Are protected areas maintaining bird diversity?

Abstract

Evaluating the effectiveness of protected areas for sustaining biodiversity is crucial to achieving conservation outcomes. While studies of effectiveness have improved our understanding of protected‐area design and management, few investigations (< 5%) have quantified the ecological performance of reserves for conserving species. Here, we present an empirical evaluation of protected‐area effectiveness using long‐term measures of a vulnerable assemblage of species. We compare forest and woodland bird diversity in the Australian Capital Territory over 11 yr on protected and unprotected areas located in temperate eucalypt woodland and matched by key habitat attributes. We examine separately the response of birds to protected areas established prior to 1995 and after 1995 when fundamental changes were made to regional conservation policy. Bird diversity was measured in richness, occurrence of vulnerable species, individual species trajectories and functional trait groups. We found that protected areas were effective in maintaining woody vegetation cover in the study region, but were less effective in the protection of the target bird species assemblage. Protected areas were less species rich than unprotected areas, with significant declines in richness across sites protected prior to 1995. Small, specialised and vulnerable species showed stronger associations with unprotected areas than protected areas. Our findings indicate that recently established reserves (post‐1995) are performing similarly to unprotected woodland areas in terms of maintaining woodland bird diversity, and that both of these areas are more effective in the conservation of woodland bird populations than reserves established prior to 1995. We demonstrate that the conservation value of protected areas is strongly influenced by the physical characteristics, as well as the landscape context, of a given reserve and can diminish with changes in surrounding land use over time. Both protected areas and off‐reserve conservation schemes have important roles to play in securing species populations.

Evaluating protected area effectiveness using bird lists in the Australian Wet Tropics

“…It has since been reduced, but conversion of wooded habitat in the wet tropics bioregion is still estimated at approximately 423 hectares per annum, although the rate of conversion is lower within protected areas (DERM, 2010), indicating that they may be important future refuges. Our findings are supported by recent work on woodland birds in New South Wales, Australia, which indicates protected area effectiveness for vulnerable woodland birds is strongly influenced by the physical characteristics and landscape context of the site, and can diminish with changes in surrounding land use over time (Rayner et al, 2013).…”

“…However, even when protected areas are successful in maintaining species populations, gap analysis based on biodiversity hotspots and threatened species coverage has concluded that protected areas alone are not adequate for nature conservation in the long term (Rodrigues et al, 2004;Virkkala & Rajas€ arkk€ a, 2007;Watson et al, 2010). Both protected areas and off-reserve conservation schemes have important roles to play in securing species populations (Rayner et al, 2013), and the actions of the WTMA and local landholders in the face of these challenges will therefore be vital for ongoing maintenance of rain forest avifauna.…”

Abundance and abundance change in the world's parrots

“…, Rayner et al . ). Protection, including national park status and other designations, does not always provide strict protection to either parrots or the forest in which they live (e.g.…”

Perverse Market Outcomes from Biodiversity Conservation Interventions

“…Establishing PAs could be effective in directly reducing human impacts within targeted forests, but in many instances might be driven more by markets than by conservation or ecological considerations (Rayner et al . ). Many PAs lack additionality because they are situated in locations passively protected by their distance to markets, unproductive soils, steep gradients, etc.…”