How large do reserve networks need to be?

Reserve networks are essential for the long-term persistence of biodiversity. To fulfil this goal, they need not only to represent all species to be conserved but also to be sufficiently large to ensure species' persistence over time. An extensive literature exists on the required size of individual reserves, but to date there has been little investigation regarding the appropriate size of entire networks. The IUCN's proposal that 10% of each nation be reserved is often presented as a desirable target, but concerns have been raised that this is insufficient and is dictated primarily by considerations of feasibility and politics.
We found that the minimum percentage of area needed to represent all species within a region increases with the number of targeted species, the size of selection units, and the level of species' endemism. This has important implications for conservation planning. First, no single universal target is appropriate, as ecosystems or nations with higher diversity and/or higher levels of endemism require substantially larger fractions of their areas to be protected. Second, a minimum conservation network sufficient to capture the diversity of vertebrates is not expected to be effective for biodiversity in general. Third, the 10% target proposed by the IUCN is likely to be wholly insufficient, and much larger fractions of area are estimated to be needed, especially in tropical regions.     

Does conservation planning matter in a dynamic and uncertain world?

Loss of biodiversity is one of the world's overriding environmental challenges. Reducing those losses by creating reserve networks is a cornerstone of global conservation and resource management. Historically, assembly of reserve networks has been ad hoc, but recently the focus has shifted to identifying optimal reserve networks. We show that while comprehensive reserve network design is best when the entire network can be implemented immediately, when conservation investments must be staged over years, such solutions actually may be sub‐optimal in the context of biodiversity loss and uncertainty. Simple decision rules, such as protecting the available site with the highest irreplaceability or with the highest species richness, may be more effective when implementation occurs over many years.     

Towards biodiversity hotspots effective for conserving mammals with small geographic ranges

The main goal of using global biodiversity hotspots for conservation purposes is to protect taxa with small geographic ranges because these are highly vulnerable to extinction. However, the extent to what different hotspots types are effective for meeting this goal remains controversial because hotspots have been previously defined as either the richest or most threatened and richest sites in terms of total, endemic or threatened species. In this regard, the use of species richness to set conservation priorities is widely discussed because strategies focused on this diversity measure tend to miss many of the taxa with small geographic ranges. Here we use data on global terrestrial mammal distributions to show that, hotspots of total species, endemism and threat defined in terms of species richness are effective in including 27%, 29% and 11% respectively, of the taxa with small geographic ranges. Whilst, the same hotspot types defined in terms of a simple diversity index, which is a function of species richness and range-size rarity, include 68%, 44% and 90% respectively, of these taxa. In addition, we demonstrate that index hotspot types are highly efficient because they conserve 79% of mammal species (21% more species than richness hotspot types), with 59% of species shared by three hotspot types (31% more than richness hotspot types). These results suggest that selection of different diversity measures to define hotspots may strongly affect the achievement of conservation goals.     

What do mammalogists want to save? Ten years of mammalian conservation biology

Recent upsurge of interest in biological diversity requests that resources for conservation be allocated to taxonomic groups and geographic areas of greater priority, independent of the attractiveness of individual species. The aim of this paper is to assess if contributed papers on four of the most important international conservation journals in the last ten years reflect our increasing concern for threatened mammals. Our results show that some orders receive disproportionally more attention than predicted by their absolute number and percentage of threatened species. The Nearctic and Palearctic Regions are far more studied than other like, for instance, the Oriental Region, which are badly neglected considering their higher rates of endangered and endemic mammals. Furthermore, it was found that among many orders most of the species covered in contributed papers are not presently considered threatened by IUCN. Our work highlights the need of assessing conservation priorities at least at continental level and of devoting more resources to research in tropical countries.     

Biomass and morphology of fine roots in temperate broad-leaved forests differing in tree species diversity: is there evidence of below-ground overyielding?

Biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning in forests have only recently attracted increasing attention. The vast majority of studies in forests have focused on above-ground responses to differences in tree species diversity, while systematic analyses of the effects of biodiversity on root systems are virtually non-existent. By investigating the fine root systems in 12 temperate deciduous forest stands in Central Europe, we tested the hypotheses that (1) stand fine root biomass increases with tree diversity, and (2) ‘below-ground overyielding’ of species-rich stands in terms of fine root biomass is the consequence of spatial niche segregation of the roots of different species. The selected stands represent a gradient in tree species diversity on similar bedrock from almost pure beech forests to medium-diverse forests built by beech, ash, and lime, and highly-diverse stands dominated by beech, ash, lime, maple, and hornbeam. We investigated fine root biomass and necromass at 24 profiles per stand and analyzed species differences in fine root morphology by microscopic analysis. Fine root biomass ranged from 440 to 480 g m⁻² in the species-poor to species-rich stands, with 63–77% being concentrated in the upper 20 cm of the soil. In contradiction to our two hypotheses, the differences in tree species diversity affected neither stand fine root biomass nor vertical root distribution patterns. Fine root morphology showed marked distinctions between species, but these root morphological differences did not lead to significant differences in fine root surface area or root tip number on a stand area basis. Moreover, differences in species composition of the stands did not alter fine root morphology of the species. We conclude that ‘below-ground overyielding’ in terms of fine root biomass does not occur in the species-rich stands, which is most likely caused by the absence of significant spatial segregation of the root systems of these late-successional species.     

全球200:确定大尺度生物多样性优先保护的一种方法

生物多样性保护的优先性研究成为保护生物学研究的焦点之一,“全球２００”是世界自然基金会确立的旨在拯救地球上急剧损失的生物多样性优先保护区域的清单,是确定大尺度生物多样性优先保护的一种方法。本文介绍了“全球２００”的研究方法,分析了在应用中存在中存在的问题,着重讨论了“全球２００”中涉及到中国的部分以及它们与中国目前的生物多样性保护关键地区的异同。     

Climate change, conservation and management: an assessment of the peer-reviewed scientific journal literature

Recent reviews of the conservation literature indicate that significant biases exist in the published literature regarding the regions, ecosystems and species that have been examined by researchers. Despite the global threat of climatic change, similar biases may be occurring within the sub-discipline of climate-change ecology. Here we hope to foster critical thought and discussion by considering the directions taken by conservation researchers when addressing climate change. To form a quantitative basis for our perspective, we assessed 248 papers from the climate change literature that considered the conservation management of biodiversity and ecosystems. We found that roughly half of the studies considered climate change in isolation from other threatening processes. We also found that the majority of surveyed scientific publications were conducted in the temperate forests of Europe and North America. Regions such as Latin America that are rich in biodiversity but may have low adaptive capacity to climate change were not well represented. We caution that such biases in research effort may be distracting our attention away from vulnerable regions, ecosystems and species. Specifically we suggest that the under-representation of research from regions low in adaptive capacity and rich in biodiversity requires international collaboration by those experienced in climate-change research, with researchers from less wealthy nations who are familiar with local issues, ecosystems and species. Furthermore, we caution that the propensity of ecologists to work in essentially unmodified ecosystems may fundamentally hamper our ability to make useful recommendations in a world that is experiencing significant global change.     

Biased data reduce efficiency and effectiveness of conservation reserve networks

Complementarity-based reserve selection algorithms efficiently prioritize sites for biodiversity conservation, but they are data-intensive and most regions lack accurate distribution maps for the majority of species. We explored implications of basing conservation planning decisions on incomplete and biased data using occurrence records of the plant family Proteaceae in South Africa. Treating this high-quality database as 'complete', we introduced three realistic sampling biases characteristic of biodiversity databases: a detectability sampling bias and two forms of roads sampling bias. We then compared reserve networks constructed using complete, biased, and randomly sampled data. All forms of biased sampling performed worse than both the complete data set and equal-effort random sampling. Biased sampling failed to detect a median of 1-5% of species, and resulted in reserve networks that were 9-17% larger than those designed with complete data. Spatial congruence and the correlation of irreplaceability scores between reserve networks selected with biased and complete data were low. Thus, reserve networks based on biased data require more area to protect fewer species and identify different locations than those selected with randomly sampled or complete data.     

An upgraded national biodiversity risk assessment index

The setting of priorities for international conservation assistance is important due to limited available financial resources. A recent study constructed a national biodiversity risk assessment index (NABRAI) in order to prioritise nations for conservation assistance. The present study aimed to upgrade the original index in order to address computational and weighting inconsistencies. The results of the upgraded index corresponded relatively well with those of the original model. We feel this study goes a step further towards strengthening the methodologies for biodiversity risk assessment. However, due to the absence of theoretical constructs for biodiversity risk assessment and the considerable disagreement between the various models of biodiversity risk, we recognise a need for a more sophisticated understanding of national biodiversity risk before these models can be used to identify global conservation priorities with any degree of confidence.