scholarly journals Erratum: Species richness and biodiversity conservation priorities in British Columbia, Canada

2007 ◽  
Vol 85 (9) ◽  
pp. 1014-1014
Author(s):  
Kathryn E. Freemark ◽  
Mark Meyers ◽  
Denis White ◽  
Leanna D. Warman ◽  
A. Ross Kiester ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
British Columbia ◽  
Species Richness ◽  
Biodiversity Conservation ◽  
Conservation Priorities

Species richness and biodiversity conservation priorities in British Columbia, Canada

2006 ◽  
Vol 84 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn E Freemark ◽  
Mark Meyers ◽  
Denis White ◽  
Leanna D Warman ◽  
A Ross Kiester ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
British Columbia ◽  
Species Richness ◽  
Bird Species ◽  
Species Group ◽  
Programming Algorithm ◽  
Conservation Priorities ◽  
Species At Risk ◽  
Distribution Ranges ◽  
Species Groups

Patterns in the geographic distribution of seven species groups were used to identify important areas for conservation in British Columbia, Canada. Potential priority sites for conservation were determined using an integer programming algorithm that maximized the number of species represented in the minimum number of sites. Sweep analyses were used to determine how well the set of priority sites identified for each species group represented the other species groups. Although areas of highest species richness were different for each species group, they all included sites in the southern interior of British Columbia, where there is limited protection. Furthermore, less than 13% of the distribution ranges for 23 of 25 bird species of special conservation concern were located within existing protected areas. Species at risk of extinction were poorly represented (26%–42%) in priority sets of sites selected for amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, since these sites were generally scattered throughout the province. However, priority sites for species at risk represented 72%–91% of the species in other groups. Therefore, conservation activities in sites identified for such species have the potential to benefit many other species. These sites could be investigated in more detail to augment existing conservation and protection efforts in British Columbia.

Earth observation data for assessing biodiversity conservation priorities in South Asia

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (8-9) ◽  
pp. 2197-2219 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Sudhakar Reddy ◽  
V. S. Faseela ◽  
Anjaly Unnikrishnan ◽  
C. S. Jha
Keyword(s):  
South Asia ◽  
Biodiversity Conservation ◽  
Earth Observation ◽  
Conservation Priorities ◽  
Observation Data ◽  
Earth Observation Data

scholarly journals Avian species–area relationships indicate that towns are not different from natural areas

2018 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 419-424 ◽  
Author(s):  
SIMONE FATTORINI ◽  
GIULIA LIN ◽  
CRISTINA MANTONI
Keyword(s):  
Species Richness ◽  
Urban Areas ◽  
Bird Species ◽  
Avian Species ◽  
Conservation Priorities ◽  
Natural Areas ◽  
Bird Richness ◽  
Negative Effect ◽  
Species Area ◽  
Human Density

SUMMARYUrban areas host many bird species, and urban species richness can be compared with that in natural areas using species–area relationships (SARs). We used a multimodel selection approach to investigate the influence of area, human population, elevation and climatic variables on species richness of breeding birds from 34 towns and 54 nature reserves in Italy. Using the linearized power function, area was identified as the most important correlate of avian species richness in both urban and natural areas. The SARs did not differ significantly between towns and reserves, although human density had a negative effect on bird richness. These findings underline the possible importance of urban areas in biodiversity conservation, but also stress that human density is a factor reducing species richness. However, species richness alone cannot inform conservation priorities because it does not take into account the different conservation values of species.

scholarly journals Winter bird abundance, species richness and functional guild composition at Delhi’s ponds: does time of day and wetland extent matter?

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Prakhar Rawal ◽  
Swati Kittur ◽  
Murali Krishna Chatakonda ◽  
K S Gopi Sundar
Keyword(s):  
Species Richness ◽  
Species Abundance ◽  
Bird Species ◽  
Time Of Day ◽  
Conservation Priorities ◽  
Bird Abundance ◽  
Functional Guilds ◽  
Β Diversity ◽  
Functional Guild ◽  
Guild Composition

Abstract Urbanisation can limit species persistence and bias composition of functional guilds with serious consequences for ecosystem functioning and conservation planning. Standardised biodiversity surveys are missing at most tropical urban cities where biodiversity levels are high alongside rapidly increasing rates of urbanisation. We explored the utility of time-bound surveys to document winter birds at ponds (wetlands ≤ 5 ha) in Delhi, India at two different times of the day (morning and evening) and in areas with varying extents of wetlands. Systematic surveys at 39 ponds during January–March 2020 yielded an estimated 173 ± 22 bird species (∼37% of Delhi’s birds). The total bird species assemblage at ponds did not vary significantly with time of day, but β-diversity increased marginally with increasing extent of wetlands. Total bird abundance and species richness varied substantially with time of day, with differences apparent across several species rich functional feeding and habitat guilds. Abundance and species richness of some guilds, including species-poor guilds, varied in ponds located in areas with differing extent of wetlands. Reliable and comparable measures of species abundance and species richness (both total and across functional guilds)— metrics commonly used to set research and conservation priorities—in urban habitats can be obtained after appropriately standardising field effort. Such standardised efforts can help underscore the importance of maintaining and improving erstwhile-ignored habitats such as unprotected ponds that are providing refugia to hundreds of bird species in mega-cities like Delhi.

Global Biodiversity Conservation Priorities: An Expanded Review

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas M. Brooks ◽  
Russell A. Mittermeier ◽  
Gustavo A.B. da Fonseca ◽  
John F. Lamoreux ◽  
Cristina G. Mittermeier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Biodiversity Conservation ◽  
Conservation Priorities ◽  
Global Biodiversity

scholarly journals Global Biodiversity Conservation Priorities

Science ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 313 (5783) ◽  
pp. 58-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. M. Brooks ◽  
R. A. Mittermeier ◽  
G. A. B. da Fonseca ◽  
J. Gerlach ◽  
M. Hoffmann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Biodiversity Conservation ◽  
Conservation Priorities ◽  
Global Biodiversity

An updated assessment of human activities, the environment, and freshwater fish biodiversity in Canada

2015 ◽  
Vol 72 (1) ◽  
pp. 135-148 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cindy Chu ◽  
Charles K. Minns ◽  
Nigel P. Lester ◽  
Nicholas E. Mandrak
Keyword(s):  
British Columbia ◽  
Freshwater Fish ◽  
Human Activities ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Conservation Priorities ◽  
Anthropogenic Stress ◽  
South Central ◽  
Fish Biodiversity ◽  
Recent Climate ◽  
Conservation And Management

Changes in resource development and expansions of urban centres suggest that the intensity and types of anthropogenic stressors affecting Canada’s watersheds are changing. Chu et al. (2003) integrated indices of freshwater fish biodiversity, environmental conditions, and anthropogenic stress to identify priority watersheds for conservation and management. Here, we update those indices using recent climate and census data to assess changes through time. We also applied different conservation and management scenarios to evaluate the robustness of our prioritization approach. Between time periods, the environmental and stress indices expanded northward because of warmer temperatures at higher latitudes and more intense anthropogenic stress in the northern regions of the provinces. Conservation priorities increased in northern British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario but decreased in southern British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and south-central Quebec. Under multiple scenarios, conservation priorities were consistently highest in British Columbia, the Maritimes, southern Ontario, and southern Quebec. Future research to refine this assessment should focus on developing a nationwide georeferenced assessment of freshwater fisheries stress, quantifying spatial changes in the stressors, and evaluating the sensitivity of each index to the weighting of the individual variables. This work highlights the necessity for conservation and management strategies in Canada to keep pace with changing patterns in climate and human activities.

scholarly journals Optimizing Species Richness in Mosaic Landscapes: A Probabilistic Model of Species-Area Relationships

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ola Olsson ◽  
Mark V. Brady ◽  
Martin Stjernman ◽  
Henrik G. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Species Richness ◽  
Biodiversity Conservation ◽  
Optimal Allocation ◽  
Optimal Solution ◽  
Average Density ◽  
Agricultural Landscapes ◽  
Natural Habitats ◽  
Total Size ◽  
Α Diversity ◽  
Species Area

Most landscapes are comprised of multiple habitat types differing in the biodiversity they contain. This is certainly true for human modified landscapes, which are often a mix of habitats managed with different intensity, semi-natural habitats and even pristine habitats. To understand fundamental questions of how the composition of such landscapes affects biodiversity conservation, and to evaluate biodiversity consequences of policies that affect the composition of landscapes, there is a need for models able to translate information on biodiversity from individual habitats to landscape-wide predictions. However, this is complicated by species richness not being additive. We constructed a model to help analyze and solve this problem based on two simple assumptions. Firstly, that a habitat can be characterized by the biological community inhabiting it; i.e., which species occur and at what densities. Secondly, that the probability of a species occurring in a particular unit of land is dictated by its average density in the associated habitats, its spatial aggregation, and the size of the land unit. This model leads to a multidimensional species-area relation (one dimension per habitat). If the goal is to maximize species diversity at the landscape scale (γ-diversity), within a fixed area or under a limited budget, the model can be used to find the optimal allocation of the different habitats. In general, the optimal solution depends on the total size of the species pool of the different habitats, but also their similarity (β-diversity). If habitats are complementary (high β), a mix is usually preferred, even if one habitat is poorer (lower α diversity in one habitat). The model lends itself to economic analyses of biodiversity problems, without the need to monetarize biodiversity value, i.e., cost-effectiveness analysis. Land prices and management costs will affect the solution, such that the model can be used to estimate the number of species gained in relation to expenditure on each habitat. We illustrate the utility of the model by applying it to agricultural landscapes in southern Sweden and demonstrate how empirical monitoring data can be used to find the best habitat allocation for biodiversity conservation within and between landscapes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document