Scheduling conservation action in production landscapes: priority areas in western New South Wales defined by irreplaceability and vulnerability to vegetation loss

Pressey, Robert L.; Taffs, Kathryn H

doi:10.1016/s0006-3207(01)00039-8

Cited by 152 publications

(131 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

128

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In terms of conservation, the area has received little attention relative to the eastern parts of the State, with 2.98% of the Western Division in reserves compared with 9.12% for the Central and Eastern Divisions Taffs 2001a). In addition, climate extremes coupled with human activity and the impacts of feral herbivores and carnivores have resulted in widespread land degradation, resource depletion, and species decline (Allison et al 1990, Benson 1991, Mitchell 1991, Pickard 1991, Graham 1992, Dickman et al 1993, Smith et al 1994, James et al 1999.…”

Section: Study Areamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Land systems have long been utilized for guiding allocation of type and intensity of land use and choice of land management strategies in Australia (see Purdie et al 1986, Walker 1991, Johnston et al 1996, Pressey and Taffs 2001a and elsewhere (see Felfili and Da Silva 1993, Kazaklis and Karteris 1993, Lawrence et al 1993, King 1994, Murgen et al 1998, Van Wilgen et al 2000. They have also been used in New South Wales and Queensland (Purdie et al 1986, Smart et al 2000, Pressey and Taffs 2001a as a surrogate for the spatial distribution of biodiversity in conservation planning.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They have also been used in New South Wales and Queensland (Purdie et al 1986, Smart et al 2000, Pressey and Taffs 2001a as a surrogate for the spatial distribution of biodiversity in conservation planning. However, our knowledge of the performance of environmental surrogates, in accounting for the distributions of species, is severely lacking (but see Kirkpatrick and Brown 1994, Ferrier and Watson 1997, Wessels et al 1999, Lombard et al 2003.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Land Systems as Surrogates for Biodiversity in Conservation Planning

Oliver

Holmes

Dangerfield

et al. 2004

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Environmental surrogates (land classes) for the distribution of biodiversity are increasingly being used for conservation planning. However, data that demonstrate coincident patterns in land classes and biodiversity are limited. We ask the overall question, ''Are land systems effective surrogates for the spatial configuration of biodiversity for conservation planning?'' and we address three specific questions: (1) Do different land systems represent different biological assemblages? (2) Do biological assemblages on the same land system remain similar with increasing geographic separation? and (3) Do biological assemblages on the same land system remain similar with increasing land system isolation? Vascular plants, invertebrates, and microbiota were surveyed from 24 sites in four land systems in arid northwest New South Wales, Australia. Within each land system, sites were located to give a hierarchy of inter-site distances, and land systems were classified as either ''low isolation'' (large and continuous) or ''high isolation'' (small patches interspersed among other land systems).Each type of land system supported components of biodiversity either not found, or found infrequently, on other land systems, suggesting that land systems function as surrogates for biodiversity, and that conservation-area networks representing land-system diversity will also represent biological diversity. However, the majority of taxa were found on more than one land-system type, suggesting that a large proportion of the plant, arthropod, and microbial biodiversity may be characterized by widespread species with low fidelity to particular land systems. Significant relationships between geographic distance among sites and differences among assemblages were revealed for all taxa except the microbiota. Therefore, as sites on the same land system were located farther apart, the assemblages at those sites became more different. This finding strongly suggests that conservation planning based on land-system diversity should also sample the geographic range occupied by each land system. Land-system isolation was not revealed to be a significant source of variation in assemblage composition. Our research finds support for environmental surrogates for biodiversity in conservation planning, specifically the use of land systems and similarly derived land classifications. However, the need for explicit modeling of geographic distance in conservation planning is clearly indicated.

show abstract

Section: Study Areamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Land Systems as Surrogates for Biodiversity in Conservation Planning

Oliver

Holmes

Dangerfield

et al. 2004

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finally, and perhaps more importantly, our results are readily accessible to land planners and conservationists seeking to establish nature reserve networks. Indeed, many of the site-selection algorithms developed during the past two decades require this type of spatial database (Pressey et al 1995, Pressey andTaffs 2001). Furthermore, this need is likely to increase because new site-selection algorithms that take into account the persistence of populations are currently being developed and will ultimately require spatially explicit data (Cabeza and Moilanen 2001).…”

Section: Vegetation Patternsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, this need is likely to increase because new site-selection algorithms that take into account the persistence of populations are currently being developed and will ultimately require spatially explicit data (Cabeza and Moilanen 2001). specific weighting factor that can be used to set conservation targets, such as the proportion of initial habitat cover to be protected (see Pressey and Taffs 2001). For example, peatland habitats with pools might be favored if conservation procedures were to be be implemented in our study area because of their high distinctiveness and low aerial extent (Poulin et al 1999).…”

Section: Vegetation Patternsmentioning

confidence: 99%

From Satellite Imagery to Peatland Vegetation Diversity: How Reliable Are Habitat Maps?

Poulin¹,

Careau²,

Rochefort³

et al. 2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Although satellite imagery is becoming a basic component of the work of ecologists and conservationists, its potential and reliability are still relatively unknown for a large number of ecosystems. Using Landsat 7/ETM+ (Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus) data, we tested the accuracy of two types of supervised classifications for mapping 13 peatland habitats in southern Quebec, Canada. Before classifying peatland habitats, we applied a mask procedure that revealed 629 peatlands covering a total of 18,103 ha; 26% of them were larger than 20 ha. We applied both a simple maximum likelihood (ML) function and a weighted maximum likelihood (WML) function that took into account the proportion of each habitat class within each peatland when classifying the habitats on the image. By validating 626 Global Positioning System locations within 92 peatlands, we showed that both classification procedures provided an accurate representation of the 13 peatland habitat classes. For all habitat classes except lawn with pools, the predominant classified habitat within 45 m of the center of the validation location was of the same type as the one observed in the field. There were differences in the performance of the two classification procedures: ML was a better tool for mapping rare habitats, whereas WML favored the most common habitats. Based on ordinations, peatland habitat classes were as effective as environmental variables such as humidity indicators and water chemistry components at explaining the distribution of plant species and performed 1.6 times better when it came to accounting for vegetation structure patterns. Peatland habitats with pools had the most distinct plant assemblages, and the habitats dominated by herbs were moderately distinct from those characterized by ericaceous shrubs. Habitats dominated by herbs were the most variable in terms of plant species assemblages. Because peatlands are economically valuable wetlands, the maps resulting from the new classification procedure presented here will provide useful information for land managers and conservationists.

show abstract