Article (Scientific journals)
Hotspots, complementarity or representativeness? Designing optimal small-scale reserves for biodiversity conservation
Kati, V.; Devillers, P.; Dufrêne, Marc et al.
2004In Biological Conservation, 120 (4), p. 471-480
Peer Reviewed verified by ORBi
 

Files


Full Text
Kati et al 2004 Hotspots complementarity or representativeness.pdf
Publisher postprint (204.44 kB)
Request a copy

All documents in ORBi are protected by a user license.

Send to



Details



Keywords :
Biodiversity; Complementarity; Conservation; Ecological networking; Reserve design; Dadia Forest Reserve; Eastern Hemisphere; Eastern Macedonia and Thrace; Eurasia; Europe; Evros; Greece; Southern Europe; World; Aves; Orchidaceae; Orthoptera
Abstract :
[en] Reserve networks are a major tool of ecological management aiming at biodiversity conservation. Maximizing the number of species conserved with the minimum land sacrifice is a primary requirement in reserve design. In this study, we examine the efficiency of five different scenarios to conserve: (i) the biodiversity of one target group and (ii) the overall biodiversity of an area. The study was conducted in Dadia Reserve, in northern Greece. Six groups of species were selected to represent its biodiversity: woody plants, orchids, Orthoptera, aquatic and terrestrial herpetofauna, and small terrestrial birds. The scenarios examined represent different conservation approaches to select network sites. For each approach, the starting point was one of the above six groups of species, considered as the target group. In scenario A, which reflects the hotspot approach, the sites richest in species are selected. Scenario B selects the sites most complementary in terms of species richness. The next two scenarios use the principle of environmental representativeness, expressed in terms of habitat (scenario C) or vegetation (scenario D). Under scenario E, sites forming the network are selected at random. The rank of scenarios in terms of preserving the species of the target group was always B>A>C>D>E, irrespective of the group considered as target group. Their rank, when preservation of the total biodiversity was the issue, was B, A>C, D>E. © 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Disciplines :
Environmental sciences & ecology
Author, co-author :
Kati, V.;  Dept. Environ. and Nat. Rsrc. Mgmt., University of Ioannina, Seferi 2, 30100, Agrinio, Greece
Devillers, P.;  Inst. Roy. Sci. Naturelles Belgique, Sect. de Biologie de la Conservation, Rue Vautier 29, B-1000, Bruxelles, Belgium
Dufrêne, Marc  ;  Université de Liège - ULiège > Forêts, Nature et Paysage > Biodiversité et Paysage
Legakis, A.;  Department of Biology, University of Athens, Zoological Mus., P., Athens, Greece
Vokou, D.;  Department of Ecology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, School of Biology, UPB 119 54124, Thessaloniki, Greece
Lebrun, Philippe
Language :
English
Title :
Hotspots, complementarity or representativeness? Designing optimal small-scale reserves for biodiversity conservation
Publication date :
2004
Journal title :
Biological Conservation
ISSN :
0006-3207
Publisher :
Elsevier Science, Oxford, United Kingdom
Volume :
120
Issue :
4
Pages :
471-480
Peer reviewed :
Peer Reviewed verified by ORBi
Available on ORBi :
since 24 March 2013

Statistics


Number of views
48 (7 by ULiège)
Number of downloads
2 (2 by ULiège)

Scopus citations®
 
103
Scopus citations®
without self-citations
98
OpenCitations
 
91

Bibliography


Similar publications



Contact ORBi