Multispecies conservation planning: Identifying landscapes for the conservation of viable populations using local and continental species priorities

Journal of Applied Ecology

Volumn 44, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 253-262

  Early, Regan ^a   Thomas, Chris D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

British butterflies; Connectivity; Landscape prioritization; Population viability; Red lists; ZONATION

Indexed keywords

BUTTERFLY; CONNECTIVITY; CONSERVATION PLANNING; ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE; NATURE RESERVE; POPULATION DISTRIBUTION; POPULATION DYNAMICS; POPULATION VIABILITY ANALYSIS; PRIORITIZATION; RED LIST; RESERVE DESIGN;

EURASIA; EUROPE; UNITED KINGDOM; WESTERN EUROPE;

PAPILIONOIDEA;

EID: 33947322487     PISSN: 00218901     EISSN: 13652664     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01268.x     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Arponen, A., Heikkinen, R.K., Thomas, C.D. & Moilanen, A. (2004) The value of biodiversity in reserve selection: representation, species weighting, and benefit functions. Conservation Biology, 19, 2009-2014.
2. Asher, J., Warren, M., Fox, R., Harding, P., Jeffcoate, G. & Jeffcoate, S. (2001) The Millennium Atlas of Butterflies in Britain and Ireland. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
3. Avery, M.I., Gibbons, D.W., Porter, R., Tew, T., Tucker, G. & Williams, G. (1994) Revising the Red Data List for birds: the biological basis of UK conservation priorities. Ibis, 137, 232-239.
4. Baguette, M. (2003) Long distance dispersal and landscape occupancy in a metapopulation of the cranberry fritillary butterfly. Ecography, 26, 153-160.
5. Baguette, M. & Schtickzelle, N. (2003) Local population dynamics are important to the conservation of metapopulations in highly fragmented landscapes. Journal of Applied Ecology, 40, 404-412.
6. Briers, R.A. (2002) Incorporating connectivity into reserve selection procedures. Biological Conservation, 103, 77-83.
7. Cabeza, M. (2003) Habitat loss and connectivity of reserve networks in probability approaches to reserve design. Ecology Letters, 6, 665-672.
8. Cabeza, M. & Moilanen, A. (2001) Design of reserve networks and the persistence of biodiversity. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 16, 242-248.
9. Carroll, C., Noss, R.E., Paquet, P.C. & Schumaker, N.H. (2003) Use of population viability analysis and reserve selection algorithms in regional conservation plans. Ecological Applications, 13, 1773-1789.
10. Cowley, M.J.R., Thomas, C.D., Thomas, J.A. & Warren, M.S. (1999) Flight areas of British butterflies: assessing species status and decline. Proceedings of The Royal Society of London B, 266, 1587-1592.
11. Cowley, M.J.R., Wilson, R.J., Leon-Cortes, J.L., Gutierrez, D., Bulman, C.R. & Thomas, C.D. (2000) Habitat-based statistical models for predicting the spatial distribution of butterflies and day-flying moths in a fragmented landscape. Journal of Applied Ecology, 37, 60-72.
12. Gardenfors, U. (2001) Classifying threatened species at national versus global levels. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 16, 511-516.
13. Gardenfors, U., Hilton-Taylor, C., Mace, G.M. & Rodrigues, J.P. (2001) The application of IUCN Red List criteria at regional levels. Conservation Biology, 15, 1206-1212.
14. Hanski, I. & Gilpin, M.E. (1997) Metapopulation Biology, Ecology, Genetics and Evolution. Academic Press Inc., San Diego, California.
15. Hanski, I. & Ovaskainen, O. (2000) The metapopulation capacity of a fragmented landscape. Nature, 404, 755-758.
16. Hanski, I., Kuussaari, M. & Nieminen, M. (1994) Metapopulation structure and migration in the butterfly Melitaea cinxia. Ecology, 75, 747-762.
17. Hanski, I., Moilanen, A. & Gyllenberg, M. (1996) Minimum viable metapopulation size. American Naturalist, 147, 527-541.
18. Joyce, D.A. & Pullin, A.S. (2003) Conservation implications of the distribution of genetic diversity at different scales: a case study using the Marsh Fritillary butterfly (Euphydryas aurinia). Biological Conservation, 114, 453-461.
19. McCarthy, M.A., Thompson, C.J. & Possingham, H.P. (2005) Theory for designing nature reserves for single species. American Naturalist, 165, 250-257.
20. McCarthy, M.A., Thompson, C.J. & Williams, N.S.G. (2006) Logic for designing nature reserves for multiple species. American Naturalist, 167, 717-727.
21. Kemper, J., Cowling, R.M. & Richardson, D.M. (1999) Fragmentation of South African renosterveld shrublands: effects on plant community structure and conservation implications. Biological Conservation, 90, 103-111.
22. Margules, C.R., Nicholls, A.O. & Pressey, R.L. (1988) Selecting networks of reserves to maximise biological diversity. Biological Conservation, 43, 63-76.
23. Matter, S.F., Roslin, T. & Roland, J. (2005) Predicting immigration of two species in contrasting landscapes: effects of scale, patch size and isolation. Oikos, 111(2), 359-367.
24. Moilanen, A. & Hanski, I. (2001) On the use of connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Oikos, 95, 147-151.
25. Moilanen, A., Franco, A.M.A., Early, R.I., Fox, R., Wintle, B.A. & Thomas, C.D. (2005) Prioritizing multiple-use landscapes for conservation: methods for large multi-species planning problems. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 272, 1885-91.
26. Noss, R.F. (2004) Conservation targets and information needs for regional conservation planning. Natural Areas Journal, 24, 223-231.
27. Pearman, P.B. (2002) Developing regional conservation priorities using red lists: a hypothetical example from the Swiss lowlands. Biodiversity and Conservation, 11, 469-485.
28. Possingham, H., Andelman, S., Burgman, M., Medellin, R., Master, L.L. & Keith, D.A. (2002) Limits to the use of threatened species lists. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 17, 503-507.
29. Possingham, H., Ball, I. & Andelmann, S. (2000) Mathematical methods for identifying representative reserve networks. Quantitative Methods for Conservation Biology (eds Ferson, S. & Burgman, M.). Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.
30. Prendergast, R., L., Nicholls, A. & O. (1999) The gaps between theory and practice in selecting nature reserves. Conservation Biology, 13, 484-492.
31. Robbirt, K.M., Roberts, D.L. & Hawkins, J.A. (2006) Comparing IUCN and probabilistic assessments of threat: do IUCN red list criteria conflate rarity and threat? Biodiversity and Conservation, 15, 1903-1912.
32. Rodrigues, A. (2000) Using presence-absence data to establish reserve selection procedures that are robust to temporal species turnover. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 267, 897-902.
33. Rodrigues, A.S.L. & Gaston, K.L. (2001) How large do reserve networks need to be? Ecology Letters, 4, 602-609.
34. Rothley, K.D. (1999) Designing bioreserve networks to satisfy multiple, conflicting demands. Ecological Applications, 9, 741-750.
35. Turner, A.M., Trexler, J.C., Jordan, C.F., Slack, S.J., Geddes, P., Chick, J.H. & Loftus, W.F. (1999) Targeting ecosystem features for conservation: standing crops in the Florida Everglades. Conservation Biology, 13, 898-911.
36. Van Swaay, C. & Warren, M. (1999) Red Data Book of European Butterflies (Rhopalocera). Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, France.
37. Warren, M.S. (1993) A review of butterfly conservation in central southern Britain. II. Site management and habitat selection of key species. Biological Conservation, 64, 37-49.
38. Warren, M.S., Barnett, L.K., Gibbons, D.W. & Avery, M.I. (1997) Assessing national conservation priorities: an improved red list of British butterflies. Biological Conservation, 82, 317-328.
39. Wilson, R.J., Ellis, S., Baker, J.S., Lineham, M.E., Whitehead, R.W. & Thomas, C.D. (2002) Large-scale patterns of distribution and persistence at the range margins of a butterfly. Ecology, 83, 3357-3368.