Sensitivity of conservation planning to different approaches to using predicted species distribution data

被引:236
作者
Wilson, KA [1 ]
Westphal, MI
Possingham, HP
Elith, J
机构
[1] Univ Queensland, Ctr Ecol, Brisbane, Qld 4072, Australia
[2] Arizona State Univ, Sch Life Sci, Tempe, AZ 85287 USA
[3] Univ Melbourne, Sch Bot, Melbourne, Vic 3010, Australia
关键词
conservation planning; uncertainty; reserve design; species distribution models;
D O I
10.1016/j.biocon.2004.07.004
中图分类号
X176 [生物多样性保护];
学科分类号
090705 ;
摘要
The main role of conservation planning is to design reserve networks to protect biodiversity in situ. Research within the field of conservation planning has focused on the development of theories and tools to design reserve networks that protect biodiversity in an efficient and representative manner. Whilst much progress has been made in this regard, there has been limited assessment of the sensitivity of conservation planning outcomes to uncertainty associated with the datasets used for conservation planning. Predicted species distribution data are commonly used for conservation planning because the alternatives (e.g. survey data) are incomplete or biased spatially. However, there may be considerable uncertainty associated with the use of predicted species distribution data, particularly given the variety of approaches available to generate a dataset from such predictions for use in conservation planning. These approaches range from using the probabilistic data directly to using a threshold identified a priori or a posteriori to convert the probabilistic data to presence/absence data. We assess the sensitivity of conservation planning outcomes to different uses of predicted species distribution data. The resulting reserve networks differed, and had different expected species representation. The choice of approach will depend on how much risk a conservation planner is willing to tolerate and how much efficiency can be sacrificed. (C) 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:99 / 112
页数:14
相关论文
共 90 条
[11]   Seed production and germination in two rare and three common co-occurring Acacia species from south-east Australia [J].
Brown, J ;
Enright, NJ ;
Miller, BP .
AUSTRAL ECOLOGY, 2003, 28 (03) :271-280
[12]   A method for setting the size of plant conservation target areas [J].
Burgman, MA ;
Possingham, HP ;
Lynch, AJJ ;
Keith, DA ;
McCarthy, MA ;
Hopper, SD ;
Drury, WL ;
Passioura, JA ;
Devries, RJ .
CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, 2001, 15 (03) :603-616
[13]   Nature reserve site selection to maximize expected species covered [J].
Camm, JD ;
Norman, SK ;
Polasky, S ;
Solow, AR .
OPERATIONS RESEARCH, 2002, 50 (06) :946-955
[14]   Reserve selection as a maximal covering location problem [J].
Church, RL ;
Stoms, DM ;
Davis, FW .
BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, 1996, 76 (02) :105-112
[15]   Using spatial analysis to drive reserve design: a case study of a national wildlife refuge in Indiana and Illinois (USA) [J].
Clark, FS ;
Slusher, RB .
LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY, 2000, 15 (01) :75-84
[16]   A COEFFICIENT OF AGREEMENT FOR NOMINAL SCALES [J].
COHEN, J .
EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT, 1960, 20 (01) :37-46
[17]   Introduction to systematic conservation planning in the Cape Floristic Region [J].
Cowling, RM ;
Pressey, RL .
BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, 2003, 112 (1-2) :1-13
[18]   A comparison of reserve selection algorithms using data on terrestrial vertebrates in Oregon [J].
Csuti, B ;
Polasky, S ;
Williams, PH ;
Pressey, RL ;
Camm, JD ;
Kershaw, M ;
Kiester, AR ;
Downs, B ;
Hamilton, R ;
Huso, M ;
Sahr, K .
BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, 1997, 80 (01) :83-97
[19]  
CZAPLEWSKI RL, 1994, ROCKY MOUNTAIN FORES
[20]  
*DEP SUST ENV, 2002, FLOR INF SYST MAY 29