Designing nature reserves: traditional criteria may act as misleading indicators of quality

Traditionally, numerous criteria have been used for selecting valuable areas for the establishment of nature reserves. In most cases these criteria are applied indiscriminately with the assumption that their generalized use gives them universal validity. In this study we test the value of different variables (area and shape of patches of natural vegetation, degree of internal fragmentation, and diversity of habitats at the periphery of patches) at the landscape level as indicators of plant richness and diversity, and relative abundance of native plants, in a group of natural vegetation relicts ranging from 0.004 km² to 1.027 km² and surrounded by sub-urban and industrial settings. Species richness, diversity, and number of native and exotic species increased with the area of the patches. The shape of the patch was the second most important variable to influence species richness and diversity. The number of exotic species increased with increasing numbers of native plants. Thus, patch size and plant richness should be carefully used for selecting conservation areas because it could result in choosing places threatened by the presence of exotics. Many of the other variables analysed showed no effects on biodiversity at the temporal and geographic scales considered. Ignoring these outcomes could result in choosing sub-optimal areas. We recommend the critical use of general criteria considering the selection process as an opportunity to evaluate the relevance of each criterion at the local level.     

Survival and habitat use in translocated and resident greater prairie-chickens

Translocation, or the purposeful movement of organisms from one location to another for conservation, is currently being used to bolster populations of the endangered greater prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus cupido). We used radiotelemetry to compare survival between 58 resident birds and 54 newly translocated greater prairie-chickens that were sourced from a location more than 325 km away. Model averaged survival estimates were lower in translocated birds (0.42; 95% CI: 0.17–0.66) than in resident prairie-chickens (0.65; 95% CI: 0.46–0.79) through the breeding season. Habitat, sex and year were each included in at least 1 of the top 4 models, but the model averaged confidence intervals for each parameter encompassed zero. Survival of both resident and translocated prairie-chickens increased throughout the breeding season. Both translocated and resident prairie-chickens selected for core prairie habitat over agriculture, and birds tended to avoid surrounding private grasslands and wooded areas. We suggest that future translocation projects account for reduced survival of translocated birds when determining the appropriate release cohort sizes and sex ratios. We also recommend that future management for greater prairie-chicken habitat focus on the expansion of core protected patches of prairie to promote elevated survival and better chances of conservation success.     

Misconceptions about parsimony analysis of endemicity

Parsimony analysis of endemicity (PAE) has been widely criticized in the recent literature based on methodology rather than on theory. Here I argue that most of the criticisms of PAE result from confusion between the dynamic and static approaches of PAE, by both users and critics of the method. Originally, PAE (the dynamic approach) was proposed primarily for historical comparisons of biotic distributions based on geological and stratigraphical information; that is, the stratigraphical record of the biota within two or more horizons was used to evaluate changes (layer by layer) in their distributional patterns. This led to an analysis of the biota throughout space and through time. On the other hand, the static approach excluded the temporal component and based the analysis on a single geological horizon. Most problems exemplified and discussed in the literature refer to the static approach. In addition to this defence of the original PAE, I present some new criticisms regarding the application of PAE using artificially delimited areas (for example areas defined by geopolitical boundaries), which may lead to incorrect interpretations. Recently, several variations of static PAE have appeared: some designed to accommodate ecological data (e.g. parsimony analysis of distributions – PAD); others that incorporate phylogenetic content (e.g. cladistic analysis of distributions and endemism – CADE); and some that have been integrated with other historical methods (e.g. panbiogeography) in order to detect and evaluate hypotheses of biogeographical homologies. Biogeographers, both ecological and historical, should be aware of the problems and limitations of both dynamic and static PAE and evaluate new variations of PAE (PAD, CADE, etc.). Finally, I argue in favour of an independent and pluralist discipline of biogeography that treats biogeography as related to systematics but not dependent on it, as some scholars have assumed.