The Boundary‐Quality Penalty: a Quantitative Method for Approximating Species Responses to Fragmentation in Reserve Selection

Conservation Biology - Tập 21 Số 2 - Trang 355-364 - 2007
Atte Moilanen1, Brendan A. Wintle2
1Metapopulation Research Group, Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, P.O. Box 65 (Viikinkaari 1), FI‐00014, University of Helsinki, Finland, email [email protected]
2School of Botany, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia

Tóm tắt

Abstract:  Aggregation of reserve networks is generally considered desirable for biological and economic reasons: aggregation reduces negative edge effects and facilitates metapopulation dynamics, which plausibly leads to improved persistence of species. Economically, aggregated networks are less expensive to manage than fragmented ones. Therefore, many reserve‐design methods use qualitative heuristics, such as distance‐based criteria or boundary‐length penalties to induce reserve aggregation. We devised a quantitative method that introduces aggregation into reserve networks. We call the method the boundary‐quality penalty (BQP) because the biological value of a land unit (grid cell) is penalized when the unit occurs close enough to the edge of a reserve such that a fragmentation or edge effect would reduce population densities in the reserved cell. The BQP can be estimated for any habitat model that includes neighborhood (connectivity) effects, and it can be introduced into reserve selection software in a standardized manner. We used the BQP in a reserve‐design case study of the Hunter Valley of southeastern Australia. The BQP resulted in a more highly aggregated reserve network structure. The degree of aggregation required was specified by observed (albeit modeled) biological responses to fragmentation. Estimating the effects of fragmentation on individual species and incorporating estimated effects in the objective function of reserve‐selection algorithms is a coherent and defensible way to select aggregated reserves. We implemented the BQP in the context of the Zonation method, but it could as well be implemented into any other spatially explicit reserve‐planning framework.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

10.1017/S0376892900031878

10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.015003603.x

Burnham K. P., 2002, Model selection and multi‐model inference: a practical information‐theoretic approach

10.1046/j.1461-0248.2003.00475.x

10.1016/S0169-5347(01)02125-5

10.1111/j.0021-8901.2004.00905.x

10.1016/S0377-2217(98)00157-X

10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.98081.x

10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02015.x

10.1016/S0304-3800(02)00202-8

10.1111/j.2006.0906-7590.04596.x

Fischer D. T., 2003, Clustering and compactness in reserve site selection: an extension of the biodiversity management area selection model, Forest Science, 49, 555

10.1007/BF02704966

10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00792.x

10.1038/23876

10.1214/ss/1009212519

10.1016/S0006-3207(97)00042-6

10.1038/35012251

10.1023/A:1015649716111

10.1890/1051-0761(2002)012[0913:SSDSS]2.0.CO;2

10.1086/430011

Moilanen A., 2005, Prioritizing multiple‐use landscapes for conservation, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B, 272, 1885

10.1016/j.biocon.2005.11.006

10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00560.x

Moilanen A., 2007, Landscape zonation, benefit functions, and target‐based planning: unifying reserve selection strategies, Biological Conservation, 134, 571, 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.09.008

Nalle D. J., 2002, Designing compact and contiguous reserve networks with a hybrid heuristic algorithm, Forest Science, 48, 59

10.1016/0006-3207(93)90654-J

10.1098/rspb.2002.2183

10.1098/rspb.2003.2393

10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00672.x

10.1007/0-387-22648-6_17

10.1071/WR9950471

10.1890/1051-0761(1999)009[0741:DBNTSM]2.0.CO;2

10.1007/s10531-004-2933-8

Vane‐Wright R. I., 1996, Biodiversity, a biology of numbers and difference, 309

10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01594.x

10.1890/1051-0761(2003)013[0543:TUOSDP]2.0.CO;2

10.1007/s10666-005-9007-5

10.1111/j.1523-1739.2003.00614.x

10.1111/j.1442-9993.2005.01514.x