Differences in Characteristics of Reserve Network Selection Using Population Data Versus Habitat Surrogates

Abstract

The use of species data versus environmental surrogates used in lieu of species data in systematic reserve site selection is still highly debated. We analyse in a case study whether and how the results of reserve network selection are affected by the use of species data versus habitat surrogates (habitat models) for qualitative (presence/absence) and quantitative (population size/habitat quality) information. In a model region, the postmining landscape south of Leipzig/Germany, we used iterative algorithms to select a network for 29 animal target species from a basic set of 127 sites. The network results differ markedly for the two information types: depending on the representation goal, 18-45% of the selected sites chosen in response to one information type do not appear in the results for the other type. Given the availability of quantitative and hence deeper information, evaluation rules can be used to filter out the best habitats and the largest populations. In our model study, 0-40% less suitable areas were selected when instead of quantitative details only qualitative data were used. In view of various advantages and limitations of the two information types, we propose improving the methodological approach to the selection of networks for animal species by combining different information types.

Effects of species turnover on reserve site selection in a fragmented landscape

“…Unfortunately, knowledge on population viability is currently available only for some single, well-studied species (Henle et al 2004b;Lindenmayer et al 2006;Newbold and Siikamäki 2009;http://www.ufz.de/pva/) and the PVA literature is very heterogeneous posing major challenges for attempts to generalize extinction risks to contexts beyond the original study. Altmoos and Henle (2007) suggested to use abundance within a site as a proxy for extinction risks and to include those sites that harbor the largest population of each species as a constraint for the selection of reserve site network. As population size is a particular good predictor of extinction risk (Henle et al 2004b) and because the required data are not difficult to obtain, this is a promising approach.…”

“…Wessels et al 1999;Cowling and Heijnis 2001;Faith et al 2001;Trakhtenbrot and Kadmon 2005) does not overcome aspects of temporal variability of species data, instead they might increase the uncertainty whether the network is effective or not (Altmoos and Henle 2007). Firstly, it cannot be taken for granted that surrogates inferred from environmental variables reveal a reliable correlation to species occurrences (e.g.…”

“…Araújo et al 2001;Lombard et al 2003;Sarkar et al 2005). Secondly, if such correlations exist, they provide information only on the potential of sites, not on its actual occupation, and the use of both types of information result in qualitatively different networks in dynamic landscapes (Altmoos and Henle 2007). Unless the dynamics in species composition is accounted for, systematic reserve site selection may fail to achieve its purpose.…”

“…If species are applied as biodiversity surrogates for systematic reserve site selection (Altmoos and Henle 2007), species data are usually compiled from various existing sources and not collected specifically for systematic reserve site selection (e.g., Faith et al 2001;Hopkinson et al 2001;Williams et al 2002). Such data generally span several years but are treated as just one sample.…”

Coupling high-resolution satellite imagery with ALS-based canopy height model and digital elevation model in object-based boreal forest habitat type classification

“…Furthermore, SDM results can be used. However, it has been found that prioritization results based on SDMs and species presence data may markedly differ (Altmoos and Henle 2007).…”