Design of reserve networks and the persistence of biodiversity.

By M. Cabeza, Atte Moilanen. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2001

507 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecological Modeling, Global and Planetary Change, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0dc03d4562b3c463946436e29f714f8d140cc8d4

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecological Modeling

In Global and Planetary Change

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Patch‐ and landscape‐scale effects on howler monkey distribution and abundance in rainforest fragments (2007, background): “In fragmented landscapes, the development of sustainable management strategies and habitat conservation plans for native species is thus urgently needed, particularly in the context of habitat restoration (Noss & Csuti, 1997; Cabeza & Moilanen, 2001).”
Hotspots, complementarity or representativeness? designing optimal small-scale reserves for biodiversity conservation (2004, background): “Reserve design for the long-term persistence of biodiversity constitutes a complex problem involving many important parameters (Cabeza and Moilanen, 2001).”
Local population dynamics are important to the conservation of metapopulations in highly fragmented landscapes (2003, background): “Knowledge of the importance of dispersal for species persistence at the landscape scale has focused the attention of conservationists on the spatial configuration of habitat patches in the landscape, directing efforts towards the increase of structural and functional connectivity in habitat networks”
Prioritizing multiple-use landscapes for conservation: methods for large multi-species planning problems (2005, background): “…with persistence (MacArthur & Wilson 1967; Levin 1974; Hanski 1998; Hanski & Ovaskainen 2000), as well as reserve selection approaches, that deal with complementary representation of species (see Margules & Pressey 2000; Cabeza & Moilanen 2001; Cabeza et al. 2004; Williams et al. 2004 for reviews).”
Capturing biodiversity: selecting priority areas for conservation using different criteria (2005, background): “…the selection of priority areas has focussed on finding the minimum set of areas that represent all species in occurrence locations (Williams 1998; Cabeza and Moilanen 2001), or, recently, on finding appropriate areas that maximise probabilities of species persistence (Rodrigues et al. 2000;…”
Reserves, Resilience and Dynamic Landscapes (2003, background): “At one extreme is a view that has put excessive focus on static reserves and has led to a discussion focussed on the size and connectivity of static entities (96).”
Conservation Biogeography: assessment and prospect (2005, background): “…scale of application, it is clear that there are numerous approaches to mapping and prioritising putative or existing protected areas (e.g. Pressey & Nicholls, 1989; Margules & Pressey, 2000; Williams et al., 2000b; Cabeza & Moilanen, 2001; Williams & Araújo, 2002; Dimitrakopoulos et al., 2004).”
Modelling spatial patterns of biodiversity for conservation prioritization in North‐eastern Mexico (2004, methodology): “…Ltd To provide a scientific basis for reserve networks, efficient new computational methods (site-selection algorithms) have been developed to identify sets of areas that maximize representation of species (Pressey et al ., 1997; Stokland, 1997; Prendergast et al ., 1999; Cabeza & Moilanen, 2001).”
Conservation biological control and enemy diversity on a landscape scale (2007, background): “Because land, financial and social resources are considered limited, there is debate about the quality, size, shape, and connectivity of habitat fragments necessary to set aside for conservation (Cabeza and Moilanen, 2001; Van Teeffelen et al., 2006).”
Threatened and endemic species: are they good indicators of patterns of biodiversity on a national scale? (2002, methodology): “A N A L Y S E S Area selection for the target species Complementary networks (Pressey et al. 1993; Cabeza & Moilanen 2001) were obtained representing the target 2002 Blackwell Science Ltd/CNRS species groups in sets with the minimum possible number of areas.”
Energy, species richness, and human population size: conservation implications at a national scale (2003, background): “It is widely appreciated that using single representations represents only a starting point for conservation planning (Cabeza and Moilanen 2001).”
Metapopulation dynamics of the bog fritillary butterfly: demographic processes in a patchy population (2002, background): “A metapopulation may persist in a regional network of suitable habitat patches surrounded by a matrix of unfavourable habitat, via a stochastic balance between extinctions of local populations and (re)colonisations of empty habitat patches (Cabeza and Moilanen 2001).”