A Comparison of Richness Hotspots, Rarity Hotspots, and Complementary Areas for Conserving Diversity of British Birds

A Comparison of Richness Hotspots, Rarity Hotspots, and Complementary Areas for Conserving... 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. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Conservation Biology Wiley

A Comparison of Richness Hotspots, Rarity Hotspots, and Complementary Areas for Conserving Diversity of British Birds

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/a-comparison-of-richness-hotspots-rarity-hotspots-and-complementary-5QOUxZk4nS
Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company
ISSN
0888-8892
eISSN
1523-1739
DOI
10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10010155.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

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.

Journal

Conservation BiologyWiley

Published: Feb 1, 1996

There are no references for this article.

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