Spatial conservation priorities for top predators reveal mismatches among taxonomic, phylogenetic and functional diversity

Natureza e Conservacao

Volumn 12, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 150-155

  Sobral, Fernando L ^a   Jardim, Lucas ^a   Lemes, Priscila ^a   Machado, Nathália ^a   Loyola, Rafael ^a   Cianciaruso, Marcus V ^a  

^a FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF GOIÁS   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Birds of prey; Carnivores; Conservation planning; Evolutionary history; Functional traits

Indexed keywords

EID: 84924281478     PISSN: 16790073     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ncon.2014.09.008     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Allouche, O., Tsoar, A., Kadmon, R., 2006. Assessing the accuracy of species distribution models: prevalence, kappa and the true skill statistic (TSS). J. Appl. Ecol. 43, 1223-1232.
2. Andelman, S.J., Fagan, W.F., 2000. Umbrellas and flagships: efficient conservation surrogates or expensive mistakes? Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 97, 5954-5959.
3. Araujo, M.B., New, M., 2007. Ensemble forecasting of species distributions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22, 42-47.
4. Ben-Haim, Y., 2006. Info-Gap Decision Theory - Decisions under Severe Uncertainty. Academic Press, Oxford.
5. Caro, T., et al., 2004. Preliminary assessment of the flagship species concept at a small scale. Anim. Conserv. 7, 63-70.
6. Devictor, V., et al., 2010. Spatial mismatch and congruence between taxonomic, phylogenetic and functional diversity: the need for integrative conservation strategies in a changing world. Ecol. Lett. 13, 1030-1040.
7. Diniz-Filho, J.A.F., et al., 2009. Partitioning and mapping uncertainties in ensembles of forecasts of species turnover under climate change. Ecography 32, 897-906.
8. Faith, D.P., 1992. Conservation evaluation and phylogenetic diversity. Biol. Conserv. 61, 1-10.
9. Flynn, D.F.B., et al., 2009. Loss of functional diversity under land use intensification across multiple taxa. Ecol. Lett. 12, 22-33.
10. Fritz, S.A., Bininda-Emonds, O.R.P., Purvis, A., 2009. Geographical variation in predictors of mammalian extinction risk: big is bad, but only in the tropics. Ecol. Lett. 12, 538-549.
11. Jetz, W., et al., 2012. The global diversity of birds in space and time. Nature 491, 444-448.
12. Kukkala, A.S., Moilanen, A., 2013. Core concepts of spatial prioritisation in systematic conservation planning. Biol. Rev. 88, 443-464.
13. Loiselle, B.A., et al., 2003. Avoiding pitfalls of using species distribution models in conservation planning. Conserv. Biol. 17, 1591-1600.
14. Margules, C.R., Pressey, R.L., 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405, 243-253.
15. Moilanen, A., 2007. Landscape zonation, benefit functions and target-base planning: unifying reserve selection strategies. Biol. Conserv. 134, 571-579.
16. Moilanen, A., et al., 2006. Uncertainty analysis for regional-scale reserve selection. Conserv. Biol. 20, 1688-1697.
17. Moilanen, A., et al., 2012. Zonation - Spatial Conservation Planning Framework and Software.
18. Pavoine, S., Bonsall, M.B., 2011. Measuring biodiversity to explain community assembly: a unified approach. Biol. Rev. 86, 792-812.
19. Purvis, A., et al., 2000. Nonrandom extinction and the loss of evolutionary history. Science 288, 328-330.
20. Rangel, T.F., Loyola, R.D., 2012. Labeling ecológical niche models. Nat. Conserv. 10, 119-126.
21. Rodrigues, A.S.L., et al., 2011. Complete, accurate, mammalian phylogenies aid conservation planning, but not much. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 366, 2652-2660.
22. Safi, K., et al., 2011. Understanding global patterns of mammalian functional and phylogenetic diversity. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 366, 2536-2544.
23. Sergio, F., et al., 2008. Top predators as conservation tools: ecológical rationale, assumptions, and efficacy. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 39, 1-19.
24. Strecker, A.L., et al., 2011. Defining conservation priorities for freshwater fishes according to taxonomic, functional, and phylogenetic diversity. Ecol. Appl. 21, 3002-3013.
25. Webb, C.O., 2000. Exploring the phylogenetic structure of ecológical communities: an example for rain forest trees. Am. Nat. 156, 145-155.