Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
A. Teeffelen, M. Cabeza, A. Moilanen (2006)
Connectivity, Probabilities and Persistence: Comparing Reserve Selection StrategiesBiodiversity & Conservation, 15
Van Teeffelen Van Teeffelen, Cabeza Cabeza, Moilanen Moilanen (2006)
Habitat loss, connectivity and probabilities: comparing reserve selection strategiesBiodiversity and Conservation, 15
D. Debinski, R. Holt (2000)
A Survey and Overview of Habitat Fragmentation ExperimentsConservation Biology, 14
D. Fischer, R. Church (2003)
Clustering and Compactness in Reserve Site Selection: An Extension of the Biodiversity Management Area Selection ModelForest Science, 49
W. Kunin (1997)
Sample shape, spatial scale and species counts : Implications for reserve designBiological Conservation, 82
J. Elith, M. Burgman, H. Regan (2002)
Mapping epistemic uncertainties and vague concepts in predictions of species distributionEcological Modelling, 157
A. Guisan, W. Thuiller (2005)
Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models.Ecology letters, 8 9
J. Elith, Catherine Graham, Robert Anderson, Miroslav Dudı́k, Simon Ferrier, A. Guisan, R. Hijmans, F. Huettmann, J. Leathwick, Anthony Lehmann, Jin Li, Lúcia Lohmann, Bette Loiselle, G. Manion, Craig Moritz, Miguel Nakamura, Yoshinori Nakazawa, J. Overton, A. Peterson, Steven Phillips, Karen Richardson, R. Scachetti-Pereira, R. Schapire, Jorge Soberón, Stephen Williams, M. Wisz, N. Zimmermann (2006)
Novel methods improve prediction of species' distributions from occurrence dataEcography, 29
M. Cabeza (2003)
Habitat loss and connectivity of reserve networks in probability approaches to reserve designEcology Letters, 6
K. Rothley (1999)
DESIGNING BIORESERVE NETWORKS TO SATISFY MULTIPLE, CONFLICTING DEMANDSEcological Applications, 9
M. Westphal, H. Possingham (2003)
Applying a Decision‐Theory Framework to Landscape Planning for Biodiversity: Follow‐Up to Watson et al.Conservation Biology, 17
Justin Williams, C. Revelle, S. Levin (2005)
Spatial attributes and reserve design models: A reviewEnvironmental Modeling & Assessment, 10
R. Pressey, Matthew Watts, T. Barrett (2004)
Is maximizing protection the same as minimizing loss? Efficiency and retention as alternative measures of the effectiveness of proposed reservesEcology Letters, 7
I. Hanski (1998)
Metapopulation dynamicsNature, 396
J. Hoeting, D. Madigan, A. Raftery, C. Volinsky (1999)
Bayesian Model Averaging: A Tutorial
M. Batisse (1990)
Development and Implementation of the Biosphere Reserve Concept and Its Applicability to Coastal RegionsEnvironmental Conservation, 17
A. Moilanen, M. Cabeza (2002)
Single‐species dynamic site selectionEcological Applications, 12
A. Nicholls, C. Margules (1993)
An upgraded reserve selection algorithmBiological Conservation, 64
C. Margules, R. Pressey (2000)
Systematic conservation planningNature, 405
J. Lawton (1998)
Conservation Biology
B. Wintle, J. Elith, J. Potts (2005)
Fauna habitat modelling and mapping: A review and case study in the Lower Hunter Central Coast region of NSWAustral Ecology, 30
M. Westphal, M. Pickett, W. Getz, H. Possingham (2003)
The use of stochastic dynamic programming in optimal landscape reconstruction for metapopulationsEcological Applications, 13
Wintle Wintle, McCarthy McCarthy, Volinsky Volinsky, Kavanagh Kavanagh (2003)
The use of Bayesian model averaging to better represent uncertainty in the predictions of ecological modelsConservation Biology, 17
Moilanen Moilanen, Franco Franco, Early Early, Fox Fox, Wintle Wintle, Thomas Thomas (2005)
Prioritizing multiple‐use landscapes for conservationProceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B, 272
D. Draper (2011)
Assessment and Propagation of Model Uncertainty
A. Moilanen (2007)
Landscape Zonation, benefit functions and target-based planning: Unifying reserve selection strategiesBiological Conservation, 134
Michael Clemens, C. Revelle, Justin Williams (1999)
Reserve design for species preservationEur. J. Oper. Res., 112
Clemens Clemens, ReVelle ReVelle, Williams Williams (1999)
Reserve design for species protectionEuropean Journal of Operations Research, 112
Hayri Önal, R. Briers (2002)
Incorporating spatial criteria in optimum reserve network selectionProceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 269
Hayri Önal, R. Briers (2003)
Selection of a minimum–boundary reserve network using integer programmingProceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 270
M. Cabeza, A. Moilanen (2001)
Design of reserve networks and the persistence of biodiversity.Trends in ecology & evolution, 16 5
Burgman Burgman, Possingham Possingham, Lynch Lynch, Keith Keith, McCarthy McCarthy, Hopper Hopper, Drury Drury, Passioura Passioura, Devries Devries (2001)
A method for setting the size of plant conservation areasConservation Biology, 15
Mark McDonnell, Hugh Possingham, Ian Ball, Elizabeth Cousins (2002)
Mathematical Methods for Spatially Cohesive Reserve DesignEnvironmental Modeling & Assessment, 7
H. Possingham, I. Ball, S. Andelman (2000)
Mathematical Methods for Identifying Representative Reserve Networks
(1996)
Identifying priorities for the conservation of biodiversity: systematic biological criteria within a socio-political framework. Pages 309–344 in
A. Moilanen (2005)
Reserve Selection Using Nonlinear Species Distribution ModelsThe American Naturalist, 165
M. Cabeza, M. Araújo, R. Wilson, C. Thomas, M. Cowley, A. Moilanen (2004)
Combining probabilities of occurrence with spatial reserve designJournal of Applied Ecology, 41
D. Quin (1995)
Population ecology of the squirrel glider (Petaurus norfolcensis) and the sugar glider (P. breviceps) (Maruspialia:Petauridae) at Limeburners Creek, on the central north coast of New South WalesWildlife Research, 22
A. Moilanen, B. Wintle, J. Elith, M. Burgman (2006)
Uncertainty Analysis for Regional‐Scale Reserve SelectionConservation Biology, 20
K. Gaston, R. Pressey, R. Pressey, C. Margules, C. Margules (2002)
Persistence and vulnerability: Retaining biodiversity in the landscape and in protected areasJournal of Biosciences, 27
A. Moilanen, B. Wintle (2006)
Uncertainty analysis favours selection of spatially aggregated reserve networksBiological Conservation, 129
A. Moilanen, A. Franco, R. Early, R. Fox, Brendan Wintle, C. Thomas (2005)
Prioritizing multiple-use landscapes for conservation: methods for large multi-species planning problemsProceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 272
B. Wintle, M. McCarthy, C. Volinsky, R. Kavanagh (2003)
The Use of Bayesian Model Averaging to Better Represent Uncertainty in Ecological ModelsConservation Biology, 17
K. Burnham, David Anderson (2003)
Model selection and multimodel inference : a practical information-theoretic approachJournal of Wildlife Management, 67
D. Nalle, J. Arthur, J. Sessions (2002)
Designing compact and contiguous reserve networks with a hybrid heuristic algorithmForest Science, 48
M. Burgman, H. Possingham, A. Lynch, D. Keith, M. McCarthy, S. Hopper, W. Drury, Jason Passioura, R. DeVries (2001)
A Method for Setting the Size of Plant Conservation Target AreasConservation Biology, 15
Abstract: Aggregation of reserve networks is generally considered desirable for biological and economic reasons: aggregation reduces negative edge effects and facilitates metapopulation dynamics, which plausibly leads to improved persistence of species. Economically, aggregated networks are less expensive to manage than fragmented ones. Therefore, many reserve‐design methods use qualitative heuristics, such as distance‐based criteria or boundary‐length penalties to induce reserve aggregation. We devised a quantitative method that introduces aggregation into reserve networks. We call the method the boundary‐quality penalty (BQP) because the biological value of a land unit (grid cell) is penalized when the unit occurs close enough to the edge of a reserve such that a fragmentation or edge effect would reduce population densities in the reserved cell. The BQP can be estimated for any habitat model that includes neighborhood (connectivity) effects, and it can be introduced into reserve selection software in a standardized manner. We used the BQP in a reserve‐design case study of the Hunter Valley of southeastern Australia. The BQP resulted in a more highly aggregated reserve network structure. The degree of aggregation required was specified by observed (albeit modeled) biological responses to fragmentation. Estimating the effects of fragmentation on individual species and incorporating estimated effects in the objective function of reserve‐selection algorithms is a coherent and defensible way to select aggregated reserves. We implemented the BQP in the context of the Zonation method, but it could as well be implemented into any other spatially explicit reserve‐planning framework.
Conservation Biology – Wiley
Published: Apr 1, 2007
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.