Development of a scoring method to identify important areas of plant diversity in Ireland

Abstract

In the face of accelerating biodiversity loss it is more important than ever to identify important areas of biodiversity and target limited resources for conservation. We developed a method to identify areas of important plant diversity using known species' distributions and evaluations of the species importance. We collated distribution records of vascular plants and developed a scoring method of spatial prioritisation to assign conservation value to the island of Ireland at the hectad scale (10km × 10km) and at the tetrad scale (2km × 2km) for two counties where sufficient data were available. Each plant species was assigned a species conservation value based on both its conservation status and distribution in Ireland. For each cell, the species conservation values within the cell were summed, thereby differentiating between areas of high and low conservation value across the landscape. Areas with high conservation value represent the most important areas for plant conservation. The protected area cover and the number of species present in these important areas were also examined by first defining threshold values using two different criteria. Species representation was high in the important areas; the identified important areas of plant diversity maintained high representation of species of conservation concern and achieved high species representation overall, requiring a low number of sites (<8%) to do so. The coincidence of protected areas and important areas for plant diversity was found to be low and while some important areas of plant diversity might benefit from the general protection afforded by these areas, our research highlights the need for conservation outside of protected areas.

Towards identification of important plant areas (IPA) for Peninsular Malaysia. Methodology and future directions

“…However, there are two main methods that can be used to identify key sites for conservation of biodiversity namely a scoring procedure (ranking system) or a problem-solving procedure (complementarity approaches) (Marignani and Blasi, 2012;Abell an et al, 2005). A scoring procedure considers value in each grid corresponds to its importance in biodiversity (Walsh, 2016) that is based on one or more criteria such as species richness, rarity or habitat. A complementarity method is the most used method among problem-solving; by means of decision support tools (Marignani and Blasi, 2012) as well as prediction modeling and algorithms (Walsh et al, 2019;S anchez de Dios et al, 2017;Mendoza--Fern andez et al, 2010;Williams, 2009;Abell an et al, 2005).…”

“…A scoring procedure considers value in each grid corresponds to its importance in biodiversity (Walsh, 2016) that is based on one or more criteria such as species richness, rarity or habitat. A complementarity method is the most used method among problem-solving; by means of decision support tools (Marignani and Blasi, 2012) as well as prediction modeling and algorithms (Walsh et al, 2019;S anchez de Dios et al, 2017;Mendoza--Fern andez et al, 2010;Williams, 2009;Abell an et al, 2005). The latter is frequently used when there is a need to improve IPA designation produced by the scoring method and reduce biases in IPA selection.…”

“…The scoring procedure based on expert judgment is widely used in IPA development as the method is more easily implemented and understood (Walsh, 2016;Marignani and Blasi, 2012) compared to the complementarity approach. Studies have shown a successful IPA designation using the scoring procedure that includes a grid-based ranking system and expert judgment (Bou Dagher-Kharrat et al, 2018;€ Ozden et al, 2016;S ergio et al, 2012;Blasi et al, 2011;Al-Abbasi et al, 2010;Punde, 2007).…”

“…Studies have shown a successful IPA designation using the scoring procedure that includes a grid-based ranking system and expert judgment (Bou Dagher-Kharrat et al, 2018;€ Ozden et al, 2016;S ergio et al, 2012;Blasi et al, 2011;Al-Abbasi et al, 2010;Punde, 2007). However, there is no standard scoring method applied (Walsh, 2016) and the criteria used are varied between countries.…”

“…In Terengganu IPA, the challenge has also existed in a form of bias from the herbarium database. Herbarium collections tend to exhibit under or over-representation of certain taxa depending on sites accessibility (Walsh et al, 2019), sampling methods and intensities (S anchez de Dios et al, 2017). Identification of species richness areas is often impressed with these biases.…”