Population viability, ecological processes and biodiversity: Valuing sites for reserve selection

No-take reserves constitute one tool to improve conservation of marine ecosystems, yet criteria for their placement, size, and arrangement remain uncertain. Representation of biodiversity is necessary in reserve planning, but will ultimately fail for conservation unless factors affecting species' persistence are also incorporated. This study presents an empirical example of the divergent relationships among multiple metrics used to quantify a site's conservation value, including those that address representation (habitat type, species richness, species diversity), and others that address ecological processes and viability (density and reproductive capacity of a keystone species, in this case, the black chiton, Katharina tunicata). We characterized 10 rocky intertidal sites across two habitats in Barkley Sound, British Columbia, Canada, according to these site metrics. High-richness and high-production sites for K. tunicata were present in both habitat types, but high richness and high-production sites did not overlap. Across sites, species richness ranged from 29 to 46, and adult K. tunicata varied from 6 to 22 individuals m(-2). Adult density was negatively correlated with species richness, a pattern that likely occurs due to post-recruitment growth and survival because no correlation was evident with non -reproductive juveniles. Sites with high adult density also contributed disproportionately greater potential reproductive output (PRO), defined by total gonad mass. PRO varied by a factor of five across sites and was also negatively correlated with species richness. Compromise or relative weighting would be necessary to select valuable sites for conservation because of inherent contradictions among some reserve selection criteria. We suspect that this inconsistency among site metrics will occur more generally in other ecosystems and emphasize the importance of population viability of strongly interacting species. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.