The importance of small urban reserves for plant conservation

Kendal, Dave; Zeeman, Ben J.; Ikin, Karen; Lunt, Ian D.; McDonnell, Mark J.; Farrar, Alison; Pearce, Lilian M.; Morgan, John

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2017.07.007

Cited by 51 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite apparent consistency of the empirical results, SLOSS is still described either as a debate (e.g. Kendal et al, ; Le Roux, Ikin, Lindenmayer, Manning, & Gibbons, ; Lindenmayer, Wood, McBurney, Blair, & Banks, ; MacDonald, Anderson, Acorn, & Nielsen, , ; Rösch, Tscharntke, Scherber, & Batáry, ), or researchers conclude that there is no single answer and that the answer depends on various conditions (reviewed in Kingsland, ). There are two reasons for this mismatch between the empirical findings and researchers’ inferences about SLOSS.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why do several small patches hold more species than few large patches?

Fahrig

2020

Global Ecol Biogeogr

181

148

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The principle that a single large habitat patch should hold more species than several small patches totalling the same area (SL > SS) is used by conservation agencies to favour protection of large, contiguous areas. Previous reviews of empirical studies have found the opposite, SS > SL, creating the single large or several small (SLOSS) debate. Aims Review the empirical and theoretical SLOSS literature; identify potential mechanisms underlying the SS > SL pattern; evaluate these where possible. Location Global. Time period 1976–2018. Major taxa Plants, invertebrates, vertebrates. Methods Literature review. Results Like previous reviews, I found that SS > SL dominates empirical findings. This pattern remained, although it was somewhat weakened, in studies where sampling intensity was proportional to patch size. I found six classes of theory, and conducted five preliminary evaluations of theory. None of the predictions was supported. The SS > SL pattern held for specialist species groups, suggesting it does not result from incursion by generalists into small patches. I found no evidence for the prediction that the reverse pattern (SL > SS) becomes more common over time since patch creation, through gradual species losses from SS. I found no difference between results for natural and anthropogenic patches. There was also no evidence for predictions that SL > SS is more common when the matrix is more hostile, or for stable than ephemeral patches. Main conclusions Most empirical comparisons find SS > SL. While there are several potential causes, more empirical work is needed to identify those at play. Meanwhile, conservation practitioners should understand that there is no ecological evidence supporting a general principle to preserve large, contiguous habitat areas rather than multiple small areas of the same total size.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why do several small patches hold more species than few large patches?

Fahrig

2020

Global Ecol Biogeogr

181

148

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…; Godefroid & Koedam ; Kendal et al. ). Studies comparing rural and urban landscapes show that alterations in plant community composition in small reserves and fragments are exacerbated in urban settings.…”

Section: Ecological Value Mediated By Environmental Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite these shortcomings, collections of small reserves in urban landscapes can contain significant levels (up to 87%) of local native plant species (Godefroid & Koedam ; Kendal et al. ).…”

Section: Ecological Value Mediated By Environmental Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although focusing on the creation of large reserves is not an inappropriate conservation strategy, it has led many to dismiss potential reserves based solely on their small size (Schwartz ; Tjørve ; Kendal et al. ). With increasing landscape fragmentation and development, small reserves are quickly becoming more realistic alternatives to preserving large tracts of land, particularly in areas with high development pressure and land acquisition costs (Schwartz ; Kim et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This uptick in the creation of small protected areas, accompanied by increasing recognition of their importance in academic literature (Shafer ; Schwartz ; Fischer & Lindenmayer ; Kendal et al. ), has begun to change the conversation on the role of small reserves in conservation. Small reserves’ ecological value can be disproportionate to their area.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Conservation value of small reserves

Volenec

Dobson

2019

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The importance of large reserves has been long maintained in the scientific literature, often leading to dismissal of the conservation potential of small reserves. However, over half the global protected-area inventory is composed of protected areas that are <100 ha, and the median size of added protected area is decreasing. Studies of the conservation value of small reserves and fragments of natural area are relatively uncommon in the literature. We reviewed SCOPUS and WOK for studies on small reserve and fragment contributions to biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services, and fifty-eight taxon-specific studies were included in the review. Small reserves harbored substantial portions (upward of 50%) of regional species diversity for many taxa (birds, plants, amphibians, and small mammals) and even some endemic, specialist bird species. Unfortunately, small reserves and fragments almost always harbored more generalist and exotic species than large reserves. Community composition depended on habitat quality, surrounding land use (agricultural vs. urban), and reserve and fragment size, which presents opportunities for management and improvement. Small reserves also provided ecosystem services, such as pollination and biological pest control, and cultural services, such as recreation and improved human health. Limitations associated with small reserves, such as extinction debt and support of area-sensitive species, necessitate a complement of larger reserves. However, we argue that small reserves can make viable and significant contributions to conservation goals directly as habitat and indirectly by increasing landscape connectivity and quality to the benefit of large reserves. To effectively conserve biodiversity for future generations in landscapes fragmented by human development, small reserves and fragments must be included in conservation planning. Valor de Conservación de las Pequeñas ReservasResumen: La importancia de las reservas muy extensas se ha mantenido durante mucho tiempo dentro de la * email zvolenec@princeton.edu Article impact statement: Small reserves make meaningful contributions to biodiversity conservation and provisioning of ecosystem services.

show abstract

Spatial distribution of biodiversity citizen science in a natural area depends on area accessibility and differs from other recreational area use

Mandeville

Nilsen

Finstad

2022

Ecol Sol and Evidence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. Opportunistic citizen science produces large amounts of primary biodiversity data but is underutilized in the conservation and management of protected areas despite these areas' status as citizen science hotspots. Application of these data may be limited by the challenge of understanding sampling patterns associated with opportunistic data at a scale relevant to local area management. An improved understanding of citizen science activity patterns within protected areas could strengthen both data analysis and the local promotion and guidance of citizen science activity.2. We investigated local-scale patterns of citizen science activity, using a case study approach to examine citizen science activity in a recreationally popular natural area that serves as a regional citizen science hotspot. We modelled the relationship between local citizen science activity and 10 spatial covariates broadly related to ease of access and natural interest, factors which have been shown to drive citizen science activity at regional scales. We further compared the distribution of citizen science activity with that of professional data collection and recreational visitor activity in the study area.3. We found that citizen science data largely complement rather than replicate openly available professional data. Citizen science participation was primarily driven by ease of access, especially the presence of trails. However, citizen science use of the trail network differed from other types of recreational trail use, including a weaker preference for well-established trails and a stronger association with developed areas.4. This improved understanding of patterns in citizen science participation may be used to better account for spatial biases in citizen science data and to manage natural areas in a way that supports and guides future citizen science activity.

show abstract

The importance of small urban reserves for plant conservation

Cited by 51 publications

References 52 publications

Why do several small patches hold more species than few large patches?

Why do several small patches hold more species than few large patches?

Conservation value of small reserves

Spatial distribution of biodiversity citizen science in a natural area depends on area accessibility and differs from other recreational area use

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About