Species richness and biodiversity conservation priorities in British Columbia, Canada

Canadian Journal of Zoology

Volumn 84, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 20-31

  Freemark, Kathryn E ^a   Meyers, Mark ^b   White, Denis ^c   Warman, Leanna D ^d   Kiester, A Ross ^e   Lumban Tobing, Pago ^f  

^a ENVIRONMENT CANADA   (Canada)

^b OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^e Biodiversity Futures Consulting   (United States)

^f ING Clarion   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHMS; BIODIVERSITY; INTEGER PROGRAMMING; NATURAL SCIENCES;

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION; GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION; INTEGER PROGRAMMING ALGORITHMS; REPTILES;

CONSERVATION;

BIODIVERSITY; BIRD; ENDANGERED SPECIES; EXTINCTION; GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION; NATURE CONSERVATION; SPECIES DIVERSITY;

BRITISH COLUMBIA; CANADA; NORTH AMERICA;

AMPHIBIA; AVES; MAMMALIA; REPTILIA;

EID: 33645992798     PISSN: 00084301     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1139/z05-172     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Andelman, S.J., and Fagan, W.F. 2000. Umbrellas and flagships: efficient conservation surrogates or expensive mistakes? Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 97: 5954-5959.
2. Andelman, S.J., and Willig, M.R. 2002. Alternative configurations of conservation reserves for Paraguayan bats: considerations of spatial scale. Conserv. Biol. 16: 1352-1363.
3. Arthur, J.L., Hachey, M., Sahr, K., Huso, M., and Kiester, A.R. 1997. Finding all optimal solutions to the reserve site selection problem: formulation and computational analysis. Environ. Ecol. Stat. 4: 153-165.
4. Biodiversity Convention Office. 1995. Canadian biodiversity strategy: Canada's response to the convention on biological diversity. Biodiversity Convention Office, Environment Canada, Gatineau (Hull), Que.
5. Bonn, A., Rodrigues, A.S., and Gaston, K.J. 2002. Threatened and endemic species: are they good indicators of patterns of biodiversity on a national scale? Ecol. Lett. 5: 733-741.
6. Burt, W.H., and Grossenheider, R.P. 1980. A field guide to the mammals. Peterson Field Guide Series. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York.
7. Cabeza, M., and Moilanen, A. 2001. Design of reserve networks and the persistence of biodiversity. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16: 242-248.
8. Church, R.L., Stoms, D.M., and Davis, F.W. 1996. Reserve selection as a maximal covering location problem. Biol. Conserv. 32: 101-118.
9. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2004. COSEWIC's assessment process and criteria. Environment Canada [online]. Available from http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/pdf/ assessment_process_e.pdf [cited 26 September 2005].
10. Csuti, B., Polasky, S., Williams, P.H., Pressey, R.L., Camm, J.D., Kershaw, M., Kiester, A.R., Downs, B., Hamilton, R., Huso, M., and Sahr, K. 1997. A comparison of reserve selection algorithms using data on terrestrial vertebrates in Oregon. Biol. Conserv. 80: 83-97.
11. Diamond, J.M. 1975. The island dilemma: lessons of modern biogeographic studies for the design of natural reserves. Biol. Conserv. 7: 129-146.
12. Dobson, A.P., Rodriguez, J.P., Roberts, W.M., and Wilcove, D.S. 1997. Geographic distribution of endangered species in the United States. Science (Washington, D.C.), 275: 550-553.
13. Dunn, E.H. 1997. Setting priorities for conservation, research and monitoring of Canada's landbirds. Can. Wildl. Serv. Tech. Rep. Ser. No. 293.
14. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. 1992. Digital charts of the world. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., Redlands, Calif.
15. Flather, C.H., Wilson, K.R., Dean, D.J., and McComb, W.C. 1997. Identifying gaps in conservation networks: of indicators and uncertainty in geographic-based analyses. Ecol. Appl. 7: 531-542.
16. Freemark, K.E., Moore, H., Forsyth, D., Sinclair, A.R., Barrett, T., White, D., and Pressey, R. 2000. Identifying sites for conserving biodiversity across Canadian landscapes using a complementarity approach. In Landscape futures: examining innovations and advances in research for natural resource planning and management across regional landscapes that might lead us towards a sustainable future. Edited by D.J. Brunckhorst and D.A. Mouat. Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Landscape Futures, Armidale, New South Wales, Australia, 22-25 September 1999. CD publication by UNESCO Institute for Bioregional Resource Management, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia.
17. Garson, J., Aggarwal, A., and Sarkar, S. 2002. Birds as surrogates for biodiversity: an analysis of a data set from southern Québec. J. Biosci. (Bangalore), 27(Suppl. 2): 347-360.
18. Hall, E.R. 1981. The mammals of North America. 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.
19. Howard, P.C., Viskanic, P., Davenport, T.R.B., Kiyenyi, F.W., Baltzer, M., Dickinson, C.J., Lwanga, J.S., Matthews, R.A., and Balmford, A. 1998. Complementarity and the use of indicator groups for reserve selection in Uganda. Nature (London), 394: 472-475.
20. Kati, V., Devillers, P., Dufrêne, M., Legakis, A., Vokou, D., and Lebrun, P. 2004. Testing the value of six taxonomic groups as biodiversity indicators at a local scale. Conserv. Biol. 18: 667-675.
21. Kerr, J.T. 1997. Species richness, endemism, and the choice of areas for conservation. Conserv. Biol. 11: 1094-1100.
22. Kerr, J.T., and Cihlar, J. 2004. Patterns and causes of species endangerment in Canada. Ecol. Appl. 14: 743-753.
23. Kiester, A.R., Scott, J.M., Csuti, B., Noss, R.F., Butterfield, B., Sahr, K., and White, D. 1996. Conservation prioritization using GAP data. Conserv. Biol. 10: 1332-1342.
24. Lawler, J.J., White, D., Sifneos, J.C., and Master, L.L. 2003. Rare species and the use of indicator groups for conservation planning. Conserv. Biol. 17: 875-882.
25. Manne, L.L., and Williams, P.H. 2003. Building indicator groups based on species characteristics can improve conservation planning. Anim. Conserv. 6: 291-297.
26. Margules, C.R., and Pressey, R.L. 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature (London), 405: 243-253.
27. Margules, C.R., Pressey, R.L., and Williams, P.H. 2002. Representing biodiversity: data and procedures for identifying priority areas for conservation. J. Biosci. (Bangalore), 27(Suppl. 2): 309-326.
28. Pressey, R.L. 1994. Ad hoc reservations: forward or backward steps in developing representative reserve systems? Conserv. Biol. 8: 662-668.
29. Pressey, R.L., Humphries, C.J., Margules, C.R., Vane-Wright, R.I., and Williams, P.H. 1993. Beyond opportunism: key principles for systematic reserve selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 8: 124-128.
30. Pressey, R.L., Johnson, I.R., and Wilson, P.D. 1994. Shades of irreplaceability: towards a measure of the contribution of sites to a reservation goal. Biodivers. Conserv. 3: 242-262.
31. Pressey, R.L., Ferrier, S., Hutchinson, C.D., Sivertsen, D.P., and Manion, G. 1995. Planning for negotiation: using an interactive geographic information system to explore alternative protected area networks. In Nature conservation 4: the role of networks. Edited by D.A. Saunders, J.L. Craig and E.M. Mattiske. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Sydney, NSW, Australia. pp. 23-33.
32. Protected Areas Strategy. 1998. British Columbia protected areas. Version 1.2. Land Use Coordination Office, Victoria, B.C.
33. Reyers, B., and van Jaarsveld, A.S. 2000. Assessment techniques for biodiversity surrogates. S. Afr. J. Sci. 96: 406-408.
34. Reyers, B., van Jaarsveld, A.S., and Kruger, M. 2000. Complementarity as a biodiversity indicator strategy. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 267: 505-513.
35. Ricketts, T.H., Dinerstein, E., Olson, D.M., and Loucks, C. 1999. Who's where in North America? Patterns of species richness and the utility of indicator taxa for conservation. Bioscience, 49: 369-381.
36. Rodrigues, A.S.L., and Gaston, K.J. 2002. Rarity and conservation planning across geopolitical units. Conserv. Biol. 16: 674-682.
37. Ryti, R.T. 1992. Effect of focal taxon on the selection of nature reserves. Ecol. Appl. 2: 404-410.
38. Sarakinos, H., Nicholls, A.O., Tubert, A., Aggarwal, A., Margules, C.R., and Sarkar, S. 2001. Area prioritization for biodiversity conservation in Québec on the basis of species distributions: a preliminary analysis. Biodivers. Conserv. 10: 1419-1472.
39. Scott J.M., Anderson, H., Davis, F., Caicoo, S., Csuti, B., Edwards, T.C., Jr., Noss, R., Ulliman, J., Groves, C., and Wright, R.G. 1993. Gap analysis: a geographic approach to protection of biological diversity. Wildl. Monogr. No. 123. pp. 1-41.
40. Scudder, G.G.E. 2000. Species at risk, conservation strategies, and ecological integrity. In Proceedings of a conference on the biology and management of species and habitats at risk. Kamloops, British Columbia, 15-19 February 1999. Vol. 1. Edited by L.M. Darling. BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, B.C., and University College of the Cariboo, Kamloops, B.C. pp. 1-12.
41. Simpson, G.G. 1964. Species density of North American recent mammals. Syst. Zool. 13: 57-73.
42. Stebbins, R.C. 1985. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians: field marks of all species in western North America, including Baja California. Peterson Field Guide Series 16. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Mass.
43. Underhill, L.G. 1994. Optimal and suboptimal reserve selection algorithms. Biol. Conserv. 70: 85-87.
44. Vane-Wright, R.I., Humphries, C.J., and Williams, P.H. 1991. What to protect? Systematics and the agony of choice. Biol. Conserv. 55: 235-254.
45. Warman, L.D., Forsyth, D.M., Sinclair, A.R.E., Freemark, K., Moore, H.D., Barrett, T.W., Pressey, R.L., and White, D. 2004a. Species distributions, surrogacy, and important conservation regions in Canada. Ecol. Lett. 7: 374-379.
46. Warman, L.D., Sinclair, A.R.E., Scudder, G.G.E., Klinkenberg, B., and Pressey, R.L. 2004b. Sensitivity of systematic reserve selection to decisions about scale, biological data, and targets: case study from southern British Columbia. Conserv. Biol. 18: 655-666.
47. Welsh, D.A., Venier, L.A., Fillman, D.R., McKee, J.E., Phillips, D., Lawrence, K., Gillespie, I., and McKenney, D.W. 1999. Development and analysis of digital range maps of birds breeding in Canada. Inf. Rep. ST-X-17, Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa [online]. Available from http://www.glfc.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/ landscape/range_maps_e.html [cited 8 February 2000].
48. White, D. 2000. Global grids from recursive diamond subdivisions of the surface of an octahedron or icosahedron. Environ. Monit. Assess. 64: 93-103.
49. White, D., Preston, E.M., Freemark, K.E., and Kiester, A.R. 1999. A hierarchical framework for conserving biodiversity In Landscape ecological analysis: issues and applications. Edited by J.M. Klopatek and R.H. Gardner. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 127-153.