Conservation planning with dynamic threats: The role of spatial design and priority setting for species' persistence

Visconti, Piero, Pressey, Robert L., Segan, Daniel B. and Wintle, Brendan A. (2010) Conservation planning with dynamic threats: The role of spatial design and priority setting for species' persistence. Biological Conservation, 143 3: 756-767. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2009.12.018

Author Visconti, Piero
Pressey, Robert L.
Segan, Daniel B.
Wintle, Brendan A.
Title Conservation planning with dynamic threats: The role of spatial design and priority setting for species' persistence
Journal name Biological Conservation   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 0006-3207
Publication date 2010-03-01
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1016/j.biocon.2009.12.018
Open Access Status Not Open Access
Volume 143
Issue 3
Start page 756
End page 767
Total pages 12
Editor R. B. Primack
Place of publication Essex, U.K.
Publisher Elsevier
Language eng
Subject C1
9605 Ecosystem Assessment and Management
050199 Ecological Applications not elsewhere classified
Formatted abstract
Conservation actions frequently need to be scheduled because both funding and implementation capacity are limited. Two approaches to scheduling are possible. Maximizing gain (MaxGain) which attempts to maximize representation with protected areas, or minimizing loss (MinLoss) which attempts to minimize total loss both inside and outside protected areas. Conservation planners also choose between setting priorities based solely on biodiversity pattern and considering surrogates for biodiversity processes such as connectivity. We address both biodiversity processes and habitat loss in a scheduling framework by comparing four different prioritization strategies defined by MaxGain and MinLoss applied to biodiversity patterns and processes to solve the dynamic area selection problem with variable area cost. We compared each strategy by estimating predicted species' occurrences within a landscape after 20 years of incremental reservation and loss of habitat. By incorporating species-specific responses to fragmentation, we found that you could improve the performance of conservation strategies. MinLoss was the best approach for conserving both biodiversity pattern and process. However, due to the spatial autocorrelation of habitat loss, reserves selected with this approach tended to become more isolated through time; losing up to 40% of occurrences of edge-sensitive species. Additionally, because of the positive correlation between threats and land cost, reserve networks designed with this approach contained smaller and fewer reserves compared with networks designed with a MaxGain approach. We suggest a possible way to account for the negative effect of fragmentation by considering both local and neighbourhood vulnerability to habitat loss.
© 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keyword Biodiversity processes
Habitat loss
Habitat fragmentation
Reserve design
New South Wales
Protected area network
Reserve site selection
Habitat loss
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Confirmed Code
Institutional Status UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collections: Official 2011 Collection
School of Biological Sciences Publications
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 41 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 43 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Sun, 11 Apr 2010, 10:08:15 EST