Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 113–135 | Cite as

Differences in Characteristics of Reserve Network Selection Using Population Data Versus Habitat Surrogates

  • Michael AltmoosEmail author
  • Klaus Henle


The use of species data versus environmental surrogates used in lieu of species data in systematic reserve site selection is still highly debated. We analyse in a case study whether and how the results of reserve network selection are affected by the use of species data versus habitat surrogates (habitat models) for qualitative (presence/absence) and quantitative (population size/habitat quality) information. In a model region, the post-mining landscape south of Leipzig/Germany, we used iterative algorithms to select a network for 29 animal target species from a basic set of 127 sites. The network results differ markedly for the two information types: depending on the representation goal, 18–45% of the selected sites chosen in response to one information type do not appear in the results for the other type. Given the availability of quantitative and hence deeper information, evaluation rules can be used to filter out the best habitats and the largest populations. In our model study, 0–40% less suitable areas were selected when instead of quantitative details only qualitative data were used. In view of various advantages and limitations of the two information types, we propose improving the methodological approach to the selection of networks for animal species by combining different information types.


Reserve network Selection methods Data type Iterative algorithm Biodiversity conservation Species conservation Habitat models Species abundance 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Altmoos M (1999a) Networks of priority areas — a methodological framework for planning and optimisation of area systems for nature conservation. Natur Landschaftsplan 31:357–367 (in German with English title and summary)Google Scholar
  2. Altmoos M (1999b) Systeme von Vorranggebieten für den Tierarten-, Biotop- und Prozeßschutz. UFZ-Ber 18/1999:1–252Google Scholar
  3. Araújo MB, Williams PH (2000) Selecting areas for species persistence using occurrence data. Biol Conserv 96:331–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Araújo MB, Humphries CJ, Densham PJ, Lampinen R, Hagemeijer WJM, Mitchell-Jones AJ, Gasc JP (2001) Would environmental diversity be a good surrogate for species diversity? Ecography 24:103–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Belbin I (1993) Environmental representativeness: regional partitioning and reserve selection. Biol Cons 66:223–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bibby CJ (1998) Selecting areas for conservation. In: Sutherland WJ (ed) Conservation science and action. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 176–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brändle M, Durka W, Altmoos M (2000) Diversity of surface dwelling beetle assemblages in open-cast lignite mines in Central Germany. Biodivers Conserv 9:1297–1311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brooks T, da Fonseca GAB, Rodrigues ASL (2004a) Protected areas and species. Conserv Biol 18:616–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brooks T, da Fonseca GAB, Rodrigues ASL (2004b) Species, data, and conservation planning. Conserv Biol 18:1682–1688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cabeza M, Moilanen A (2003) Site-selection algorithms and habitat loss. Conserv Biol 17:1402–1413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Caughley G (1980) Analysis of vertebrate populations. John Wiley, Chichester New York & BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  12. Church RL, Stoms DM, Davis FW (1996) Reserve selection as a maximal covering location problem. Biol Conserv 76:105–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cowling RM, Knight AT, Faith DP, Ferrier S, Lombard AT, Driver A, Rouget M, Maze K, Desmet PG (2004) Nature conservation requires more than a passion for species. Conserv Biol 18:1674–1676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fahrig L (2001) How much habitat is enough? Biol Conserv 100:65–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fairbanks DHK, Reyers B, Van Jaarsfeld AS (2001) Species and environment representation: selecting reserves for the retention of avian diversity in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Biol Conserv 98:365–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ferris R, Humphrey JW (1999) A review of potential biodiversity indicators for application in British forests. Forestry 72:313–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frank K, Berger U (1996) Metapopulation und Biotopverbund – eine kritische Betrachtung aus der Sicht der Modellierung. Zeitschrift Ökol Natur 5:151–160Google Scholar
  18. Freitag S, Van Jaarsfeld AS, Biggs HC (1997) Ranking priority biodiversity areas: an iterative conservation value-based approach. Biological Conservation 82:263–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Freitag S, Nicholls AO, Van Jaarsveld AS (1998) Dealing with established reserve networks and incomplete distribution data sets in conservation planning. S Afr J Sci 94:79–86Google Scholar
  20. Gaston KJ, Rodrigues ASL (2003) Reserve selection in regions with poor biological data. Conserv Biol 17:188–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hanski I (1999) Metapopulation ecology. University Press, Oxford, pp 313Google Scholar
  22. Henle K, Vogel B, Köhler G, Settele J (1999) Erfassung und Analyse von Populationsparametern bei Tieren. In: Amler K, Bahl A, Henle K, Kaule G, Poschlod P, Settele J (eds) Populationsbiologie in der Naturschutzpraxis. Isolation, Flächenbedarf und Biotopansprüche von Pflanzen und Tieren. E. Ulmer, Stuttgart, pp 94–112Google Scholar
  23. Henle K, Sarre S, Wiegand K (2004) The role of density regulation in extinction processes and population viability analysis. Biodivers Conserv 13:9–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Higgins JV, Ricketts TH, Parrish JD, Dinerstein E, Powell G, Palminteri S, Hoekstra JM, Morrison J, Tomasek A, Adams J (2004) Beyond Noah: saving species is not enough. Conserv Biol 18:1672–1673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jongman RHG (1995) Nature conservation planning in Europe: developing ecological networks. Landsc Urban Plan 32:169–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kiester AR, Scott JM, Csuti B, Noss RF, Butterfield B, Sahr K, White D (1996) Conservation prioritization using GAP data. Conserv Biol 10:1332–1342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kleyer M, Kratz R, Lutze G, Schröder B (2000) Habitatmodelle für Tierarten: Entwicklung, Methoden und Perspektiven für die Anwendung. Zeitschrift Ökol Natur 8:177–194Google Scholar
  28. Kliskey AD, Lofroth EC, Thompson WA, Brown S, Schreier H (1999) Simulating and evaluating alternative resource-use strategies using GIS-based habitat suitability indices. Landsc Urban Plan 45:163–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lombard AT, Cowling RM, Pressey RL, Rebelo AG (2003) Effectiveness of land classes as surrogates for species in conservation planning for the Cape Floristic Region. Biol Conserv 112:45–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Margules CR, Pressey RL (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243–253CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Margules CR, Nicholls AO, Pressey RL (1988) Selecting networks of reserves to maximise biological biodiversity. Biol Conserv 43:63–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Margules CR, Cresswell ID, Nicholls AO (1994) A scientific basis for establishing networks of protected areas. Syst Conserv Eval 50:327–350Google Scholar
  33. McArdle BH (1990) When are rare species not there? Oikos 57:276–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Meggs JM, Munks SA, Corkrey R, Richards K (2004) Development and evaluation of predictive habitat models to assist the conservation planning of a threatened lucanid beetle, Hoplogonus simsoni, in north-east Tasmania. Biol Conserv 118:501–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Molnar J, Marvier M, Kareiva P (2004) The sum is greater than the parts. Conserv Biol 18:1670–1671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Morrison ML, Marcot BG, Mannan RW (1998) Wildlife—habitat relationships—concepts and applications. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, pp 435Google Scholar
  37. Pearce J, Ferrier S, Scotts D (2001) An evaluation of the predictive performance of distributional models for flora and fauna in north-east New South Wales. J Environ Manage 62:171–184CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Polasky S, Solow AR (2001) The value of information in reserve site selection. Biodivers Conserv 10:1051–1058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Polasky S, Camm JD, Solow AR, Csuti B, White D, Ding R (2000) Choosing reserve networks with incomplete species information. Biol Conserv 94:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Posillico M, Meriggi A, Pagnin E, Lovari S, Russo L (2004) A habitat model for brown bear conservation and land use planning in the central Apennines. Biol Conserv 118:141–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pressey RL (2004) Conservation planning and biodiversity: assembling the best data for the job. Conserv Biol 18:1677–1681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pressey RL, Nicholls AO (1989) Efficiency in conservation evaluation: scoring versus iterative approaches. Biol Conserv 50:199–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pressey RL, Possingham HP, Margules CR (1996) Optimality in reserve selection algorithms: when does it matter how much? Biol Conserv 76:259–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pulliam HR, Danielson BJ (1991) Sources, sinks, and habitat selection: a landscape perspective on population dynamics. Am Nat 137:50–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pulliam HR (1996) Sources and sinks: empirical evidence and population consequences. In: Rhodes OE, Chesser RK, Smith MH (eds) Population dynamics in space and time. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London, pp 45–69Google Scholar
  46. Reich M, Grimm V (1996) Das Metapopulationskonzept in Ökologie und Naturschutz: Eine kritische Bestandsaufnahme. Zeitschrift Ökol Natur 5:123–139Google Scholar
  47. Rodrigues ASL, Gaston KJ, Gregory R (2000a) Using presence–absence data to establish reserve selection procedures which are robust to temporal species turnover. Proc R Soc Lond., Ser B 267:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rodrigues ASL, Gaston KJ, Gregory R (2000b) Robustness of reserve selection procedures under temporal species turnover. Proc R Soc Lond., Ser B 267:49–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sætersdal M, Gjerde I, Blom HH, Ihlen PG, Myrseth EW, Pommeresche R, Skartveit J, Solhoy T, Aas O (2004) Vascular plants as a surrogate species group in complementary site selection for bryophytes, macrolichens, spiders, carabids, staphylinids, snails, and wood living polypore fungi in a northern forest. Biol Conserv 115:21–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schulz F, Wiegleb G (2000) Development options of natural habitats in a post-mining landscape. Land Degrad Develop 11:99–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Scott JM, Csuti B, Jacobi JD, Estes JE (1987) Species richness: A geographic approach to protecting future biological diversity. BioScience 37:782–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Settele J, Feldmann R, Henle K, Kockelke K, Poethke H-J (1998) Populationsgrößenschätzung bei Tieren. Ausgewählte Verfahren für den Einsatz in Populationsökologie und Naturschutz. Natur Landschaft 30:174–181Google Scholar
  53. Shafer CL (1999) National park and reserve planning to protect biological diversity: some basic elements. Landsc Urban Plan 44:123–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Shafer CL (1987) Minimum viable populations: coping with uncertainty. In: Soulé ME (eds) Viable populations for conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 69–86Google Scholar
  55. Shafer CL (2001) Inter-reserve distance. Biol Conserv 100:215–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Suchant R, Baritz R, Braunisch V (2003) Wildlife habitat analysis – a multidimensional habitat management model. J Nat conserv 10:253–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Underhill LG (1994) Optimal and suboptimal reserve selection algorithms. Biol Conserv 70:85–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ward TJ, Vanderklift MA, Nicholls AO, Kenchington RA (1999) Selecting marine reserves using habitats and species assemblages as surrogates for biological diversity. Ecol Appl 9:691–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wessels KJ, Freitag S, Van Jaarsfeld AS (1999) The use of land facets as biodiversity surrogates during reserve selection at a local scale. Biol Conserv 89:21–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Conservation BiologyUFZ – Centre for Environmental Research Leipzig-HalleLeipzigGermany
  2. 2.WeinolsheimGermany

Personalised recommendations