Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
D. Maddison (1991)
The discovery and importance of multiple islands of most
Magne Sætersdal, J. Line, H. Birks (1993)
How to maximize biological diversity in nature reserve selection: Vascular plants and breeding birds in deciduous woodlands, western NorwayBiological Conservation, 66
J. Scott, F. Davis, B. Csuti, R. Noss, C. Groves, H. Anderson, S. Caicco, T. Edwards, J. Ulliman, R. Wright (1993)
GAP ANALYSIS: A GEOGRAPHIC APPROACH TO PROTECTION OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
John Curnutt, J. Lockwood, H. Luh, P. Nott, G. Russell (1994)
Hotspots and species diversityNature, 367
R. Pressey (1994)
Ad Hoc Reservations: Forward or Backward Steps in Developing Representative Reserve Systems?Conservation Biology, 8
C. Margules (1989)
Introduction to some Australian developments in conservation evaluationBiological Conservation, 50
R. Pressey, H. Possingham, C. Margules (1996)
Optimality in reserve selection algorithms: When does it matter and how much?Biological Conservation, 76
R. Ryti (1992)
Effect of the Focal Taxon on the Selection of Nature Reserves.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America, 2 4
J. Kirkpatrick (1983)
An iterative method for establishing priorities for the selection of nature reserves: An example from TasmaniaBiological Conservation, 25
J. Terborgh, B. Winter (1983)
A method for siting parks and reserves with special reference to Columbia and EcuadorBiological Conservation, 27
C. Margules, A. Nicholls, M. Usher (1994)
Apparent species turnover, probability of extinction and the selection of nature reserves A case study of the Ingleborough limestone pavementsConservation Biology, 8
R. Noss (1990)
Indicators for Monitoring Biodiversity: A Hierarchical ApproachConservation Biology, 4
C. Margules, A. Nicholls, R. Pressey (1988)
Selecting networks of reserves to maximise biological diversityBiological Conservation, 43
M. Kershaw, G. Mace, Paul Williams (1995)
Threatened Status, Rarity, and Diversity as Alternative Selection Measures for Protected Areas: A Test Using Afrotropical AntelopesConservation Biology, 9
Robert Colwell, J. Coddington (1994)
Estimating terrestrial biodiversity through extrapolation.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 345 1311
J. Prendergast, Rachel Quinn, John Lawton, B. Eversham, David Gibbons (1993)
Rare species, the coincidence of diversity hotspots and conservation strategiesNature, 365
G. Nelson (1972)
Phylogenetic relationship and classificationSystematic Biology, 21
J. Heath, E. Pollard, J. Thomas (1984)
Atlas of Butterflies in Britain and Ireland
Paul Williams, C. Humphries, K. Gaston (1994)
Centres of seed-plant diversity: the family wayProceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 256
H. Morowitz (1991)
Balancing species preservation and economic considerations.Science, 253 5021
E. Wilson, F. Peter (1988)
Monitoring Biological Diversity for Setting Priorities in Conservation
(1987)
Assessing the conservation value of remnant habitat 'Islands': mallee patches on the Western Eyre Peninsula, South Australia
J. Prendergast, S. Wood, J. Lawton, B. Eversham (1993)
Correcting for variation in recording effort in analyses of diversity hotspots, 1
M. Bedward, R. Pressey, D. Keith (1992)
A new approach for selecting fully representative reserve networks: addressing efficiency, reserve design and land suitability with an iterative analysisBiological Conservation, 62
R. Vane-Wright, C. Humphries, Paul Williams (1991)
What to protect?—Systematics and the agony of choiceBiological Conservation, 55
C. Thomas, H. Mallorie (1985)
Rarity, species richness and conservation: Butterflies of the Atlas Mountains in MoroccoBiological Conservation, 33
D. Pritchard, S. Housden, G. Mudge, C. Galbraith, M. Pienkowski (1993)
Important Bird Areas in the United Kingdom Including the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man
C. Sibley, J. Ahlquist (1991)
Phylogeny and Classification of the Birds: A Study in Molecular Evolution
C. Bibby (1992)
Putting Biodiversity on the Map: Priority Areas for Global Conservation
R. Pressey, C. Humphries, C. Margules, R. Vane-Wright, P. Williams (1993)
Beyond opportunism: Key principles for systematic reserve selection.Trends in ecology & evolution, 8 4
P. Ackery, R. Vane‐Wright (1984)
Milkweed Butterflies: Their Cladistics and Biology
R. Page (1993)
On islands of trees and the efficacy of different methods of branch swapping in finding most-parsimonious treesSystematic Biology, 42
M. Avery, R. Leslie (1990)
Birds and forestry
D. Stoms (1994)
Scale Dependence of Species Richness MapsThe Professional Geographer, 46
D. Stroud, M. Usher (1986)
Wildlife Conservation EvaluationJournal of Range Management, 41
R. Daniels, M. Hegde, N. Joshi, M. Gadgil (1991)
Assigning conservation value: a case study from IndiaConservation Biology, 5
Paul Williams, C. Humphries, R. Vane-Wright (1991)
Measuring biodiversity taxonomic relatedness for conservation prioritiesAustralian Systematic Botany, 4
R. Pressey, A. Nicholls (1989)
Application of a Numerical Algorithm to the Selection of Reserves in Semi-arid New South WalesBiological Conservation, 50
N. Myers (1988)
Threatened biotas: "Hot spots" in tropical forestsEnvironmentalist, 8
R. Pressey, S. Tully (1994)
The cost of ad hoc reservation: a case study in western New South Wales.Austral Ecology, 19
R. Grimmett, T. Jones (1989)
Important bird areas in Europe
J. Turner, J. Lennon, Jane Lawrenson (1988)
British bird species distributions and the energy theoryNature, 335
Biodiversity conservation requires efficient methods for choosing priority areas for in situ conservation management. We compared three quantitative methods for choosing 5% (an arbitrary figure) of all the 10 × 10 km grid cells in Britain to represent the diversity of breeding birds: (1) hotspots of richness, which selects the areas richest in species; (2) hotspots of range‐size rarity (narrow endemism), which selects areas richest in those species with the most restricted ranges; and (3) sets of complementary areas, which selects areas with the greatest combined species richness. Our results show that richness hotspots contained the highest number of species‐in‐grid‐cell records (with many representations of the more widespread species), whereas the method of complementary areas obtained the lowest number. However, whereas richness hotspots included representation of 89% of British species of breeding birds, and rarity hotspots included 98%, the areas chosen using complementarity represented all the species, where possible, at least six times over. The method of complementary areas was also well suited to supplementing the existing conservation network. For example, starting with grid cells with over 50% area cover by existing “Sites of Special Scientific Interest,” we searched for a set of areas that could complete the representation of all the most threatened birds in Britain, the Red Data species. The method of complementary areas distinguishes between irreplaceable and flexible areas, which helps planners by providing alternatives for negotiation. This method can also show which particular species justify the choice of each area. Yet the complementary areas method will not be fully able to select the best areas for conservation management until we achieve integration of some of the more important factors affecting viability, threat, and cost.
Conservation Biology – Wiley
Published: Feb 1, 1996
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.