Complementarity

Encyclopedia of Biodiversity: Second Edition

Volumn , Issue , 2001, Pages 192-200

  Williams, Paul ^a   Manne, Lisa ^b  

^a DEPARTMENT OF LIFE SCIENCES   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85042827980     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-384719-5.00151-9     Document Type: Chapter

References (20)

1. Csuti B., Polasky S., Williams P.H., et al. A comparison of reserve selection algorithms using data on terrestrial vertebrates in Oregon. Biol. Conserv. 1997, 80:83-97.
2. Faith D.P. Phylogenetic pattern and the quantification of organismal biodiversity. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. B 1994, 345:45-58.
3. Faith D.P., Walker P.A. Environmental diversity: On the best-possible use of surrogate data for assessing the relative biodiversity of sets of areas. Biodiv. Conserv. 1996, 5:399-415.
4. Faith D.P., Walker P.A. How do indicator groups provide information about the relative biodiversity of different sets of areas? On hotspots, complementarity and pattern-based approaches. Biodiv. Lett. 1996, 3:18-25.
5. Faith D.P., Walker P.A. Integrating conservation and development: Effective trade-offs between biodiversity and cost in the selection of protected areas. Biodiv. Conserv. 1996, 5:431-446.
6. Kirkpatrick J.B. An iterative method for establishing priorities for the selection of nature reserves: An example from Tasmania. Biol. Conserv. 1983, 25:127-134.
7. Manne L.L., Williams P.H. Building indicator groups based on species characteristics can improve conservation planning. Anim. Conserv. 2003, 6:291-297.
8. Margules C.R., Pressey R.L. Systematic conservation planning. Nature (Lond.) 2000, 405:243-253.
9. Pressey R.L., Nicholls A.O. Efficiency in conservation evaluation: Scoring versus iterative approaches. Biol. Conserv. 1989, 50:199-218.
10. Pressey R.L., Humphries C.J., Margules C.R., Vane-Wright R.I., Williams P.H. Beyond opportunism: Key principles for systematic reserve selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1993, 8:124-128.
11. Pressey R.L., Johnson I.R., Wilson P.D. Shades of irreplaceability: Towards a measure of the contribution of sites to a reservation goal. Biodiv. Conserv. 1994, 3:242-262.
12. Pressey R.L., Possingham H.P., Margules C.R. Optimality in reserve selection algorithms: When does it matter and how much?. Biol. Conserv. 1996, 76:259-267.
13. Rebelo A.G. Using the Proteaceae to design a nature reserve network and determine conservation priorities for the Cape Floristic Region. Systematics and Conservation Evaluation 1994, 375-396. Oxford University Press, Oxford. P.L. Forey, C.J. Humphries, R.I. Vane-Wright (Eds.).
14. Ryti R.T. Effect of the focal taxon on the selection of nature reserves. Ecol. Appl. 1992, 2:404-410.
15. Vane-Wright R.I., Humphries C.J., Williams P.H. What to protect? Systematics and the agony of choice. Biol. Conserv. 1991, 55:235-254.
16. Williams P., Hannah L., Andelman S., et al. Planning for climate change: Identifying minimum-dispersal corridors for the Cape Proteaceae. Conserv. Biol. 2005, 19:1063-1074.
17. Williams P.H., Araujo M.B. Using probabilities of persistence to identify important areas for biodiversity conservation. Proc. Roy. Soc. B 2000, 267:1959-1966.
18. Williams P.H., Burgess N.D., Rahbek C. Flagship species, ecological complementarity, and conserving the diversity of mammals and birds in sub-Saharan Africa. Anim. Conserv. 2000, 3:249-260.
19. Williams P.H., Faith D., Manne L., Sechrest W., Preston C. Complementarity analysis: Mapping the performance of surrogates for biodiversity. Biol. Conserv. 2006, 128:253-264.
20. Williams P.H., Gaston K.J., Humphries C.J. Do conservationists and molecular biologists value differences between organisms in the same way?. Biodiv. Lett. 1995, 2(1994):67-78.