Using the Species-Area Relationship to Set Baseline Targets for Conservation

By P. Desmet, Richard M. Cowling. 2004

187 citations recorded by the source corpus.

This paper demonstrates how the power form of the Species-Area Relationship (SAR) can be used to set conservation targets for land classes using biodiversity survey data. The log-transformation of the power model is a straight line; therefore, if one knows the average number of species recorded per survey site and can estimate the true species number present in the land class, using EstimateS software, it is possible to calculate the slope of the curve, or z-value. The z-value is the exponent in the power model and it can then be used to estimate the proportion of area required to represent a given proportion of species present in any land class. This application of the SAR is explored using phytosociological releve data from South Africa's Succulent Karoo biome. We also provide suggestions for extrapolating the estimated z-values to other land classes within a bioregion that lack sufficient survey data, using the relationship between z-values and remotely determined landscape variables such as habitat diversity (topographic diversity) and geographic location (latitude and longitude). The SAR predicts that for most Succulent Karoo vegetation types a conservation target of 10% of the land area would not be sufficient to conserve the majority of species. We also demonstrate that not all land classes are equal from a plant biodiversity perspective, so applying one target to all land classes in a region will lead to significant gaps and inefficiencies in any reserve network based on this universal target.

Subfields: Ecological Modeling, Ecology, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/bacce1db6deab2f2bed5997a0f2c06691f66c557

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 Ecology

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Species, Data, and Conservation Planning (2004, methodology): “Even sophisticated techniques for setting variable percentage targets across land types (Desmet & Cowling 2004) do not address the former question.”
Habitat fragmentation and the species–area relationship: a focus on total species richness obscures the impact of habitat loss on habitat specialists (2014, background): “…ty a nd D is tr ib ut io ns biodiversity conservation to aid the design of protected areas (e.g. Diamond, 1975), the setting of conservation targets (Desmet & Cowling, 2004), and to predict extinctions resulting from habitat loss and fragmentation (e.g. Brooks et al., 1997; Magura et al., 2001;…”
Theory meets reality: How habitat fragmentation research has transcended island biogeographic theory (2008, background): “…and local extinctions (Tilman et al., 1994; Newmark, 1996; Magura et al., 2001) in fragmented landscapes, devising general reserve-design principles (Diamond, 1975a; Wilson and Willis, 1975; Faaborg, 1979), and identifying conservation targets for specific habitat types (Desmet and Cowling, 2004).”
Core concepts of spatial prioritisation in systematic conservation planning (2012, background): “This definition followed from possibly the first quantitative approach to target-setting to ensure persistence by Desmet & Cowling (2004).”
Which function describes the species–area relationship best? A review and empirical evaluation (2009, background): “…conservation biogeography, for example for identifying biodiversity hotspots (e.g. Veech, 2000; Fattorini, 2007), for optimal reserve planning (e.g. Desmet & Cowling, 2004), for predicting species loss after habitat loss (e.g. Connor & McCoy, 2001; Ulrich, 2005) and for assessing human impacts on…”