Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Robbyn Abbitt, J. Scott, D. Wilcove (2000)
The geography of vulnerability: incorporating species geography and human development patterns into conservation planningBiological Conservation, 96
G. Hess (1996)
Linking Extinction to Connectivity and Habitat Destruction in Metapopulation ModelsThe American Naturalist, 148
P. Vitousek, H. Mooney, J. Lubchenco, J. Melillo (1997)
Human Domination of Earth’s EcosystemsRenewable Energy
C. Groves, D. Jensen, Laura Valutis, K. Redford, M. Shaffer, J. Scott, Jeffrey Baumgartner, J. Higgins, M. Beck, Mark Anderson (2002)
Planning for Biodiversity Conservation: Putting Conservation Science into Practice, 52
F. Goldsmith, P. Edwards, R. May, N. Webb (1995)
Large-Scale Ecology and Conservation Biology.Journal of Applied Ecology, 32
J. Wickham, R. O'Neill, K. Jones (2000)
A geography of ecosystem vulnerabilityLandscape Ecology, 15
S. Kirkpatrick, C. Gelatt, Mario Vecchi (1983)
Optimization by Simulated AnnealingScience, 220
P. Kapoor-Vijay, J. White (1992)
Global Biodiversity Strategy.
R. Pressey, K. Taffs (2001)
Scheduling conservation action in production landscapes: priority areas in western New South Wales defined by irreplaceability and vulnerability to vegetation lossBiological Conservation, 100
K. Rothley (1999)
DESIGNING BIORESERVE NETWORKS TO SATISFY MULTIPLE, CONFLICTING DEMANDSEcological Applications, 9
R. Pressey, H. Possingham, C. Margules (1996)
Optimality in reserve selection algorithms: When does it matter and how much?Biological Conservation, 76
E. Sala, O. Aburto‐Oropeza, G. Paredes, Ivan Parra, Juan Barrera, P. Dayton (2002)
A General Model for Designing Networks of Marine ReservesScience, 298
R. Pressey, H. Possingham, J. Day (1997)
Effectiveness of alternative heuristic algorithms for identifying indicative minimum requirements for conservation reservesBiological Conservation, 80
S. Ferrier, R. Pressey, T. Barrett (2000)
A new predictor of the irreplaceability of areas for achieving a conservation goal, its application to real-world planning, and a research agenda for further refinementBiological Conservation, 93
L. Underhill (1994)
Optimal and suboptimal reserve selection algorithmsBiological Conservation, 70
C. Margules, A. Nicholls, R. Pressey (1988)
Selecting networks of reserves to maximise biological diversityBiological Conservation, 43
P. Parks, I. Hardie, Cheryl Tedder, D. Wear (2000)
Using Resource Economics to Anticipate Forest Land Use Change in the U.S. Mid-Atlantic RegionEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment, 63
R. Briers (2002)
Incorporating connectivity into reserve selection proceduresBiological Conservation, 103
C. Margules, R. Pressey (2000)
Systematic conservation planningNature, 405
N. Myers, M. Soulé (1987)
Viable Populations for ConservationBioScience
D. White, Jon Kimerling, Scott Overton (1992)
Cartographic and Geometric Components of a Global Sampling Design for Environmental Monitoring, 19
R. Pressey, I. Johnson, Peter Wilson (1994)
Shades of irreplaceability: towards a measure of the contribution of sites to a reservation goalBiodiversity & Conservation, 3
C. Kremen (1992)
Assessing the Indicator Properties of Species Assemblages for Natural Areas Monitoring.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America, 2 2
R. O'Neill, C. Hunsaker, K. Jones, K. Riitters, J. Wickham, P. Schwartz, I. Goodman, B. Jackson, William Baillargeon (1997)
Monitoring environmental quality at the landscape scaleBioScience, 47
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
D. Fairbanks, B. Reyers, A. Jaarsveld (2001)
Species and environment representation: selecting reserves for the retention of avian diversity in KwaZulu-Natal, South AfricaBiological Conservation, 98
A. Rodrigues, R. Gregory, K. Gaston (2000)
Robustness of reserve selection procedures under temporal species turnoverProceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 267
B. Richter, David Braun, Michael Mendelson, L. Master (1997)
Threats to Imperiled Freshwater FaunaConservation Biology, 11
T. Allen, T. Starr (1982)
Hierarchy: Perspectives for Ecological Complexity
N. Myers (1979)
The Sinking Ark: A New Look at the Problem of Disappearing Species
J. Vogelmann, S. Howard, Limin Yang, Charles Larson, B. Wylie, J. Driel (2001)
COMPLETION OF THE 1990S NATIONAL LAND COVER DATA SET FOR THE CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES FROM LANDSAT THEMATIC MAPPER DATA AND ANCILLARY DATA SOURCESPhotogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 67
J. Camm, S. Polasky, A. Solow, B. Csuti (1996)
A note on optimal algorithms for reserve site selectionBiological Conservation, 78
A. Kiester, J. Scott, B. Csuti, Reed Noss, Bart Butterfield, K. Sahr, D. White (1996)
Conservation Prioritization Using GAP DataConservation Biology, 10
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
L. Harris (1988)
Edge Effects and Conservation of Biotic DiversityConservation Biology, 2
D. Wilcove, D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips, E. Losos (1998)
QUANTIFYING THREATS TO IMPERILED SPECIES IN THE UNITED STATESBioScience, 48
H. Possingham, I. Ball, S. Andelman (2000)
Mathematical Methods for Identifying Representative Reserve Networks
B. Reyers, D. Fairbanks, A. Jaarsveld, M. Thompson (2001)
Priority areas for the conservation of South African vegetation: a coarse‐filter approachDiversity and Distributions, 7
A. Robinson (1953)
Elements of Cartography
B. Csuti, S. Polasky, P. Williams, R. Pressey, J. Camm, M. Kershaw, A. Kiester, Brian Downs, Richard Hamilton, M. Huso, K. Sahr (1997)
A comparison of reserve selection algorithms using data on terrestrial vertebrates in OregonBiological Conservation, 80
L. Master (1991)
Assessing Threats and Setting Priorities for ConservationConservation Biology, 5
J. Scott, F. Davis, R. McGhie, R. Wright, C. Groves, J. Estes (2001)
NATURE RESERVES: DO THEY CAPTURE THE FULL RANGE OF AMERICA'S BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY?Ecological Applications, 11
K. Clarke, L. Gaydos (1998)
Loose-Coupling a Cellular Automaton Model and GIS: Long-Term Urban Growth Prediction for San Francisco and Washington/BaltimoreInternational journal of geographical information science : IJGIS, 12 7
R. Cowling, R. Pressey, A. Lombard, P. Desmet, A. Ellis (1999)
From representation to persistence: requirements for a sustainable system of conservation areas in the species‐rich mediterranean‐climate desert of southern AfricaDiversity and Distributions, 5
J. Lawler, S. Campbell, A. Guerry, M. Kolozsvary, R. O’Connor, L. Seward (2002)
THE SCOPE AND TREATMENT OF THREATS IN ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY PLANSEcological Applications, 12
Ana Rodrigues, Rosalind Tratt, Bryan Wheeler, Kevin Gaston (1999)
The performance of existing networks of conservation areas in representing biodiversityProceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 266
Amy Ando, J. Camm, S. Polasky, A. Solow (1998)
Species distributions, land values, and efficient conservationScience, 279 5359
Reserves protect biodiversity by ameliorating the threats to the persistence of populations. Methods for efficient, systematic reserve selection have generally been designed to maximize the protection of biodiversity while minimizing the costs of reserves. These techniques have not directly addressed the factors threatening species at specific sites. By incorporating measures of site vulnerability into reserve selection procedures, conservation planners can prioritize sites based on both representing biodiversity and the immediacy of factors threatening it. Here we develop two complementary approaches for identifying areas for conservation based on species composition and potential threats facing the species. These approaches build on two established methods of systematic reserve selection. The first approach involves mapping irreplaceability (a statistic derived from reserve selection theory that measures the potential importance of a site for protecting all species) and the degree to which the area is vulnerable to threats from three basic anthropogenic factors (the percentages of a site devoted to agriculture, to urban and suburban development, and to open mines). We classified areas with respect to both irreplaceability and the three indicators of vulnerability, producing a continuous ranking of all sites based on these factors. Our second approach was to incorporate site vulnerability into a reserve selection algorithm. This approach allowed us to locate those sets of sites that protected all species and were most likely to be threatened by human activities. These two analyses can provide regional-scale guidance for conservation in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States, and they demonstrate two potential tools for solving complex conservation-planning problems.
Ecological Applications – Ecological Society of America
Published: Dec 1, 2003
Keywords: anthropogenic factors ; biodiversity ; conservation planning ; irreplaceability ; optimization ; reserve selection ; site ranking ; species composition ; threats ; vulnerability
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.