The current configuration of protected areas in the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa—reservation bias and representation of biodiversity patterns and processes

The current configuration of protected areas in the Cape Floristic Region, South... The formulation of a strategic plan for the conservation of terrestrial biodiversity in the Cape Floristic Region (CFR; 87,892 km 2 ) requires an objective and spatially explicit assessment of the representativeness of major habitat categories (surrogates for biodiversity) currently under protection. A GIS layer of statutory and non-statutory conservation areas was used, along with layers of many biological and physical features, to explore the configuration of conserved areas relative to key biological and physical indicators. Three analyses were performed. (1) Recursive partitioning, a classification-tree analysis technique, was used to contrast features of protected areas with non-protected areas. (2) The conservation status of 16 primary and 88 secondary Broad Habitat Units (BHUs; derived on the basis of topography, geology, homogeneous climatic zones, and floristic composition) was assessed in terms of prescribed conservation targets. (3) The extent to which protected areas are able to sustain ecological and evolutionary processes was explored by assessing the extent of spatial components of these processes for all conservation areas. About 20% of the CFR is protected in some form of conservation area, mostly concentrated on sandstone substrates, and areas with high altitude and steep slopes. The reservation bias towards upland areas has seriously constrained representation of biodiversity pattern and processes. Most of the habitat diversity is poorly represented in the current conservation area system with only 9% of the remaining primary BHUs in the lowlands conserved. However, almost 50% of the Mountain Fynbos Complex is conserved (largely exceeding its conservation target). Spatial components of the ecological processes identified are poorly captured by the conservation area network although faunal and floral migration is possible in the uplands due to the strong spatial connectivity of the protected network. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Biological Conservation Elsevier

The current configuration of protected areas in the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa—reservation bias and representation of biodiversity patterns and processes

Loading next page...
 
/lp/elsevier/the-current-configuration-of-protected-areas-in-the-cape-floristic-QbKNiR3bkP
Publisher
Elsevier
Copyright
Copyright © 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd
ISSN
0006-3207
D.O.I.
10.1016/S0006-3207(02)00396-8
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The formulation of a strategic plan for the conservation of terrestrial biodiversity in the Cape Floristic Region (CFR; 87,892 km 2 ) requires an objective and spatially explicit assessment of the representativeness of major habitat categories (surrogates for biodiversity) currently under protection. A GIS layer of statutory and non-statutory conservation areas was used, along with layers of many biological and physical features, to explore the configuration of conserved areas relative to key biological and physical indicators. Three analyses were performed. (1) Recursive partitioning, a classification-tree analysis technique, was used to contrast features of protected areas with non-protected areas. (2) The conservation status of 16 primary and 88 secondary Broad Habitat Units (BHUs; derived on the basis of topography, geology, homogeneous climatic zones, and floristic composition) was assessed in terms of prescribed conservation targets. (3) The extent to which protected areas are able to sustain ecological and evolutionary processes was explored by assessing the extent of spatial components of these processes for all conservation areas. About 20% of the CFR is protected in some form of conservation area, mostly concentrated on sandstone substrates, and areas with high altitude and steep slopes. The reservation bias towards upland areas has seriously constrained representation of biodiversity pattern and processes. Most of the habitat diversity is poorly represented in the current conservation area system with only 9% of the remaining primary BHUs in the lowlands conserved. However, almost 50% of the Mountain Fynbos Complex is conserved (largely exceeding its conservation target). Spatial components of the ecological processes identified are poorly captured by the conservation area network although faunal and floral migration is possible in the uplands due to the strong spatial connectivity of the protected network.

Journal

Biological ConservationElsevier

Published: Jul 1, 2003

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off