Place prioritization for biodiversity reserve network design: a comparison of the SITES and ResNet software packages for coverage and efficiency

Abstract. The place prioritization problem in conservation biology is that of establishing a sequentially prioritized list of places on the basis of biodiversity content. Such a list can then be used to select reserve networks that are designed to be fully representative of the biodiversity of an area as efficiently as possible (for instance, with minimum area or cost). The usual goal is the representation of all chosen biodiversity surrogates up to or beyond a required target, or to the greatest available extent. The purpose of this paper is to compare the respective performances of two place prioritization software packages, SITES and ResNet, on four datasets (distributions of termite genera in Namibia, breeding bird species in the Falkland Islands/Islas Malvinas, vertebrate species in Texas and flora and fauna species that are at risk in Québec), to determine their respective merits. The two software packages implement radically different algorithms: SITES is based on a simulated annealing procedure for finding (local) optima; ResNet uses an algorithm based on rarity and complementarity. This analysis indicates that the rarity‐complementarity based algorithm of ResNet surpasses the simulated annealing approach of SITES with respect to time and completeness. SITES, however, contains other features that are useful in conservation planning. Ways in which the two packages can be used together effectively are suggested.     

Improving bioregional frameworks for conservation by including mammal distributions

Large identifiable landscape units, such as ecoregions, are used to prioritize global and continental conservation efforts, particularly where biodiversity knowledge is inadequate. Setting biodiversity representation targets using coarse large‐scale biogeographic boundaries, can be inefficient and under‐representative. Even when using fine‐scale biodiversity data, representation deficiencies can occur through misalignment of target distributions with such prioritization frameworks. While this pattern has been recognized, quantitative approaches highlighting misalignments have been lacking, particularly for assemblages of mammal species. We tested the efficacy of Australia's bioregions as a spatial prioritization framework for representing mammal species, within protected areas, in New South Wales. We produced an approach based on mammal assemblages and assessed its performance in representing mammal distributions. Substantial spatial misalignment between New South Wales's bioregions and mammal assemblages was revealed, reflecting deficiencies in the representation of more than half of identified mammal assemblages. Using a systematic approach driven by fine‐scale mammalian data, we compared the efficacy of these two frameworks in securing mammalian representation within protected areas. Of the 61 species, 38 were better represented by the mammalian framework, with remaining species only marginally better represented when guided by bioregions. Overall, the rate at which mammal species were incorporated into the protected area network was higher (5.1% ± 0.6 sd) when guided by mammal assemblages. Guided by bioregions, systematic conservation planning of protected areas may be constrained in realizing its full potential in securing representation for all of Australia's biodiversity. Adapting the boundaries of prioritization frameworks by incorporating amassed information from a broad range of taxa should be of conservation significance.     

Spatial conservation priorities are highly sensitive to choice of biodiversity surrogates and species distribution model type

Pressure to conserve biodiversity with limited resources has led to increasing use of species distribution models (SDMs) for spatial conservation prioritization. Published spatial prioritization exercises often focus on well‐studied groups, with data compiled from on‐line databases of ad‐hoc collections. Conservation plans generally aim to protect all components of biodiversity, and it is implied that the species used in prioritization act as surrogates. Here, we assess the sensitivity of spatial priorities to model and surrogate choice using a case study from a fragmented agricultural area of south eastern Australia that is poorly represented in the national reserve system. We model the distributions of 30 species of bird, microbat and bee using two types of SDM; generalised linear models based on systematic surveys that yield presence and absence observations, and MaxEnt models based on biodiversity database records. Eight prioritization scenarios were tested using Zonation software, and were based on either the presence–background or presence–absence SDMs and combinations of surrogacy among the three taxa. We found low correlations between SDMs generated for the same species using different modelling frameworks (μ = 0.18, n = 26). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) estimates generated by MaxEnt were optimistic; on average 1.36 times higher than when tested against the systematic survey data. Conservation priorities were sensitive to the choice of surrogate and type of data used to fit SDMs, and though bats and birds formed moderately good surrogates for each other, there was less compelling evidence of surrogacy for bees. Because valid surrogacy is unlikely with most existing data sets, investment in high quality data for less‐surveyed groups prior to planning should still be a priority. If this is not possible, then it is advisable to analyse the sensitivity of conservation plans to the assumed surrogacy and quality of data available.     

Prioritizing species for conservation planning

The efforts to protect biological diversity must be prioritized because resources for nature conservation are limited. Conservation prioritization can be based on numerous criteria, from ecological integrity to species representation, but in this review I address only species-level prioritization. Criteria used for species prioritization range from aesthetical to evolutionary considerations, but I focus on the aspects that are biologically relevant. I distinguish between two main aspects of diversity that are used as objectives: Maintenance of biodiversity pattern, and maintenance of biodiversity process. I identify two additional criteria typically used in species prioritization that serve for achieving the objectives: The species’ need of protection, and cost and effectiveness of conservation actions. I discuss how these criteria could be combined with either of the objectives in a complementarity-based benefit function framework for conservation prioritization. But preserving evolutionary process versus current diversity pattern may turn out to be conflicting objectives that have to be traded-off with each other, if pursued simultaneously. Although many reasonable criteria and methods exist, species prioritization is hampered by uncertainties, most of which stem from the poor quality of data on what species exist, where they occur, and what are the costs and benefits of protecting them. Surrogate measures would be extremely useful but their performance is still largely unknown. Future challenges in species prioritization lie in finding ways to compensate for missing information.     

Spatial Prioritization for Biodiversity Restoration: A Simple Framework Referencing Past Species Distributions

The spatial prioritization of biodiversity restoration sites on a national scale lags behind that of protected areas. We present a simple framework for spatial restoration prioritization using complementarity analysis based on the differences between past and present species distributions and restoration feasibility. In the framework, sites that were not only diverse or unique in the past (high restoration potential), but also have high restoration feasibility (e.g. low anthropogenic pressures) are ranked higher. We applied the framework to endangered bird species that breed in Japan for which distribution data were available from nationwide distribution censuses conducted in 1978 and 1998. The data were compiled in a 20‐km grid resolution across Japan. We incorporated the degree of urbanization and number of farmers as a cost to optimize the sets of cells with regard to restoration feasibility. We successfully identified candidate sets of restoration cells, in which at most six can be allocated for each species under the constraint that the total area selected does not exceed 15% of the degraded cells. At most, 11 cells were allocated for each species under the constraint that restoration cells were within 15% of all ecosystem types. Comparison with the distribution of existing nature restoration sites revealed that only 9.3 or 9.7% (depended on the constraint) of high‐priority cells overlapped cells including existing restoration sites. Our framework provides an objective, efficient method to obtain a testable plan for biodiversity restoration, which might contribute to the attainment of the 2020 target set by the Convention on Biological Diversity .     

Area prioritization for biodiversity conservation in Québec on the basis of species distributions: a preliminary analysis

Results are presented which prioritize areas for potential protection in Québec on the basis of biodiversity considerations. These results are relevant to the ongoing public discussion in Québec about designating new parks and refuges so that the province may fulfil its obligations to Canada's Endangered Spaces Campaign. The prioritization algorithm used in this analysis is based on rarity and complementarity. It attempts to sample biodiversity in as area-efficient a way as possible. The biodiversity surrogates used here comprise a subset of 743 species for which data on spatial distributions are publicly available; the analysis begins with 394 species at risk. It is shown that: (i) the existing network of protected areas in Québec does a poor job of protecting these biodiversity surrogates; (ii) adding adjacent areas to this network will not be the optimal way of protecting these biodiversity surrogates; (iii) many of the areas that have highest priority are in southern Québec, which has a high human population density; (iv) because of (iii), designating parks may not be economically or sociologically feasible and more adaptive alternative conservation plans will have to be devised; (v) coastal areas, riparian habitats, and other wetlands should have high priority for protection but are currently very inadequately represented in the reserve network; (vi) there is some reason for concern about the clear-cut logging of boreal forests in northern Québec; and (vii) the islands, Île d'Anticosti and the Îles-de-la-Madeleine, emerge as being of very significant conservation value and plans for the protection of areas on them should be an immediate goal for biodiversity conservation in Québec.     

The price of conserving avian phylogenetic diversity: a global prioritization approach

The combination of rapid biodiversity loss and limited funds available for conservation represents a major global concern. While there are many approaches for conservation prioritization, few are framed as financial optimization problems. We use recently published avian data to conduct a global analysis of the financial resources required to conserve different quantities of phylogenetic diversity (PD). We introduce a new prioritization metric (ADEPD) that After Downlisting a species gives the Expected Phylogenetic Diversity at some future time. Unlike other metrics, ADEPD considers the benefits to future PD associated with downlisting a species (e.g. moving from Endangered to Vulnerable in the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List). Combining ADEPD scores with data on the financial cost of downlisting different species provides a cost–benefit prioritization approach for conservation. We find that under worst-case spending $3915 can save 1 year of PD, while under optimal spending $1 can preserve over 16.7 years of PD. We find that current conservation spending patterns are only expected to preserve one quarter of the PD that optimal spending could achieve with the same total budget. Maximizing PD is only one approach within the wider goal of biodiversity conservation, but our analysis highlights more generally the danger involved in uninformed spending of limited resources.     

Marshalling existing biodiversity data to evaluate biodiversity status and trends in planning exercises

A thorough understanding of biodiversity status and trends through time is necessary for decision-making at regional, national, and subnational levels. Information readily available in databases allows for development of scenarios of species distribution in relation to habitat changes. Existing species occurrence data are biased towards some taxonomic groups (especially vertebrates), and are more complete for Europe and North America than for the rest of the world. We outline a procedure for development of such biodiversity scenarios using available data on species distribution derived from primary biodiversity data and habitat conditions, and analytical software, which allows estimation of species’ distributions, and forecasting of likely effects of various agents of change on the distribution and status of the same species. Such approaches can translate into improved knowledge for countries regarding the 2010 Biodiversity Target of reducing significantly the rate of biodiversity loss—indeed, using methodologies such as those illustrated herein, many countries should be capable of analyzing trends of change for at least part of their biodiversity. Sources of errors that are present in primary biodiversity data and that can affect projections are discussed.     

On the distribution of plant abundance data

Plant abundance data are often analysed using standard statistical procedures without considering their distributional features and the underlying ecological processes. However, plant abundance data, e.g. when measured in biodiversity monitoring programs, are often sampled using a hierarchical sampling procedure, and since plant abundance data in a hierarchical sampling procedure are typically both zero-inflated and over-dispersed, the use of a standard statistical procedure is sub-optimal and not the best possible practice in the modelling of plant abundance data. Two distributions (the zero-inflated generalised binomial distribution and the zero-inflated bounded beta distribution) are suggested as possible distributions for analysing either discrete, continuous, or ordinal hierarchically sampled plant cover data.     

Place prioritization for biodiversity conservation using probabilistic surrogate distribution data

We analyse optimal and heuristic place prioritization algorithms for biodiversity conservation area network design which can use probabilistic data on the distribution of surrogates for biodiversity. We show how an Expected Surrogate Set Covering Problem (ESSCP) and a Maximal Expected Surrogate Covering Problem (MESCP) can be linearized for computationally efficient solution. For the ESSCP, we study the performance of two optimization software packages (XPRESS and CPLEX) and five heuristic algorithms based on traditional measures of complementarity and rarity as well as the Shannon and Simpson indices of α‐diversity which are being used in this context for the first time. On small artificial data sets the optimal place prioritization algorithms often produced more economical solutions than the heuristic algorithms, though not always ones guaranteed to be optimal. However, with large data sets, the optimal algorithms often required long computation times and produced no better results than heuristic ones. Thus there is generally little reason to prefer optimal to heuristic algorithms with probabilistic data sets.     

Ecoregion Prioritization Suggests an Armoury Not a Silver Bullet for Conservation Planning

In the face of accelerating species extinctions, map-based prioritization systems are increasingly useful to decide where to pursue conservation action most effectively. However, a number of seemingly inconsistent schemes have emerged, mostly focussing on endemism. Here we use global vertebrate distributions in terrestrial ecoregions to evaluate how continuous and categorical ranking schemes target and accumulate endangered taxa within the IUCN Red List, Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE), and EDGE of Existence programme. We employed total, endemic and threatened species richness and an estimator for richness-adjusted endemism as metrics in continuous prioritization, and WWF''s Global200 and Conservation International''s (CI) Hotspots in categorical prioritization. Our results demonstrate that all metrics target endangerment more efficiently than by chance, but each selects unique sets of top-ranking ecoregions, which overlap only partially, and include different sets of threatened species. Using the top 100 ecoregions as defined by continuous prioritization metrics, we develop an inclusive map for global vertebrate conservation that incorporates important areas for endemism, richness, and threat. Finally, we assess human footprint and protection levels within these areas to reveal that endemism sites are more impacted but have more protection, in contrast to high richness and threat ones. Given such contrasts, major efforts to protect global biodiversity must involve complementary conservation approaches in areas of unique species as well as those with highest diversity and threat.     

Exclusion of agricultural lands in spatial conservation prioritization strategies: consequences for biodiversity and ecosystem service representation

Agroecosystems have traditionally been considered incompatible with biological conservation goals, and often been excluded from spatial conservation prioritization strategies. The consequences for the representativeness of identified priority areas have been little explored. Here, we evaluate these for biodiversity and carbon storage representation when agricultural land areas are excluded from a spatial prioritization strategy for South America. Comparing different prioritization approaches, we also assess how the spatial overlap of priority areas changes. The exclusion of agricultural lands was detrimental to biodiversity representation, indicating that priority areas for agricultural production overlap with areas of relatively high occurrence of species. By contrast, exclusion of agricultural lands benefits representation of carbon storage within priority areas, as lands of high value for agriculture and carbon storage overlap little. When agricultural lands were included and equally weighted with biodiversity and carbon storage, a balanced representation resulted. Our findings suggest that with appropriate management, South American agroecosystems can significantly contribute to biodiversity conservation.     

厦门市重点保护植物空间优先保护格局研究

生物多样性保护对维持城市生态系统功能具有重要意义。以39种厦门市重点保护植物为对象,通过物种分布模型MaxENT获得物种潜在分布栅格图,利用空间保护优先化定量工具Zonation软件识别理论上既适宜重点保护植物生存又能够保证景观连通性的区域,获得本地重点保护植物景观保护等级。根据2020年全球生物多样性目标,将景观保护等级最高的17%区域视为多物种空间优先保护区,结合Zonation模型生成的随景观丧失物种加权灭绝风险曲线,将保护等级最高的8%区域划为一级保护区,保护等级在8%-17%范围内的区域划为二级保护区。利用MaxENT模型中的jackknife刀切法发现海拔是对本地重点保护植物分布影响最大的环境因子,优先保护区集中分布于海拔较低的海岸带区域。将优先保护区与自然保护地建设现状、厦门市生态功能区规划、土地利用规划、城市总体规划对比发现厦门市岛外西部、北部的优先保护区得到了较好保护;岛外的西南部及东南部、岛内的东部及南部海岸带的优先保护区被建设用地大规模占用,已纳入自然保护地范围的区域较少,存在大量的海岸带优先保护区保护空缺;岛外东南部的部分优先保护区虽未被占用,但规划中属发展备用地,缺乏生态保护。为避免优先保护区面积的进一步萎缩,应重点关注海岸带区域优先保护区的生态保护,将目前属于发展备用地的优先保护区转划为生态留白空间,针对一级、二级优先保护区分别实施刚性和弹性的生态保育措施,在保护生物多样性的同时,严控对海岸带区域优先保护区的进一步开发利用,协调优先保护区内保护与开发利用间的关系。     

Putting bryophyte communities in the map: A case study on prioritizing monitoring of human pressure in riverscapes

Freshwater ecosystems support biological communities with high species richness and conservation interest. However, these ecosystems are highly altered by human intervention and threatened worldwide, making them a priority in conservation planning and biodiversity monitoring. Bryophytes, including several conservation-interest taxa, are recognized indicators of ecological status in freshwaters. We aimed to develop a framework for designing monitoring networks to detect trends in aquatic and semi-aquatic bryophyte communities, prioritizing high-conservation interest communities in different contexts of human pressure (specifically, resulting from the intersection of two criteria: (i) protection status and (ii) presence of a potential impact area).The framework consists of three steps: (1) Spatial modelling of biodiversity; (2) Spatial conservation prioritization; and (3) Model-assisted monitoring network design. Community-level modelling was used to model the distribution of the main bryophyte assemblages in the study area. A conservation prioritization software was utilized to identify areas with high conservation value. The monitoring network was designed using stratified random sampling and unequal-probability sampling techniques to target high conservation value sites distributed across different contexts of human pressure.We have identified four distinct community types, each characterized both by a small group of common and dominant species, and by small group of rarer, conservation-interest species. This typification of four species assemblages occurring in the study area, also highlighted those with potentially higher conservation-interest. The most valuable areas for the conservation of aquatic and semi-aquatic bryophyte communities coincide with specific environmental zones: mountainous areas in Lusitania, large watercourses in the Mediterranean North and some locations in the Mediterranean Mountains. Finally, we obtained a potential monitoring network consisting of 64 monitoring points, unequally distributed across different contexts of human pressure, privileging locations with higher conservation value.The framework presented here illustrates the potential of combining biodiversity modelling, spatial conservation prioritization and monitoring design in the development of monitoring networks. Namely, this framework allowed us to counter data deficiencies, to identify high priority areas to monitor and to design a monitoring network considering different scenarios of human pressure at a regional scale.This framework can also be valuable for conservation efforts as an approach to monitoring conservation-interest biodiversity features in anthropogenically modified riverscapes, which present different degrees of human pressure and the cumulative effects of these different impact elements. Moreover, this approach allows for the comprehensive monitoring of biodiversity values important for management at the national and regional levels. In addition, this framework is one of the first efforts in the development of monitoring networks that target aquatic and semi-aquatic bryophyte communities, a long-neglected plant group of high ecological and conservation importance in freshwater ecosystems.     

Characterising and predicting benthic biodiversity for conservation planning in deepwater environments

Understanding patterns of biodiversity in deep sea systems is increasingly important because human activities are extending further into these areas. However, obtaining data is difficult, limiting the ability of science to inform management decisions. We have used three different methods of quantifying biodiversity to describe patterns of biodiversity in an area that includes two marine reserves in deep water off southern Australia. We used biological data collected during a recent survey, combined with extensive physical data to model, predict and map three different attributes of biodiversity: distributions of common species, beta diversity and rank abundance distributions (RAD). The distribution of each of eight common species was unique, although all the species respond to a depth-correlated physical gradient. Changes in composition (beta diversity) were large, even between sites with very similar environmental conditions. Composition at any one site was highly uncertain, and the suite of species changed dramatically both across and down slope. In contrast, the distributions of the RAD components of biodiversity (community abundance, richness, and evenness) were relatively smooth across the study area, suggesting that assemblage structure (i.e. the distribution of abundances of species) is limited, irrespective of species composition. Seamounts had similar biodiversity based on metrics of species presence, beta diversity, total abundance, richness and evenness to the adjacent continental slope in the same depth ranges. These analyses suggest that conservation objectives need to clearly identify which aspects of biodiversity are valued, and employ an appropriate suite of methods to address these aspects, to ensure that conservation goals are met.     

Systematic data in biodiversity studies: use it or lose it

Systematic data in the form of collections data are useful in biodiversity studies in many ways, most importantly because they serve as the only direct evidence of species distributions. However, collecting bias has been demonstrated for most areas of the world and has led some to propose methods that circumvent the need for collections data. New methods that model collections data in combination with abiotic data and predict potential total species distribution are examined using 25,111 records representing 5,123 species of plants and animals from Guyana; some methods use the reduced number of 320 species. These modeled species distributions are evaluated and potential high-priority biodiversity sites are selected based on the concept of irreplaceability, a measure of uniqueness. The major impediments to using collections data are the lack of data that are available in a useful format and the reluctance of most systematists to become involved in biodiversity and conservation research.     

Priorities for biodiversity monitoring in Europe: A review of supranational policies and a novel scheme for integrative prioritization

Trends and status of species and habitats need to be measured to assess whether global biodiversity policy targets have been achieved. However, it is impossible to monitor all species and habitats with a justifiable effort. Therefore, it is critical to prioritize the monitoring of specific biodiversity components. Priorities must be linked to key nature conservation policies to ensure that monitoring efforts are relevant to policy needs, achieve maximum impact, and obtain governmental support. Here we discuss priority setting in biodiversity monitoring in view of monitoring obligations and priorities in supranational biodiversity legislation and policies in Europe and assess overlaps in priorities among policies. While most supranational biodiversity regulations require monitoring of biodiversity, obligations are legally enforceable only for the Nature Directives, the Water Framework Directive, and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive of the European Union. Of the assessed international conventions and other relevant policy instruments about 50% explicitly designate priority species and most focus on vertebrates. Lower emphasis is given to habitats and geographical priorities are even less pronounced. Also, an overarching system for monitoring prioritization is still missing. Our prioritization system is based on three main criteria: (1) legal requirement for reporting, (2) wording used to define priority or importance, and (3) inclusion in lists that indicate importance of monitoring due to e.g. threats or relevance of a region for a species. Our system contains five main priority levels, within which an additional division differentiates priorities according to national/European responsibility criteria. Based on this system, we provide recommendations for allocating species and habitats enlisted by the reviewed policy tools to explicit non-overlapping priority levels. Our approach will facilitate synergies between monitoring activities for different policy needs, and contribute to alleviate the notorious resource shortage for biodiversity monitoring.     

Challenging Wallacean and Linnean shortfalls: knowledge gradients and conservation planning in a biodiversity hotspot

Knowledge about biodiversity remains inadequate because most species living on Earth were still not formally described (the Linnean shortfall) and because geographical distributions of most species are poorly understood and usually contain many gaps (the Wallacean shortfall). In this paper, we developed models to infer the size and placement of geographical ranges of hypothetical non‐described species, based on the range size frequency distribution of anurans recently described in the Cerrado Biome, on the level of knowledge (number of inventories) and on surrogates for habitat suitability. The rationale for these models is as follow: (1) the range size frequency distribution of these species should be similar to the range‐restricted species, which have been most recently described in the Cerrado Biome; (2) the probability of new discoveries will increase in areas with low biodiversity knowledge, mainly in suitable areas, and (3) assuming range continuity, new species should occupy adjacent cells only if the level of knowledge is low enough to allow the existence of undiscovered species. We ran a model based on the number of inventories only, and two models combining effects of number of inventories and two different estimates of habitat suitability, for a total of 100 replicates each. Finally, we performed a complementary analysis using simulated annealing to solve the set‐covering problem for each simulation (i.e. finding the smallest number of cells so that all species are represented at least once), using extents of occurrence of 160 species (131 real anuran species plus 29 new simulated species). The revised reserve system that included information about unknown or poorly sampled taxa significantly shifted northwards, when compared to a system based on currently known species. This main result can be explained by the paucity of biodiversity data in this part of the biome, associated with its relatively high habitat suitability. As a precautionary measure, weighted by the inferred distribution data, the prioritization of a system of reserves in the north part of the biome appears to be defensible.     

Conservation of Freshwater Biodiversity: a Comparison of Different Area Selection Methods

The biodiversity of freshwater systems is endangered, especially in Mediterranean semiarid areas such as the south east of the Iberian Peninsula, whose rich and endemic biota is threatened by the development of surrounding land-crop irrigation. For this reason, the prioritization of areas for biodiversity conservation is an urgent target. In this study we used data records of water beetles from a province of the southeast of Spain for assessing priority areas for freshwater biodiversity conservation. We compare the performance of various area-selection methods, ranging from scoring procedures to complementarity-based algorithms, which are based on different criteria such as richness, rarity and vulnerability. The complementarity approaches were more efficient than methods using scoring or richness and rarity hotspots for representing conservation targets in a given number of areas and for identifying the minimum set of areas containing all species at least once. Within these, the richness-based algorithm was more efficient than rarity-based algorithm. Crucial target habitats for aquatic biodiversity conservation in the area studied are streams at medium altitude, hypersaline streams, and endorreic and karstic complexes.     

What Data to Use for Forest Conservation Planning? A Comparison of Coarse Open and Detailed Proprietary Forest Inventory Data in Finland

The boreal region is facing intensifying resource extraction pressure, but the lack of comprehensive biodiversity data makes operative forest conservation planning difficult. Many countries have implemented forest inventory schemes and are making extensive and up-to-date forest databases increasingly available. Some of the more detailed inventory databases, however, remain proprietary and unavailable for conservation planning. Here, we investigate how well different open and proprietary forest inventory data sets suit the purpose of conservation prioritization in Finland. We also explore how much priorities are affected by using the less accurate but open data. First, we construct a set of indices for forest conservation value based on quantitative information commonly found in forest inventories. These include the maturity of the trees, tree species composition, and site fertility. Secondly, using these data and accounting for connectivity between forest types, we investigate the patterns in conservation priority. For prioritization, we use Zonation, a method and software for spatial conservation prioritization. We then validate the prioritizations by comparing them to known areas of high conservation value. We show that the overall priority patterns are relatively consistent across different data sources and analysis options. However, the coarse data cannot be used to accurately identify the high-priority areas as it misses much of the fine-scale variation in forest structures. We conclude that, while inventory data collected for forestry purposes may be useful for forest conservation purposes, it needs to be detailed enough to be able to account for more fine-scaled features of high conservation value. These results underline the importance of making detailed inventory data publicly available. Finally, we discuss how the prioritization methodology we used could be integrated into operative forest management, especially in countries in the boreal zone.