Area-based refinement for selection of reserve sites with the benefit-function approach

Conservation Biology

Volumn 21, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 527-533

  Arponen, Anni ^a   Kondelin, Hanna ^b   Moilanen, Atte ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND   (Finland)

Author keywords

Persistence; Reserve selection; Site selection algorithm; Species weight; Species area relationship

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; CONSERVATION PLANNING; ENDANGERED SPECIES; FEN; HABITAT SELECTION; OPTIMIZATION; PERSISTENCE; RESERVE DESIGN; RESOURCE USE; SITE SELECTION; SPECIES RICHNESS; SPECIES-AREA RELATIONSHIP; TRADE-OFF;

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; FINLAND; METHODOLOGY; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; SPECIES DIFFERENCE; THEORETICAL MODEL;

ALGORITHMS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; ECOSYSTEM; FINLAND; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PLANNING TECHNIQUES; SPECIES SPECIFICITY;

EURASIA; EUROPE; FINLAND; NORTHERN EUROPE; SCANDINAVIA;

EID: 33947533445     PISSN: 08888892     EISSN: 15231739     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00607.x     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Arponen, A., R. K. Heikkinen, C. D. Thomas, and A. Moilanen. 2005. The value of biodiversity in reserve selection: representation, species weighting, and benefit functions. Conservation Biology 19:2009-2014.
2. Brook, B. W., D. W. Tonkyn, J. O'Grady, and R. Frankham. 2002. Contribution of inbreeding to extinction risk in threatened species. Conservation Ecology: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/.
3. Cabeza, M., and A. Moilanen. 2003. Site-selection algorithms and habitat loss. Conservation Biology 17:1402-1413.
4. Cabeza, M., M. B. Araujo, R. J. Wilson, C. D. Thomas, M. J. R. Cowley, and A. Moilanen. 2004. Combining probabilities of occurrence with spatial reserve design. Journal of Applied Ecology 41:252-262.
5. Dunham, J., M. Peacock, C. R. Tracy, J. Nielsen, and G. Vinyard. 1999. Assessing extinction risk: integrating genetic information. Conservation Ecology http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss1/art2
6. Fahrig, L. 2001. How much habitat is enough? Biological Conservation 100:65-74
7. Hämet-Ahti, L., J. Suominen, T. Ulvinen, and P. Uotila, editors. 1998. Retkeilykasvio (Field flora of Finland). Yliopistopaino, Helsinki.
8. Hanski, I. 1994. A practical model of metapopulation dynamics. Journal of Animal Ecology 63:151-162.
9. Hanski, I. 2005. The shrinking world: ecological consequences of habitat loss. International Ecology Institute, Oldendorf/Luhe, Germany.
10. Heikkilä, R. 1992. Changes in the distribution of some plant species of the eutrophic fens of southern Finland. Pages 244-249 in O. M. Bragg, P. D. Hulme, H. A. P. Ingram, and R. A. Robertson, editors. Peatland ecosystems and man: an impact assessment. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland.
11. Lande, R. 1998. Anthropogenic, ecological and genetic factors in extinction and conservation. Researches on Population Ecology 40:259-269.
12. MacArthur, R. H., and E. O.Wilson. 1967. The theory of island biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
13. McDonnell, M. D., H. P. Possingham, I. R. Ball, and E. A. Cousins. 2002. Mathematical methods for spatially cohesive reserve design. Environmental Modeling & Assessment 7:107-114.
14. Margules, C. R., and R. L. Pressey. 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243-253.
15. Moilanen, A. 2004. RSW v1.0beta - reserve selection with weights. Metapopulation Research Group, University of Helsinki, Finland. Available from www.helsinki.fi/science/metapop (accessed May 2006).
16. Moilanen, A., and M. Nieminen. 2002. Simple connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Ecology 83:1131-1145.
17. Moilanen, A., and B. A. Wintle. 2007. The boundary-quality penalty: a quantitative method for approximating species responses to fragmentation in reserve selection. Conservation Biology: in press.
18. Murcia, C. 1995. Edge effects in fragmented forest - implications for conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 10:58-62.
19. Ovaskainen, O. 2002. Long-term persistence of species and the SLOSS problem. Journal of Theoretical Biology 218:419-433.
20. Rassi, P., A. Alanen, T. Kanerva, and I. Mannerkoski, editors. 2001. Suomen lajien uhanalaisuus 2000. (Threat classification of Finnish species.) Ympäristöministeriö & Suomen ympäristökeskus, Edita Oyj, Helsinki.
21. Rodrigues, A. S. L., R. D. Gregory, and K. J. Gaston. 2000. Robustness of reserve selection procedures under temporal species turnover. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences 267:49-55.
22. Thomas, C. D., et al. 2004. Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427:145-148.
23. Ulvinen, T., K. Syrjänen, and S. Anttila, editors. 2002. Suomen sammalet - levinneisyys, ekologia, uhanalaisuus. Suomenympäristö. Edita Publishing, Helsinki.
24. Williams, J. C., C. S. ReVelle, and S. A. Levin. 2005. Spatial attributes and reserve design models: a review. Environmental Modeling & Assessment 10:163-181.
25. Wintle, B. A., R. P. Kavanagh, M. A. McCarthy, and M. A. Burgman. 2005. Estimating and dealing with detectability in occupancy surveys for forest owls and arboreal marsupials. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:905-917.