2005
DOI: 10.1007/s10531-004-0550-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Conservation of Freshwater Biodiversity: a Comparison of Different Area Selection Methods

Abstract: The biodiversity of freshwater systems is endangered, especially in Mediterranean semiarid areas such as the south east of the Iberian Peninsula, whose rich and endemic biota is threatened by the development of surrounding land-crop irrigation. For this reason, the prioritization of areas for biodiversity conservation is an urgent target. In this study we used data records of water beetles from a province of the southeast of Spain for assessing priority areas for freshwater biodiversity conservation. We compar… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
60
0
1

Year Published

2006
2006
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 66 publications
(63 citation statements)
references
References 46 publications
(61 reference statements)
2
60
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Generally, important sites for maintaining biodiversity are identified and organised with the help of biological and conservation indices (Turpie 1995;Margules and Pressey 2000;Myers et al 2000). According to Darwall and Vié (2005), the prioritization of conservation and restoration areas can be based on several criteria such as specific richness (Heino 2002;Maes et al 2005), species abundance (Gotelli and Colwell 2001), their vulnerability (Abellan et al 2005), irreplaceability or their rarity (Williams et al 1996;Sólymos and Fehér 2005;Carwardine et al 2007).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Generally, important sites for maintaining biodiversity are identified and organised with the help of biological and conservation indices (Turpie 1995;Margules and Pressey 2000;Myers et al 2000). According to Darwall and Vié (2005), the prioritization of conservation and restoration areas can be based on several criteria such as specific richness (Heino 2002;Maes et al 2005), species abundance (Gotelli and Colwell 2001), their vulnerability (Abellan et al 2005), irreplaceability or their rarity (Williams et al 1996;Sólymos and Fehér 2005;Carwardine et al 2007).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, the saline or hypersaline streams ("ramblas") (Millán et al, 1996;Moreno et al, 1997), which are extremely rare in an European (or even global) context, are not considered of particular relevance due to the poor richness of species and local abundance of their typical species. The use of other criteria for the selection of sites of conservation value could overcome this limitation, such as complementarity (Sánchez-Fernández et al, 2004a;Abellán et al, 2005b). As there is almost no overlap between the community of freshwater mountain streams and the community of saline "ramblas", complementary criteria always choose representative sites of both types of habitat.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Only three stations with a high IC were ecologically different from the group above: Laguna de Pétrola, Laguna del Salobralejo and Laguna de los Patos, the two first, endorreic lagoons with small associated freshwater streams, and the last, a well vegetate artificial lagoon. The same mountain streams also have a high conservation interest for other aquatic Coleoptera, mainly Hydraenidae (Delgado & Soler, 1991;Ribera & Hernando, 1998;Millán & Aguilera, 2000;Sánchez-Fernandez et al, 2004b;Abellán et al, 2005b), with some species exclusive to the basin or to the sierras de Alcaraz and Segura (including the headwaters of the river Segura).…”
Section: Agabus Guttatus Oreodytes Davisii Hydroporus Nigrita and Smentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many studies have been concerned with assessing the performance of different reserve selection methods (e.g. Kershaw et al 1994Kershaw et al , 1995Virolainen et al 1999;Abellan et al 2005), though it seems none have yet evaluated site selection methods against an independent measure of the value of sites for rare species.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%