Promise and problems in applying quantitative complementary areas for representing the diversity of some Neotropical plants (families Dichapetalaceae, Lecythidaceae, Caryocaraceae, Chrysobalanaceae and Proteaceae)

Promise and problems in applying quantitative complementary areas for representing the diversity... Priority areas for in situ conservation are an unavoidable consequence of competition with other land uses, although they are certainly not to be seen as the only areas of value for conservation. In 1990 an international workshop was convened in Manaus, Brazil, to identify priority areas within Amazonia by committee (Workshop‐90). A substantial part of the data for this assessment came from five plant families recorded for the Flora Neotropica. We compare the success of the Workshop‐90 method in representing these plant species with the results of using a simple quantitative method for seeking complementary areas. The promises of quantitative methods are twofold. First, they force people to make their values explicit, which is important because priorities are dependent on the values and goals of individuals and are not universal. Second, quantitative methods can achieve representation of more of what is valued. For example, within the 90 top‐priority areas (an arbitrary but convenient figure taken from Workshop‐90), species representation is shown to be increased when using the complementary areas method by 83%. Simple computer implementations of this method can provide the means for fast inter‐active exploration of flexibility in the many alternative area choices. This permits monitoring and review with minimum effort as new data on species and threats are acquired. On the other hand, the problem for all methods is the need for very large numbers of data, whether based on species or on any other surrogates for biodiversity, if well‐informed decisions are to be made. This is not a particular problem of quantitative methods, but their explicit nature does highlight the shortcomings of data. For example, patterns in the Flora Neotropica data show effects from small samples even though these data are among the best available for any large tropical wet‐forest region. Furthermore, in order to assess the longer‐term consequences of area choices, quantitative methods will require many explicit local data on factors affecting viability, threat and cost. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Biological Journal of the Linnean Society Wiley

Promise and problems in applying quantitative complementary areas for representing the diversity of some Neotropical plants (families Dichapetalaceae, Lecythidaceae, Caryocaraceae, Chrysobalanaceae and Proteaceae)

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/promise-and-problems-in-applying-quantitative-complementary-areas-for-056J9D0xF0
Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company
ISSN
0024-4066
eISSN
1095-8312
DOI
10.1111/j.1095-8312.1996.tb01428.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Priority areas for in situ conservation are an unavoidable consequence of competition with other land uses, although they are certainly not to be seen as the only areas of value for conservation. In 1990 an international workshop was convened in Manaus, Brazil, to identify priority areas within Amazonia by committee (Workshop‐90). A substantial part of the data for this assessment came from five plant families recorded for the Flora Neotropica. We compare the success of the Workshop‐90 method in representing these plant species with the results of using a simple quantitative method for seeking complementary areas. The promises of quantitative methods are twofold. First, they force people to make their values explicit, which is important because priorities are dependent on the values and goals of individuals and are not universal. Second, quantitative methods can achieve representation of more of what is valued. For example, within the 90 top‐priority areas (an arbitrary but convenient figure taken from Workshop‐90), species representation is shown to be increased when using the complementary areas method by 83%. Simple computer implementations of this method can provide the means for fast inter‐active exploration of flexibility in the many alternative area choices. This permits monitoring and review with minimum effort as new data on species and threats are acquired. On the other hand, the problem for all methods is the need for very large numbers of data, whether based on species or on any other surrogates for biodiversity, if well‐informed decisions are to be made. This is not a particular problem of quantitative methods, but their explicit nature does highlight the shortcomings of data. For example, patterns in the Flora Neotropica data show effects from small samples even though these data are among the best available for any large tropical wet‐forest region. Furthermore, in order to assess the longer‐term consequences of area choices, quantitative methods will require many explicit local data on factors affecting viability, threat and cost.

Journal

Biological Journal of the Linnean SocietyWiley

Published: Jun 1, 1996

Keywords: ; ; ; ; ; ;

References

  • Milkweed butterflies, their cladistics and biology, being an account of the natural history of the Danainae, a subfamily of the Lepidoptera.
    Ackery, PR; Vane‐Wright, RI.
  • The distribution of a taxon is that of its students and the diversity of a site is a matter of serendipity?
    Bullock, JA.
  • Neotropical florist diversity: phytogeographical connections between Central and South America, Pleistocene climatic fluctuations, or an accident of the Andean orogeny?
    Gentry, AH.
  • World conservation strategy, living resource conservation for sustainable development
    Iucn Unep, Wwf.
  • Nature conservation: the role of remnants of native vegetation.
    Margules, CR; Nicholls, AO.
  • Proceedings of the 12th Australian Operations Research Conference.
    Possingham, H.; Day, J.; Goldfinch, M.; Salsborn, F.

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, 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