Hotspots and species diversity

Curnutt, John L.; Lockwood, Julie L.; Luh, Hang Kwang; Nott, Philip; Russell, G. B.

doi:10.1038/367326a0

Cited by 90 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Using data on the distributions of British plants and animals mapped on a 10 km · 10 km grid (i.e., at a 'patch' scale), Prendergast et al (1993) found that species-rich areas frequently do not coincide for different taxa, nor do they coincide with the distributions of many rare species. Using data on Australian birds, mapped on a 100 km · 100 km grid (a 'landscape' scale), Curnutt et al (1994), however, found that the second pattern dissolves, and that rarity overlaps with species richness to a greater extent. Also, habitat fragmentation is more likely to have significant effects on bird nesting success and predation at a landscape scale, rather than edge or patch scales (Stephens et al 2003).…”

Section: The Unit Of Analysismentioning

confidence: 95%

Assessing extinction risk in the absence of species-level data: quantitative criteria for terrestrial ecosystems

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The conservation of individual plant and animal species has been advanced greatly by the World Conservation Union's (IUCN) development of objective, repeatable, and transparent criteria for assessing extinction risk, which explicitly separate the process of risk assessment from priority-setting. Here we present an analogous procedure for assessing the extinction risk of terrestrial ecosystems, which may complement traditional species-specific risk assessments, or may provide an alternative when only landscape-level data are available. We developed four quantitative risk criteria, derived primarily from remotely sensed spatial data, information on one of which must be available to permit classification. Using a naming system analogous to the present IUCN species-specific system, our four criteria were: (A) reduction of land cover and continuing threat, (B) rapid rate of land cover change, (C) increased fragmentation, and (D) highly restricted geographical distribution. We applied these criteria to five ecosystems covering a range of spatial and temporal scales, regions of the world, and ecosystem types, and found that Indonesian Borneo's lowland tropical forests and the Brazilian Atlantic rainforest were Critically Endangered, while South Africa's grasslands and Brazil's Mato Grosso were Vulnerable. Furthermore, at a finer grain of analysis, one region of Venezuela's coastal dry forests (Margarita Island) qualified as Vulnerable, while another (the Guasare River watershed) was Critically Endangered. In northern

show abstract

Section: The Unit Of Analysismentioning

confidence: 95%

Assessing extinction risk in the absence of species-level data: quantitative criteria for terrestrial ecosystems

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, studies at a small scale (10 km 2) in Britain (Prendergast et al, 1993) showed little evidence of a correlation between species-rich sites and sites which are rich in rare species. Curnutt et al (1994) found a correlation between species richness and the number of rare species for Australian birds on a larger scale (100 km2). On a coarse scale, sampling units will need rare species to become species-rich, and thus species-rich sites will also harbour many rare species.…”

Section: Rare and Common Speciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On a coarse scale, sampling units will need rare species to become species-rich, and thus species-rich sites will also harbour many rare species. Great fragmentation may lead to the occurrence of rare species in widely scattered areas, each of which will have a few species (Curnutt et al, 1994).…”

Section: Rare and Common Speciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Common and rare Swedish vertebrates ? distribution and habitat preferences

Berg

Tjernberg

1996

Biodivers Conserv

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Data have been compiled on the distribution, habitat preferences and population sizes of 348 vertebrates reproducing in Sweden (excluding fish) and their species richness in different habitats and regions was investigated. Furthermore, we compared the habitat preferences and distribution of rare and common vertebrates. The relative species number (corrected for area) increases from the north (the hemiarctic/boreal zone) to the south (the temperate/hemiboreal zone). The relative number of species in major habitats is highest in farmland, lakes and running waters, and possibly also in the sea. However, the absolute number of species is highest in woodland, the dominant habitat in Sweden (56% of the land area excluding sea). Within woodlands, a large proportion of species occur in southern deciduous forests, in other deciduous forests and in mixed forests, while coniferous forests are less species-rich when the habitat area is taken into account. In farmland, the most species-rich habitats are meadows and forest edges, while marshes are the most species-rich habitats amongst lakes and running waters. Nationally rare species (<1000 individuals) have a smaller European range than common species, and they also have their European distribution centres further to the south than the common species. Of the species occurring in large parts of Sweden (that is, both in the north and the south) a low proportion (4.7%) are classified as rare compared with species occurring mainly in the north (20.6% rare) or mainly in the south (31.6% rare) of Sweden. There is a positive correlation between the number of rare species and the total species number in 41 subcategory habitats, and the proportion of rare species is similar in most habitats. A more detailed analysis (including effects of both regions and habitats) suggests that the proportion of rare species in a region is a result of differences between latitudes, but also of different habitats (when corrected for latitude effects). There are differences in the proportion of rare species between the nine most species-rich orders (for example, there is a high proportion of rare species in the order Carnivora and a low proportion in the order Rodentia), but the proportion of rare species in these orders is not independent of the habitats in which they occur, making it difficult to separate the effects of habitat preferences and taxonomy on rarity. The focusing of conservation work on relatively species-rich habitats in southern and middle Sweden -such as some farmland habitats (that is, meadows and forest edges), marshes (in connection with lakes and running waters) and forests with a relatively high proportion of deciduous trees -is of high priority if the conservation of biodiversity is a main goal. These are also the habitats with a high number of rare and red-listed species.

show abstract

“…In such regions, networks of protected areas should fit the distribution of those rare and range-restricted species (Hughes et al 2002). Such biodiversity hotspots ideally also support a high diversity of more common species (Curnutt et al 1994;Balmford 1998), though this is rarely achieved in temperate regions (Williams et al 1996). In geographical areas where no or few endemics occur, conservation priorities should focus on locally rare species and species-rich areas (Margules et al 1988).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%