Selecting networks of reserves to maximise biological diversity

Margules, Chris; Nicholls, Anthony; Pressey, Robert L.

doi:10.1016/0006-3207(88)90078-x

Cited by 618 publications

(371 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

355

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Starting in the early 1980's, a fairly substantial literature in conservation biology has addressed the "reserve site selection problem" (see, for example, Kirkpatrick (1983), Margules et al (1988), Pressey et al (1993)). A simple formulation of the reserve site selection problem is to choose sites to include in a reserve network in order to conserve the greatest number of species possible given a budget constraint.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic reserve site selection

Costello

Polasky

2004

Resource and Energy Economics

300

212

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic reserve site selection

Costello

Polasky

2004

Resource and Energy Economics

300

212

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Before systematic conservation planning, the acquisition of land for reserves traditionally involved either the use of a subjective judgment of biodiversity value, or the use of other completely extraneous criteria to biodiversity conservation such as scenic value, wilderness quality and inaccessibility, low primary production potential or simply availability (Margules, Nicholls & Pressey, 1988;Pressey, Possingham & Margules, 1996;Sarkar, 1999). These approaches lead to ad hoc conservation strategies focused on areas easiest to reserve, sometimes with least need for urgent or immediate protection (Pressey, 1994;Knight, 1999;.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Addressing longitudinal connectivity in the systematic conservation planning of fresh waters

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary 1. Freshwater conservation has received less attention than its terrestrial or marine counterparts. Given the accelerated rate of change and intensive human use that freshwater ecosystems are submitted to, it is urgent to focus more attention on fresh waters. Existing conservation planning tools – such as Marxan – need to be modified to account for the special nature of these systems. Connectivity plays a key role in freshwater ecosystems. Threats are mediated along river corridors, and the condition of the entire catchment influences river biodiversity downstream. This needs to be considered in conservation planning. 2. The probabilities of occurrence of nine native freshwater fish species in a Mediterranean river basin, obtained from Multivariate Adaptive Regression Splines‐ Generalized Linear Model (MARS‐GLM) models, were used as features to develop spatial conservation priorities. The priorities accounted for complementarity and spatial design issues. 3. To deal with the connected nature of rivers, we modified Marxan’s boundary length penalty, avoiding the selection of isolated planning units and forcing the inclusion of closer upstream areas. We introduced ‘virtual boundaries’ between non‐headwater stream segments and added distance‐weighted penalties to the overall connectivity cost (CP) when stream segments upstream of the selected planning units are not selected. 4. This approach to prioritising connectivity is concordant with ecological theory, as it considers the natural and roughly exponential decay of upstream influences with distance. It accounts for the natural capacity of rivers to mitigate impacts when designing reserves. When connectivity was not emphasised, Marxan prioritised natural corridors for longitudinal movements. In contrast, whole sub‐basins were prioritised when connectivity was emphasised. Changing the relative emphasis on connectivity substantially changed the spatial prioritisation; our conservation investment could move from one basin to another. 5. Our novel approach to dealing with directional connectivity enables managers of freshwater systems to set ecologically meaningful spatial conservation priorities.

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, although this assessment may be helpful in arriving at the conservation value of each habitat, and in allotting prioities for protection, they do not resolve the more general problem of preserving the gamut of biodiversity by strategic selection of the full range of habitats for reservation {cf. Margules et al 1988;Pressey and Nicholls 1989 for western New South Wales in particular). Some 70 per cent of land-bird species occur or range outside riverine woodland, mallee and tussock grassland, most of them in upland eucalypt woodland and chenopod steppe or downs.…”

Section: Bird Habitats and Their Significancementioning

confidence: 99%

The bird fauna of western New South Wales: geography and status

Schodde¹

1994

Future of the Fauna of Western New South Wales

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Selecting networks of reserves to maximise biological diversity

Cited by 618 publications

References 15 publications

Dynamic reserve site selection

Dynamic reserve site selection

Addressing longitudinal connectivity in the systematic conservation planning of fresh waters

The bird fauna of western New South Wales: geography and status

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About