Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Influence of scale on conservation priority setting – a test on African mammals

  • Published:
Biodiversity & Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Broad-scale priority regions for conservation can be identified usingdatabases on species distribution through the application of site-selectionalgorithms. However, the influence of scale on large-scale priority setting isstill unclear. Using a data set of all 939 sub-Saharan mammal species,we wanted to know if continental conservation priorities derived at the scales of 1°, 2°,4° and 8° latitude–longitude grid cells are consistent. We testedwhether (1) geographical location of minimum sets were nested across scale, (2)the selection sequence (priority) of areas within a minimum set were scaledependent, and (3) these coarse-scale priorities can act as a cost-effectiveshortcut for the identification of fine-scale priorities. We found that minimumsets at smaller scales were largely represented within minimum sets at largerscales, especially when flexibility was considered. However, the geographicallocation of the grid cells with highest priority in the minimum sets was onlyscale independent if ranked by number of endangered species, total speciesrichness or rare quartile species richness, but surprisingly not bycomplementary species richness. Minimum sets at a 1° scale were generallyidentified within the areas of the 2°, 4° and 8° minimum sets.Therefore, coarse-scale priorities may provide a pragmatic basis for immediateassessment of priorities for conservation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Balmford A., Brooks T., Burgess N., Corsi F., Hansen L., Lovett J. et al. 2000. Applications in conservation with Conservation International (CI): quantitative methods at the Upper Guinea region priority-setting workshop. http://www.nhm.ac.uk/science/projects/worldmap/priority/ghana.htm.

  • Balmford A., Moore J.L., Brooks T., Burgess N., Hansen L.A., Williams P. et al. 2001. Conservation conflicts across Africa. Science 291: 2616–2619.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks T., Balmford A., Burgess N., Fjeldså J., Hansen L.A., Moore J. et al. 2001. Toward a blueprint for conservation in Africa. BioScience 51: 613–624.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgess N.D., de Klerk H., Fjeldså J., Crowe T.M. and Rahbek C. 2000. A preliminary assessments of congruence between biodiversity patterns in Afrotropical forest mammals and forest birds. Ostrich 71: 286–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgess N.D., Fjeldså J. and Rahbek C. 1998. Mapping the distributions of Afrotropical vertebrate groups. Species 30: 16–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgess N.D., Rahbek C., Larsen F.W., Williams P.H. and Balmford A. 2002. How much of the vertebrate diversity of sub-Saharan Africa is catered for by recent conservation proposals? Biological Conservation 107: 327–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • da Fonseca G., Balmford A., Bibby C., Boitani L., Corsi F., Brooks T. et al. 2000. Following Africa's lead in setting priorities. Nature 405: 393–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erasmus B.F.N., Freitag S., Gaston K.J., Erasmus B.H. and van Jaarsveld A.S. 1999. Scale and conservation planning in the real world. Proceedings of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences 266: 315–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fjeldså J. and Rahbek C. 1997. Species richness and endemism in South American birds: implications for the design of networks of nature reserves. In: Laurance W.F. and Bierregaard R.O. (eds), Tropical Forest Remnants: Ecology, Management and Conservation of Fragmented Communities. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, pp. 466–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fjeldså J. and Rahbek C. 1998. Continent-wide conservation priorities and diversification processes. In: Mace G.M., Balmford A. and Ginsberg J.R. (eds), Conservation in a Changing World. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 139–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaston K.J. 1994. Rarity. Chapman & Hall, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glowka L., Burhenne-Guilmin F., Synge H., McNeely J.A. and Günding L. 1994. A Guide to the Convention on Biological Diversity. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin P.C. 1999. Endangered species diversity 'hot spots' in Russia and centers of endemism. Biodiversity and Conservation 8: 497–511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacker J., Cowlishaw G. and Williams P.H. 1998. Patterns of African primate diversity and their evaluation for the selection of conservation areas. Biological Conservation 84: 251–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard P.C., Viskanic P., Davenport T.R.B., Kegenyi F.W., Baltzer M., Dickinson C.J. et al. 1998. Complementarity and the use of indicator groups for reserve selection in Uganda. Nature 394: 472–475.

    Google Scholar 

  • IUCN 1996. 1996 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kershaw M., Mace G.M. and Williams P.H. 1995. Threatened status, rarity and diversity as alternative selection measures for protected areas: a test using Afrotropical antelopes. Conservation Biology 9: 324–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kershaw M., Williams P.H. and Mace G.M. 1994. Conservation of Afrotropical antelopes: conse-quences and efficiency of using different site selection methods and diversity criteria. Biodiversity and Conservation 3: 354–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kress W.J., Heyer W.R., Acevedo P., Coddington J., Cole D., Erwin T.L. et al. 1998. Amazonian biodiversity: assessing conservation priorities with taxonomic data. Biodiversity and Conservation 7: 1577–1587.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lund M.P. and Rahbek C. 2002. Cross-taxon congruence in complementarity and conservation of temperate biodiversity. Animal Conservation 5: 163–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lombard A.T. 1995. The problems with multi-species conservation: do hotspots, ideal reserves and existing reserves coincide? South African Journal of Zoology 30: 145–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mace G.M., Balmford A., Boitani L., Cowlishaw G., Dobson A.P., Faith D.P. et al. 2000. From hotspots to conservation consensus. Nature 405: 393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margules C.R., Nicholls A.O. and Pressey R.L. 1988. Selecting networks of reserves to maximise biological diversity. Biological Conservation 43: 63–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • May R.M. 1999. The dimensions of life on Earth. In: Raven P.H. and Williams T. (eds), Nature and Human Society: The Quest for a Sustainable World. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp. 30–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mittermeier R.A., Myers M., Gil P.R. and Mittermeier C.G. 1999. Hotspots: Earth's Biologically Richest and Most Endangered Terrestrial Ecoregions. Cemex, Conservation International and Agrupacion Sierra Madre, Monterrey, Mexico.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore J.L., Balmford A., Brooks T., Burgress N.D., Hansen L.A., Rahbek C. et al. 2002. The performance of sub-Saharan African vertebrates as indicator groups for conservation priority setting. Biological Conservation (submitted).

  • Olson D.M. and Dinerstein E. 1998. The Global 200: a representation approach to conserving the earth's most biologically valuable ecoregions. Conservation Biology 12: 502–515.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson D.L. and Caroll S.S. 1999. The influence of spatial scale on cross-taxon congruence patterns and prediction accuracy of species richness. Journal of Biogeography 26: 1079–1090.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prendergast J.R., Quinn R.M., Lawton J.H., Eversham B.C. and Gibbons W. 1993. Rare species, the coincidence of diversity hotspots and conservation strategies. Nature 365: 335–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressey R.L. and Logan V.S. 1998. Size of selection units for future reserves and its influence on actual vs targeted representation of features: a case study in western New South Wales. Biological Conservation 85: 305–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressey R.L., Humphries C.J., Margules C.R., Vane-Wright R.I. and Williams P.H. 1993. Beyond opportunism: key principles for systematic reserve selection. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8: 124–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahbek C. and Graves G.R. 2000. Detection of macroecological patterns in South American hummingbirds is affected by spatial scale. Proceedings of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences 267: 2259–2265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahbek C. and Graves G.R. 2001. Multiscale assessment of patterns of avian species richness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 98: 4534–4539.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reid W.V. 1998. Biodiversity hotspots. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 7: 275–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reyers B., van Jaarsveld A.S. and Krüger M. 2000. Complementarity as a biodiversity indicator strategy. Proceedings of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences 267: 505–513.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stattersfield A.J., Crosby M.J., Long A.J. and Wege D.C. 1998. Endemic Bird Areas of the World: Priorities for Biodiversity Conservation BirdLife Conservation Series No. 7. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoms D.M. 1994. Scale dependence of species richness maps. Professional Geographer 45: 346–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams P.H. 1998. Key sites for conservation: area-selection methods for biodiversity. In: Mace G.M., Balmford A. and Ginsberg J.R. (eds), Conservation in a Changing World. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 221–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams P.H. 1999. WORLDMAP 4 WINDOWS: Software and help document 4.1. London: distributed privately and from http://www.nhm.ac.uk/science/projects/worldmap.

  • Williams P.H. 2000. Complementarity. In: Levin S.A. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Biodiversity Vol. 1. Academic Press, New York, pp. 813–829.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams P.H., Burgess N. and Rahbek C. 1999. Assessing large 'flagship species' for representing the diversity of sub-Saharan mammals. In: Entwistle A. and Dunstone N. (eds), Has the Panda had its Day? Future Priorities for the Conservation of Mammalian Biodiversity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 85–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams P.H., Burgess N.D. and Rahbek C. 2000. Flagship species, ecological complementarity and conserving the diversity of mammals and birds in sub-Saharan Africa. Animal Conservation 3: 249–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willig M.R. and Lyons S.K. 1998. An analytical model of latitude gradients of species richness with an empirical test for marsupials and bats in the New World. Oikos 81: 93–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson D.E. and Reeder D.M. 1993. Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. 2nd edn. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zar J.H. 1996. Biostatistical Analysis. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Frank Wugt Larsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carsten Rahbek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Larsen, F.W., Rahbek, C. Influence of scale on conservation priority setting – a test on African mammals. Biodiversity and Conservation 12, 599–614 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022448928753

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022448928753

Search

Navigation