Site Prioritisation Flashcards Preview

APS271 Conservation Biology > Site Prioritisation > Flashcards

Flashcards in Site Prioritisation Deck (24)
Loading flashcards...
1
Q

Sites are normally a conservation target - like…

A
  1. Protected areas
    Targets by 2020 - 17% of terrestrial and freshwater, 10% marine
    Half Earth goal - 50% terrestrial, need to look at restoration
    Set aside from humanity
  2. Wider landscape conservation - restoration
  3. Specific management - invasive species control
2
Q

Prioritisation scales…

A

Global scale - large regions of conservation value (Madagascar has 12,000 endemic species)
Local scale - specific localities in these hotspots

3
Q

Global scale prioritisation strategies

A
  1. Biodiversity hotspots
  2. Crisis ecoregions
  3. Endemic bird areas
  4. Centres plant endemism
  5. Megadiverse countries
  6. Global 200 ecoregions of importance
  7. Frontier forests
  8. High biodiversity wilderness areas
  9. Last of the wild
4
Q

Strategies based on vulnerability and measuring it as…

A

5 strategies measuring it as…
% habitat loss (4) - only on past, no guide to future
Human population density (2) - good measure
Protected area coverage (1) - good measure
Total forest cover (1) - poor measure
None use no. of threatened species though ???

5
Q

Proactive schemes

A

Low vulnerability…
Frontier forests
High biodiversity wilderness areas
Last of the wild

6
Q

Reactive schemes

A

High vulnerability…
Biodiversity hotspots
Crisis Ecoregions

7
Q

Biodiversity hotspots

A

Based on at least 1,500 endemic vascular plants i.e. irreplaceable and highly threatened
35 cover 2.3% of land, homes 50% of worlds plants
Houses 43% of birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians

8
Q

Irreplaceability indications

A

Commonly - endemism (4 on plants, 1 on birds)
Assumes strong relationship on endemism in different groups = reasonable
No measure relies on spp richness - these patterns are determined by common spp so good

9
Q

The prioritisation scales revised

A

Global - well defined but conflicting and not as robust as ideal
Local - limited standardisation, most rigorous in UK by Ratcliffe
-major influence in UK (SSSIs) and other countries

10
Q

Ratcliffe’s criteria

A
  1. Size
  2. Diversity (habitat and spp)
  3. Rarity
  4. Naturalness
  5. Fragility/threat
  6. Typicalness
  7. Recorded history
  8. Position within an ecological/geographic unit
  9. Potential value
11
Q

Ratcliffe’s size criteria

A

Larger sites contain more spp
Species-area relationships are non-linear
-above threshold has little effect in increasing yield past point (varies in taxa and regions)
-fewer edge effects
Carnivores - smaller sites = bigger extinction risk

12
Q

Edge effects

A

Less damage from intruders like human impacts of resource extraction or pesticide drift
If too small there is 0 core area which remains untouched
Animals interact with outside world of reserve more

13
Q

Ratcliffe’s habitat Diversity criteria

A

-high habitat diversity = sppR
-lots of spp require different habitats at different life stages (amphibians)
Can be bad though - if low quality habitats are included and if they’re small (not enough space etc.)

14
Q

Ratcliffe’s species Diversity criteria

A

Not all species are equal - naive to prioritise sites with high sppR
Can include generalist species - indicate highly degraded habitats
Need to focus on spp specific for that habitat

15
Q

Ratcliffe’s rarity criteria

A

Most in UK that are rare, are highly threatened too
So, equivalent of threatened
Need to consider long-term viability

16
Q

Ratcliffe’s naturalness criteria

A

Areas least modified by humans should be prioritised
Difficult to quantify and not necessarily filled with bioD
Often areas that are highly human modified are very useful - unmodified not so much

17
Q

Ratcliffe’s fragility/threat criteria

A

Those more threatened - only if threat can be countered by site-based protection
Threats like N deposition and CC can’t be solved that easily

18
Q

Ratcliffe’s typicalness criteria

A

Sites most characteristic of focal habitats are better
Species representatives of habitat X (indicators) - if more at site = better
Causes similar sites to be conserved

19
Q

Ratcliffe’s recorded history criteria

A

Long ecological history

Provides understanding and indicators of changing etc.

20
Q

Ratcliffe’s position within an ecological/geographic unit

A

Species at edge of distribution may be of more value:
Can gain data on limiting conditions for pop management to increase growth
Unique local adaptations preserves GD
Facilitate range shifts in response to CC

21
Q

Ratcliffe’s potential value criteria

A

Contributing to habitat restoration in future - will value change?
Will CC impact?
Spp move away if not suitable
New spp may colonise

22
Q

Ratcliffe’s intrinsic appeal criteria

A

“Sites with charismatic taxa are important”
Controversial and incorrect
May be okay for some ecosystems e.g. if want recreational services

23
Q

Beyond Ratcliffe’s criteria

A

Representation
-each species represented by at least 1 protected area across globe (300 critically endangered occur outside PAs)
Cost effectiveness

24
Q

Cost effectiveness in more detail…

A

Priority list on conservation benefit n then this per uni = very different results (different top 3)
Replacing 1% of least effective keeps costs identical, but habitats goes from 18 to 54
Should sites lose protected status?
Cause constant shift as sites lose value
Shouldn’t allow idea to government