A multivariate approach to the selection of biological reserves

Abstract

Multivariate analysis provides an effective context for the examination of some significant aspects of biodiversity and conservation. The framework is a multidimensional space that integrates sample sites, taxa and environments. This approach enables terms such as representativeness, complementarity and irreplaceability to be integrated within an intuitive and practical framework for reserve design. Cluster analysis is proposed to determine 'what is there' by defining a set of complementary clusters. These clusters are sampled in a representative manner; from the core outward. The degree of irreplaceability of a site is defined as the multivariate distance of each potential reserve site to its nearest neighbour.

Core concepts of spatial prioritisation in systematic conservation planning

“…Austin & Margules, 1984; Commonwealth of Australia, 1992; Belbin, 1993, 1995; Awimbo, Norton & Overmars, 1996; JANIS, 1997). The concept of typicalness was seen as a part of representativeness (Margules & Usher, 1981, p. 100): ‘ Areas selected to be representative would necessarily include typical or common species but they could also include rare species since their objective is to represent the range of biota .’ Smith & Theberge (1986, p. 724) expanded this definition in their review: ‘ There are two differing definitions of representativeness , which we will call inclusive and typicalness .…”

“…The first mention of the term ‘complementarity’ was by Vane-Wright, Humphries & Williams (1991, p. 235) in their study comparing the biota of potential reserves: ‘ By employing complementarity , step-wise procedures can identify optimally efficient , single-site sequences of priority areas for a group , taking existing reserves into account or not , as required .’ A major increase in publications related to this concept quickly followed with discussion about how exactly complementarity should be defined and applied (Belbin, 1993, 1995; Pressey et al ., 1993; Colwell & Coddington, 1994; Pearce & Moran, 1994; Underhill, ; Williams et al ., 1996; Faith & Walker, 1996 a ; Csuti et al ., 1997; Prendergast, Quinn & Lawton, 1999). Overall, it was accepted that complementarity had major advantages compared to, for example, using species richness scores as the basis for conservation (Margules & Pressey, 2000, p. 249): ‘ potential contribution of an area to a set of targets is dynamic – some or all of the features in an unselected area might have had their targets partly or fully met by the selection of other areas .…”

Designing nature reserves: traditional criteria may act as misleading indicators of quality

“…Despite previous work and the large number of methods available for optimizing the selection of protected natural areas (Margules et al 1991;Gö tmark and Nilsson 1992;Lamberson et al 1994;Belbin 1995;Kershaw et al 1995;Strittholt and Boerner 1995;Williams et al 1996;Cabeza and Moilanen 2001;Rothley et al 2003; among others), nature reserves are most often established on sites that have little value for other uses, such as farming or urban development. They are also situated according to opportunities that result from the location of urban areas, to historical factors, and to the actual or potential value of land (Primack et al 2001).…”

Zoning a Protected Area: Proposal Based on a Multi-thematic Approach and Final Decision

“…The literature provides a variety of perspectives, methods, and models for the designation, zoning, and management of protected areas [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18], among others. Nonetheless, the design of these areas has often involved boundaries that were drawn up with an apparent lack of objectivity.…”