Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T08:54:08.106Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - A plea for quantitative targets in biodiversity conservation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Marc-André Villard
Affiliation:
Université de Moncton, Canada
Bengt Gunnar Jonsson
Affiliation:
Sweden University, Sweden
Marc-André Villard
Affiliation:
Université de Moncton, Canada
Bengt Gunnar Jonsson
Affiliation:
Mid-Sweden University, Sweden
Get access

Summary

Ecological degradation is both ubiquitous and relentless. Human activities have left a footprint even in the most remote locations. Some species benefit from certain forms of degradation whereas many others are expected to decline to extinction under current or increasing land-use intensity (Vitousek et al. 1997; Norris and Pain 2002). While the optimal allocation of conservation efforts and funding at the global scale is being debated (Myers et al. 2000; Balmford et al. 2002; O'Connor et al. 2003; Lamoreux et al. 2006), target setting at the landscape scale should be viewed as equally important because, for many taxa, this is the scale over which most human activities take place and management regulations are applied. A landscape can be defined as a mosaic of habitat types whose extent reflects the perspective of target species or taxa (Wiens et al. 2002). However, it should be noted that this organism-centered perspective of the landscape must interact with human perception and action. Forest managers perceive the landscape as that of the “forest” or “forest management unit”, which may cover hundreds of square kilometers.

The landscapes we tend to envision when considering human activities such as timber harvesting or agriculture may match those perceived by many birds and mammals, but not those over which the dynamics of most species (e.g. plants and insects) take place. With the exception of some mega-projects, most human activities tend to alter relatively small patches (e.g. a forest stand or a field).

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andrén, H. 1992. Corvid populations and nest predation in relation to forest fragmentation – a landscape perspective. Ecology 73:794–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Apollonio, M., Festa-Bianchet, M., Mari, F., Bruno, E. and Locati, M.. 1998. Habitat manipulation modifies lek use in fallow deer. Ethology 104:603–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balmford, A., Bruner, A., Cooper, P.et al. 2002. Ecology-economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science 297:950–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beissinger, S. R. and McCullough, D. R. (eds.) 2002. Population Viability Analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bengtsson, J., Angelstam, P., Elmqvist, Tet al. 2003. Reserves, resilience and dynamic landscapes. Ambio 32:389–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berg, Å., Gardenfors, U., Hallingback, T. and Noren, M.. 2002. Habitat preferences of red-listed fungi and bryophytes in woodland key habitats in southern Sweden – analyses of data from a national survey. Biodiversity and Conservation 11:1479–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cushman, S. A. and McGarigal, K.. 2004. Hierarchical analysis of forest bird species-environment relationships in the Oregon Coast Range. Ecological Applications 14:1090–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrlich, P. R. and Murphy, D. D.. 1987. Conservation lessons from long-term studies of checkerspot butterflies. Conservation Biology 1:122–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandez, N. and Palomares, F.. 2000. The selection of breeding dens by the endangered Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus): implications for its conservation. Biological Conservation 94:51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankel, O. H. and Soulé, M. E.. 1981. Conservation and Evolution. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hanowski, J. M., Christian, D. P. and Niemi, G. J.. 2000. Landscape requirements of prairie sharp-tailed grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus campestris in Minnesota, USA. Wildlife Biology 6:257–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanski, I. and Heino, M.. 2003. Metapopulation-level adaptation of insect host plant preference and extinction-colonization dynamics in heterogeneous landscapes. Theoretical Population Biology 64:281–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hanski, I. and Singer, M. C.. 2001. Extinction-colonization dynamics and host-plant choice in butterfly metapopulations. American Naturalist 158:341–53.Google ScholarPubMed
Helle, P., Helle, T. and Linden, H.. 1994. Capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus) lekking sites in fragmented Finnish forest landscape. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 9:386–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoyt, J. S. and Hannon, S. J.. 2002. Habitat associations of black-backed and three-toed woodpeckers in the boreal forest of Alberta. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 32:1881–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacquemyn, H., Butaye, B. and Hermy, M.. 2001. Forest plant species richness in small, fragmented mixed deciduous forest patches: the role of area, time and dispersal limitation. Journal of Biogeography 28:801–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamoreux, J. F., Morrison, J. C., Ricketts, T. H.et al. 2006. Global tests of biodiversity concordance and the importance of endemism. Nature 440:212–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leopold, A. 1933. Game Management. New York, NY: Scribners.Google Scholar
Lindenmayer, D. B. and Franklin, J. F.. 2002. Conserving Forest Biodiversity: A Comprehensive Multiscaled Approach. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
Margules, C. R. and Pressey, R. L.. 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marshall, K. and Edwards-Jones, G.. 1998. Reintroducing Capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus) into southern Scotland: identification of minimum viable populations at potential release sites. Biodiversity and Conservation 7:275–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, K., Aitken, K. E. N. and Wiebe, K. L.. 2004. Nest sites and nest webs for cavity-nesting communities in interior British Columbia, Canada: nest characteristics and niche partitioning. Condor 106:5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazerolle, M. J. and Villard, M.-A.. 1999. Patch characteristics and landscape context as predictors of species presence and abundance: a review. Ecoscience 6:117–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McHarg, I. L. 1969. Design with Nature. Garden City, NY: The American Museum of Natural History: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Merriam, G. 1984. Connectivity: a fundamental ecological characteristic of landscape pattern. Pp. 5–15 in Brandt, J. and Agger, P. (eds.) Proceedings of the First International Seminar on Methodology in Landscape Ecological Research and Planning. Roskilde, Denmark: International Association for Landscape Ecology.Google Scholar
Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., Fonseca, G. A. B. da and Kent, J.. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Naiman, R. J. and Décamps, H.. 1997. The ecology of interfaces: riparian zones. Annual Reviews of Ecology and Systematics 28:621–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nappi, A., Drapeau, P., Giroux, J.-F. and Savard, J.-P. L.. 2003. Snag use by foraging black-backed woodpeckers (Picoides arcticus) in a recently burned eastern boreal forest. Auk 120:505–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nilsson, M.-C. and Wardle, D. A.. 2005. Understory vegetation as a forest ecosystem driver: evidence from the northern Swedish boreal forest. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3:421–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, K. and Pain, D. (eds.) 2002. Conserving Bird Biodiversity: General Principles and their Application. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
O'Connor, C., Marvier, M. and Kareiva, P.. 2003. Biological vs. social, economic and political priority-setting in conservation. Ecology Letters 6:706–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paivinen, J., Ahlroth, P., Kaitala, V.et al. 2003. Species richness and regional distribution of myrmecophilous beetles. Oecologia 134:587–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perera, A. H., Buse, L. J. and Weber, M. G.. 2004. Emulating Natural Forest Landscape Disturbances: Concepts and Applications. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Ricketts, T. 2001. The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. American Naturalist 158:87–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robinson, S. K., Thompson, F. R., Donovan, T. M., Whitehead, D. R. and Faaborg, J.. 1995. Regional forest fragmentation and the nesting success of migratory birds. Science 267:1987–990.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Venier, L. A. and Fahrig, L.. 1996. Habitat availability causes the species-abundance relationship. Oikos 76:564–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verheyen, K., Honnay, O., Motzkin, G., Hermy, M. and Foster, D. R.. 2003. Response of forest plant species to land-use change: a life-history trait-based approach. Journal of Ecology 91:563–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vitousek, P. M., Mooney, H. A., Lubchenco, J. and Melillo, J. M.. 1997. Human domination of Earth's ecosystems. Science 277:494–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitford, K. R. and Williams, M. R.. 2002. Hollows in jarrah (Eucalyptus marginata) and marri (Corymbia calophylla) trees. II. Selecting trees to retain for hollow dependent fauna. Forest Ecology and Management 160:215–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiens, J. A., Horne, B. and Noon, B. R.. 2002. Integrating landscape structure and scale into natural resource management. Pp. 23–67 in Liu, J. and Taylor, W. W. (eds.) Integrating Landscape Ecology into Natural Resource Management. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×