Coarse and fine filters, gap analysis, and systematic conservation planning

Lemelin, Louis-Vincent; Darveau, Marcel

doi:10.5558/tfc82802-6

Cited by 12 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…2002). In this context, the characterization of landscapes in terms of broad vegetation characteristics has been assumed to provide an effective surrogate for biological diversity at all levels of organization (Lemelin and Darveau 2006).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Do forest community types provide a sufficient basis to evaluate biological diversity?

Cushman

McKelvey

Flather

et al. 2008

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

w ww ww w. .f fr ro on nt ti ie er rs si in ne ec co ol lo og gy y. .o or rg g S Sa am mu ue el l A A C Cu us sh hm ma an n 1 1* * , , K Ke ev vi in n S S M Mc cK Ke el lv ve ey y 1 1 , , C Cu ur rt ti is s H H F Fl la at th he er r 2 2 , , a an nd d K Ke ev vi in n M Mc cG Ga ar ri ig ga al l 3 3Forest communities, defined by the size and configuration of cover types and stand ages, have commonly been used as proxies for the abundance or viability of wildlife populations. However, for community types to succeed as proxies for species abundance, several assumptions must be met. We tested these assumptions for birds in an Oregon forest environment. Measured habitat was a weak proxy for species abundance and vegetation cover type was a weak proxy for habitat, explaining only 4% of the variance in species abundance. The adequacy of forest community types as habitat proxies was highly dependent on classification rules and the spatial scales at which communities were defined. Habitat was perceived differently by species guilds and a single, generalized characterization of habitat is therefore unlikely to provide a reliable basis for multi-species conservation efforts. Given the weak relations between forest vegetation and species abundance, evaluation of landscape pattern is unlikely to be an effective replacement for the direct monitoring of species population size and distribution.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Do forest community types provide a sufficient basis to evaluate biological diversity?

Cushman

McKelvey

Flather

et al. 2008

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In general, a coarse-filter approach is complemented by a fine filter, capable of capturing threatened or endangered species not protected by the coarse filter. However, in data-scarce regions, such as our study area, a coarse filter must be applied without a fine filter due to the lack of data available at a finer scale (Lemelin & Darveau 2006). Including a fine filter in our study (for example targeting rare species) would have resulted in greater discrepancies between the BD and the null scenarios.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The coarse filter implies that the conservation of a representative sample of all ecosystem types and natural communities inventoried should ‘ensure representation’ (of the constituents of a particular ecological level) and provide habitats for the majority of species in the region, even up to 90% under some circumstances (Noss 1987; Lemelin & Darveau 2006; Hunter & Schmiegelow 2011). In data-scarce regions such as our study area, the coarse filter is generally applied at the ecoregion scale ( c. 100 000 km 2 ; Lemelin & Darveau 2006). Representative targets for wetland types were based on their total area, while targets for wetland composition classes and richness classes were based on their total number of occurrences.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Site complementarity between biodiversity and ecosystem services in conservation planning of sparsely-populated regions

2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYThe consequences of considering ecosystem services (ES) in conservation assessment are still widely debated. The degree of success depends on the extent to which biodiversity and ES can be secured under joint conservation actions. Unlike biodiversity, ES conservation is inseparably linked to human beneficiaries. Reconciling biodiversity with ES and conservation can be particularly challenging in sparsely populated areas. This study, in a sparsely-populated region of eastern Canada, focused on freshwater wetland biodiversity and ten ES provided by wetlands. Within a given maximal total area, the results showed that planning for biodiversity underrepresented local flow ES supply by 57% and demand by 61% in conservation networks. Planning for ES alone underrepresented wetland biodiversity surrogates by an average of 34%. Considering both biodiversity and ES simultaneously, all of the biodiversity and ES targets were achieved with only a 6% mean increase in area. Achieving all conservation targets starting from a network that was primarily built for either ES or biodiversity features alone was two to five times less efficient than considering both ES and biodiversity simultaneously in conservation assessment. A better framework is required to translate these spatial synergies into effective joint conservation actions.

show abstract

“…A further complication is the possibility of rapid epigenetic and eco-evolutionary adaptation in some species populations (Sgrò et al, 2011). All this makes comprehensive species-by-species (fine filter) conservation difficult or even impossible, and thus motivates the call for habitat structure-based (coarse filter) approaches, such as natural disturbance-based management (Hunter, 1993;Lemelin and Darveau, 2006).…”

Section: From Ecological and Evolutionary Foundations To Applicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Natural Disturbance-Based Forest Management: Moving Beyond Retention and Continuous-Cover Forestry

Kuuluvainen

Angelstam

Frelich

et al. 2021

Front. For. Glob. Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Global forest area is declining rapidly, along with degradation of the ecological condition of remaining forests. Hence it is necessary to adopt forest management approaches that can achieve a balance between (1) human management designs based on homogenization of forest structure to efficiently deliver economic values and (2) naturally emerging self-organized ecosystem dynamics that foster heterogeneity, biodiversity, resilience and adaptive capacity. Natural disturbance-based management is suggested to provide such an approach. It is grounded on the premise that disturbance is a key process maintaining diversity of ecosystem structures, species and functions, and adaptive and evolutionary potential, which functionally link to sustainability of ecosystem services supporting human well-being. We review the development, ecological and evolutionary foundations and applications of natural disturbance-based forest management. With emphasis on boreal forests, we compare this approach with two mainstream approaches to sustainable forest management, retention and continuous-cover forestry. Compared with these approaches, natural disturbance-based management provides a more comprehensive framework, which is compatible with current understanding of multiple-scale ecological processes and structures, which underlie biodiversity, resilience and adaptive potential of forest ecosystems. We conclude that natural disturbance-based management provides a comprehensive ecosystem-based framework for managing forests for human needs of commodity production and immaterial values, while maintaining forest health in the rapidly changing global environment.

show abstract

Coarse and fine filters, gap analysis, and systematic conservation planning

Cited by 12 publications

References 15 publications

Do forest community types provide a sufficient basis to evaluate biological diversity?

Do forest community types provide a sufficient basis to evaluate biological diversity?

Site complementarity between biodiversity and ecosystem services in conservation planning of sparsely-populated regions

Natural Disturbance-Based Forest Management: Moving Beyond Retention and Continuous-Cover Forestry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About