BCB 341: Principles of Conservation Biology

RESERVE DESIGN AND SELECTING AREAS TO PROTECT Lecturer: James Reeler Material by: Sam Hopkins



NATURE RESERVES

1

Nature reserves around the world need to contain most of the worlds biota



The area of land to conserve is picked for a number of reasons



Diversity



Rarity



Naturalness



They can also serve a number of other functions



Hunting



Hiking



Money making

WAYS OF SELECTING RESERVES - SIZE



The actual size of the piece of land that is being protected is very important



E.g. – Mammal extinctions 3



Large reserves allow the re-colonisation from other parts of the reserve 2



Large reserves support a fuller diversity and interactions 4



Many species have a minimum area requirement but not often is there a maximum area requirement 5



Reserves must be worthwhile not just large pieces of unwanted land 7

WAYS OF SELECTING RESERVES – SIZE

8 

An argument for large reserves is seen on Borro Colorado Island, Panama



Made reserve in 1923



Contains birds that will not fly over water



Spotted antbird (Hylophalx naeviodes)



Bicolored antbird (Gymnopithys bicolor)



Ocellated antbird (Phaenostictus mcleannani)

WAYS OF SELECTING RESERVES – SIZE

9 

Amazon Rainforest



Large problem in guarding the reserves



Answer may be to place whole watersheds in a single reserve



This would limit the access to the reserve



It would also conserve all of the aquatic resources in one water system

WAYS OF SELECTING RESERVES SIZE



Other studies have suggested that many small reserves would be of better conservation value



Simberloff and Abele (1976) 10



Studied red mangrove islands



Split islands into smaller archipelago



Resulting islands had more species

WAYS OF SELECTING RESERVES - SIZE



Erwin et al. (1995) 11



Studied water birds on islands in the Florida Keys



Birds did better on the medium size of the smaller islands



Seen in the White Heron

WAYS OF SELECTING RESERVES – SIZE

12 

Two smaller reserves may be more beneficial for genetic conservation



These two reserves must have occasional migrations between the two populations



Sustains alleles and heterozygotes for a longer period

WAYS OF SELECTING RESERVES – SIZE

13 

In practice it is not always possible to have the reserve size that is necessary



In Eastern North America the requirement for terrestrial mammals is 5037 km 2



In practice of the 2355 reserves



14 are greater the 2700 km 2



8 are greater than 5037 km 2



3 are greater than 13,296 km 2

WAYS OF SELECTING RESERVES - SHAPE



Each reserve will have an edge that abuts to the degraded matrix 14



The park perimeter to area ratio needs to be checked



Smaller reserves will have more edge 2



Irregularly shaped reserves will promote edge species but will cause a decline in number of interior species 1



Heavily used roads can act as another edge 15

WAYS OF SELECTING RESERVES – HELP FROM COMPUTERS

1 

Reserve planners need to compromise between a number of different factors



Computer programs can help to make informed decisions



Quantitative decision approach:



Indexing – potential reserves are scored against defined criteria

 

Iterative techniques – used to assemble combinations of reserves Integer planning – often only use one criteria at a time

WAYS OF SELECTING RESERVES – HELP FROM COMPUTERS

1 

For example – Multiobjective planning (MOP) and Simple multiattribute rating technique (SMART)



Used in Nova Scotia, Canada



Five forest nature reserves are needed to complement the two existing national parks



The suggested reserves were evaluated on:



Connectedness – inverse of distance between reserves



Maximise the total area of the reserve system



Maximise the number of rare plant species

COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN II

    

Integration of computers with GIS systems allows consideration of many different aspects Programs such as MARXAN/C-Plan integrate selected layers and priorities into selection algorithm. Allows prioritization of specific layers, and adjustment of conservation priorities depending on relative importance Provides conservation OPTIONS when planning reserves – not just one site, but differing combinations to achieve the same end This method therefore best fits the criterion of providing for offsets, and can also assist in planning for environmental impacts and development.

WAYS OF SELECTING RESERVES – UMBRELLA SPECIES

    

No single taxon will be completely effective as a reserve selection indicator It is estimated that to conserve a viable elephant population for 1000 years it would take 1000 miles 2 of land 16 Conserving this piece of land may protect other species This may not always be the ideal land for conserving large numbers of endangered species if it is the elephants alone that are being concentrated on Plants are probably the better umbrella taxon as they need more area e.g. 17

  

In San Diego canyons To preserve all of the bird species 2 canyons are needed To preserve all of the plant species 10 canyons are needed

WAYS OF SELECTING RESERVES – HOT SPOTS

     

A biodiversity hotspot is an area of land where there is increased species richness, high numbers of endemic species and high numbers of rare species 18 It is a way of creating priorities for conservation 25 hotspots suggested by Myers et al. (2000) 19 20 These hotspots contain at least 0.5%of the world plant species as endemics 19 Initiative being supported by conservation international 21 One of these hotspots is the cape floristic region

WAYS OF SELECTING RESERVES – HOT SPOTS

22       

Cape floristic region – area of 87,892 km 2 70% of the 9000 plant species present are endemic Also important for birds, mammals and other vertebrates In the area 10.1% is already reserves but this is mainly in the upland areas The report by Cowling et al. (2003) suggested that another 40,000 km 2 be protected in some way This is trying to take into account representativeness and persistence They warn that there will probably not be enough money to carry out the full plan and that more biodiversity will be lost as the plan is being implemented

WAYS OF SELECTING RESERVES – HOT SPOTS



One of the problems in using these hotspots of biodiversity is that hotspots for different species rarely overlap 23



There is probably a low correlation between high species richness and high endemicity 18



Conserving hotspots may miss a species vital to conservation 24

WILDLIFE CORRIDORS



Wildlife corridors have been talked about in the fragmentation lecture, chapter 2



They should link two fragments of habitat that are being conserved



This is meant to allow for local extinctions and re-colonisation



They should also allow for the gene flow that was discussed when trying to keep genetic diversity

BIOSPHERE RESERVE CONCEPT



Core protected areas (Minimal Access) with surrounding areas zoned for different uses.



Buffer zone allows moderate impacts and ecotourism



Transition zone provides utility value (tourism, minimal consumptive uses).



Ideally concentrate private reserve areas around reserve



Limited use for surrounding communities, and conservation initiatives on community lands

CONCLUSIONS



It is agreed that biodiversity must be conserved



The problem comes when decisions have to be made on what to conserve



Reserve design is part of this problem as different reserve designs will meet the needs of different conservation goals

REFERENCES

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Rothley, K. D. (1999). Designing bioreserve networks to satisfy multiple, conflicting demands. Ecological Applications 9: 741-750.) Higgs, A. (1981) Island biogeography theory and nature reserve design. Journal of Biogeography 8: 117-124 Newmark, W. D. (1995) Extinction of mammal populations in Western North American National Parks Conservation Biology 9: 512-526 Schwartz, M. (1999) Choosing the appropriate scale of reserves for conservation Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 30: 83-108 Diamond, J. M. (1976) Island Biogeography and conservation: Strategy and limitations. Science 193: 1027-1029 6.

7.

8.

9.

Terborgh, J. (1976) Island Biogeography and Conservation: Strategy and Limitations Science 193: 1027-1029 Terborgh, J. (1974) Preservation of natural diversity: The problem of extinction prone species. Bioscience 24:715-722 Willis, E. (1974) Populations and local extinctions of birds on Borro Colorado Island, Panama. Ecological Monographs 44: 153-169 Peres, C. A. and Terborgh, J. W. (1995). Amazonian Nature Reserves: An analysis of the defensibility status of existing conservation units and design criteria for the future. Conservation Biology 9: 34-46 10. Simberloff, D. and Abele, L. (1976) Island Biogeography theory and conservation practice. Science 191: 285-286

REFERENCES

11. Erwin et al. (1995) The value and vulnerability of small estuarine islands for conserving metapopulations of breeding water birds. Biological Conservation 71: 187-191 12. Boecklen, W. (1986) Optimal design of nature reserves: Consequences of genetic drift. Biological Conservation 38: 323-338 13. Gurd, D. B. Nudds, T. D. and Rivard, D. H. (2000) Conservation of mammals in Eastern North American wildlife reserves: how small is too small? Conservation Biology 15: 1355-1363 14. Buechner, M. (1987) Conservation in insular parks: simulation models of factors affecting the movement of animals across park boundaries. Biological Conservation 41: 57-76 15. Schonewald-Cox, C. (1988) Boundaries in the protection of nature reserves: translating multidisciplinary knowledge into practical conservation. Bioscience 38: 480-486 16. Armbruster, P. and Lande, R. (1993) A population viability analysis for African Elephants (Loxodonta africana): How big should reserve be? Conservation Biology 7: 602-610 17. Ryti, R. T. (1992) Effect of the focal taxon on the selection of nature reserves. Ecological Applications 2: 404-410 18. Ceballos, G. et al. (1998). Assessing conservation priorities in mega diverse Mexico: Mammalian diversity, endemicity and endangerment. Ecological Applications 8: 8-17 19. Myers, N. et al. (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853-858 20. Jepson, P. and Canney, S. (2001) Biodiversity hotspots: Hot for what? Global Ecology and Biogeography 10: 225-227

REFERENCES

21. Dalton, R. (2000) Ecologists back blueprint to save biodiversity hotspots. Nature 406: 926 22. Cowling et al. (2003) A conservation plan for a global biodiversity hotspot Region, South Africa. Biological Conservation 112: 191-216 – the Cape Floristic 23. Dobson et al (1997). Geographic distribution of endangered species in the United States. Science 275: 550-553 24. Reyers, B. et al. (2000) Complementartiy as a biodiversity indicator strategy. Proceedings: Biological Sciences 267: 505-513 25. Fahrig and Merriam (1985) Habitat patch connectivity and population survival. Ecology 66: 1762 1768 26. Aars and Ims (1999) The effect of habitat corridors on rates of transfer and interbreeding between vole demes. Ecology 80: 1648- 1655 27. Mann and Plummer (1993) The high cost of biodiversity. Science 260: 1868- 1871