A conservation plan for a global biodiversity hotspot—the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa

Abstract

We produced a conservation plan that achieved conservation targets for biodiversity pattern and process in the species-and endemic-rich Cape Floristic Region of South Africa. Features given quantitative conservation targets were land classes, localities of Proteaceae and selected vertebrate (freshwater fish, amphibians and reptiles) species, population sizes for medium-and large-sized mammals, and six types of spatial surrogates for ecological and evolutionary processes. The plan was developed in several stages using C-Plan, a decision support system linked to a geographic information system. Accepting the existing reserve system as part of the plan, we first selected spatially fixed surrogates for biodiversity processes; then we included those planning units that were essential for achieving targets for land classes, Proteaceae and vertebrate species; next we included areas required to accommodate population and design targets for large and medium-sized mammals; we then selected planning units required to conserve entire upland-lowland and macroclimatic gradients; and finally we resolved the options for achieving remaining targets while also consolidating the design of conservation areas. The result was a system of conservation areas, requiring, in addition to the existing reserve system, 52% of the remaining extant habitat in the planning domain, as well as restorable habitat, that will promote the persistence and continued diversification of much of the region's biota in the face of ongoing habitat loss and climate change. After describing the planning process, we discuss implementation priorities in relation to conservation value and vulnerability to habitat loss, as well as socio-economic, political and institutional constraints and opportunities. #

Vast underestimation of Madagascar's biodiversity evidenced by an integrative amphibian inventory

“…Global efforts to minimize biodiversity loss have led to prioritizing biodiversity hotspots (1) which are defined as areas with high concentrations of endemic species and that are undergoing exceptional habitat loss (2)(3)(4). A second step is the efficient implementation of conservation measures at a local scale which requires an understanding of spatial patterns of richness and endemism within these hotspots (5). Assessments of such regional priority areas are often hampered by incomplete distributional and taxonomic information.…”

Identifying priority sites for the conservation of freshwater fish biodiversity in a Mediterranean basin with a high degree of threatened endemics

“…This uncovers the need to review the current Natura 2000 network applying complementarity criteria to check its competence to sustain all the Guadiana´s freshwater fish biodiversity in a whole basin context. However, the identification of biodiversity priority areas should imply neither the lack of active management regimes within them nor in off-priority areas (Cowling et al, 2003;Lindermayer et al, 2000). We highly recommended a mixed protection scheme where the conservation efforts are opened out to off-reserve management (Linke et al, 2007;Margules & Pressey, 2000) especially in the control of exotic fish species populations that may affect the contiguous reserved areas.…”

A synecological framework for systematic conservation planning

“…Faith and Walker 1996a;Ferrier 2002;Venevsky and Venevskaia 2005) or land class data (land types sensu Pressey 2004). However, most former Systematic Conservation Planning applications have been academic rather than practical, being the results of area selection methods generally ignored by conservation planners (Prendergast et al 1999;Cabeza and Moilanen 2001; but see Pressey and Cowling 2001;Cowling et al 2003b;or Airame et al 2003). Given the foregoing, Conservation Biogeography during the coming decades should strive to reconcile the need for a 'great synthesis,' to be presented as a unitary front to society and layman, with the possible scepticism that might arise from rapid science-based decision-taking in a field still in its infancy (Whittaker et al 2005).…”

“…Conservation decisions still have to be made in spite of bias and gaps in species information. Methods incorporating both types of data would establish promising conservation strategies (Ward et al 1999;Cowling et al 2003b;Lombard et al 2003), while using a complete and complementary set of biodiversity surrogates would guarantee a better selection (Pressey 2004). Therefore, available taxonomic and distribution information should be combined with environment, land type and vegetation data to take advantage of advances in predictive modelling.…”

“…Complementarity was initially applied since the late 1980's, using presence-absence data to select areas for protection with one or more presences of as many species of a given group as possible (Margules et al 1988;Pressey et al 1993;Williams and Humphries 1994;Vane-Wright 1996). Other approaches have explored the power of composite variables to represent assemblage composition variability (e.g., Ferrier 2002;Ferrier et al 2002b;Araújo et al 2004a); or that of mixed datasets including environment variables, distribution information and predicted species distributions (e.g., Lombard et al 2003;Cowling et al 2003b;Sarkar et al 2005). The three of them are enhanced by distribution information in biological databases, as well as by the latest methodologies now available (Church et al 1996;Williams 1999;Cabeza and Moilanen 2001;Rodrigues and Gaston 2002), up-to-date but even so still having difficulties with complex conservation targets and datasets.…”