to include fields of spatial objects , 2002, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[5]  J. Diniz‐Filho,et al.  Water links the historical and contemporary components of the Australian bird diversity gradient , 2005 .

[6]  P. A. Walker,et al.  DIVERSITY: a software package for sampling phylogenetic and environmental diversity. Reference and user's guide. v. 2.1. , 1994 .

[7]  Daniel P. Faith,et al.  Practical application of biodiversity surrogates and percentage targets for conservation in Papua New Guinea , 2000 .

[8]  M. Alexander,et al.  Climate change and amphibian declines: is there a link? , 2003 .

[9]  S. Ferrier Mapping spatial pattern in biodiversity for regional conservation planning: where to from here? , 2002, Systematic biology.

[10]  Daniel P Faith,et al.  Environmental diversity (ED) as surrogate information for species‐level biodiversity , 2003 .

[11]  Daniel P. Faith,et al.  Complementarity, biodiversity viability analysis, and policy-based algorithms for conservation , 2003 .

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

[13]  P. Jones,et al.  Representing Twentieth-Century Space-Time Climate Variability. Part II: Development of 1901-96 Monthly Grids of Terrestrial Surface Climate , 2000 .

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

[15]  M. Araújo,et al.  Equilibrium of species’ distributions with climate , 2005 .

[16]  M. Araújo,et al.  Representing species in reserves from patterns of assemblage diversity , 2004 .

[17]  C. Rahbek,et al.  Geometric constraints explain much of the species richness pattern in African birds , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[18]  J. Svenning,et al.  The relative roles of environment and history as controls of tree species composition and richness in Europe , 2005 .

[19]  Richard L. Church,et al.  Integrating Normative Location Models into GIS: Problems and Prospects with the p-median Model (94-5) - eScholarship , 1994 .

[20]  S. Lavorel,et al.  Effects of restricting environmental range of data to project current and future species distributions , 2004 .

[21]  M. Batty,et al.  Spatial Analysis: Modelling in a GIS Environment , 1998 .

[22]  A. O. Nicholls,et al.  Measurement of the realized qualitative niche: environmental niches of five Eucalyptus species , 1990 .

[23]  Richard L. Church,et al.  The maximal covering location problem , 1974 .

[24]  Miguel B. Araújo,et al.  Geographical gradients of species richness: a test of the water‐energy conjecture of Hawkins et al. (2003) using European data for five taxa , 2006 .

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

[26]  M. Araújo,et al.  Climate warming and the decline of amphibians and reptiles in Europe , 2006 .

[27]  Paul J. Densham,et al.  Would environmental diversity be a good surrogate for species diversity , 2001 .

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

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

[30]  Mark S. Daskin,et al.  Network and Discrete Location: Models, Algorithms and Applications , 1995 .

[31]  R. Whittaker,et al.  Scale and species richness: towards a general, hierarchical theory of species diversity , 2001 .

[32]  J. Lobo,et al.  Environmental and geographical factors affecting the Iberian distribution of flightless Jekelius species (Coleoptera: Geotrupidae) , 2006 .

[33]  J. Reid,et al.  Characterizing Manatee habitat use and seagrass grazing in Florida and Puerto Rico: Implications for conservation and management , 1999 .

[34]  Richard L. Church,et al.  Geographical information systems and location science , 2002, Comput. Oper. Res..

[35]  J. Heino,et al.  Assessing physical surrogates for biodiversity : Do tributary and stream type classifications reflect macroinvertebrate assemblage diversity in running waters? , 2006 .

[36]  J. Watson,et al.  Conservation Biogeography: assessment and prospect , 2005 .

[37]  Paul J. Densham,et al.  A more efficient heuristic for solving largep-median problems , 1992 .

[38]  T. Halliday,et al.  Atlas of Amphibians and Reptiles in Europe , 1997 .

[39]  M. Araújo,et al.  How well do Important Bird Areas represent species and minimize conservation conflict in the tropical Andes? , 2006 .

[40]  Daniel P. Faith,et al.  The role of trade-offs in biodiversity conservation planning: Linking local management, regional planning and global conservation efforts , 2002, Journal of Biosciences.

[41]  Jorge M. Lobo,et al.  Spatial and environmental determinants of vascular plant species richness distribution in the Iberian Peninsula and Balearic Islands , 2001 .

[42]  Daniel P. Faith,et al.  Integrating conservation and forestry production: exploring trade-offs between biodiversity and production in regional land-use assessment , 1996 .

[43]  Duccio Rocchini,et al.  Maximizing plant species inventory efficiency by means of remotely sensed spectral distances , 2005 .

[44]  Paul J. Densham,et al.  Predicting species diversity with ED: the quest for evidence , 2003 .

[45]  M. Araújo,et al.  Five (or so) challenges for species distribution modelling , 2006 .

[46]  T. D. Mitchell,et al.  A comprehensive set of high-resolution grids of monthly climate for Europe and the globe: the observed record (1901-2000) and 16 scenarios (2001-2100). , 2004 .

[47]  Pierre Hansen,et al.  The p-median problem: A survey of metaheuristic approaches , 2005, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[48]  J. Lobo,et al.  An ED-based Protocol for Optimal Sampling of Biodiversity , 2005, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[49]  Daniel P. Faith,et al.  The ED strategy: how species‐level surrogates indicate general biodiversity patterns through an ‘environmental diversity’ perspective , 2004 .

[50]  S. Ferrier,et al.  Survey-gap analysis in expeditionary research: where do we go from here? , 2005 .

[51]  Kevin J. Gaston,et al.  Capturing biodiversity: selecting priority areas for conservation using different criteria , 2005, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[52]  D. P. Faith,et al.  Environmental diversity: on the best-possible use of surrogate data for assessing the relative biodiversity of sets of areas , 1996, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[53]  R. Whittaker,et al.  Species Diversity--Scale Matters , 2002, Science.

[54]  T. D. Mitchell,et al.  An improved method of constructing a database of monthly climate observations and associated high‐resolution grids , 2005 .

[55]  Miguel B. Araújo,et al.  Quaternary climate changes explain diversity among reptiles and amphibians , 2008 .