Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 18, Issue 5, pp 1259–1272 | Cite as

Rarity and site selection for bryophyte conservation

  • Des A. CallaghanEmail author
  • Paul A. Ashton
Original Paper


Sites that are particularly rich in rare species are of significant conservation value and there is consequently a need to ensure that they are highlighted by methods which aim to select sites for potential safeguarding. This study measures the value for rare bryophytes of 434 sites, located in South Lancashire, north-west England (UK). Using cluster analysis, these are split into three groups, representing high, moderate and low rarity value sites. Sub-sets of sites of equal total area were then created for hypothetical safeguarding using two of the many site selection methods in operation, one being a traditional criteria-based approach and the other a maximum-coverage algorithmic procedure. Both methods failed to choose all sites of high value for rare bryophytes, while the latter included substantially more smaller sites of moderate and low value. It seems that a threshold type criterion assessed against a composite and continuous measure of rarity has the potential to improve the selection of sites of substantive wildlife value. This is discussed in the context of the networks of Local Wildlife Sites and Sites of Special Scientific Interest in the UK.


Conservation planning Liverworts Mosses Range size Reserve selection RSW Site safeguarding 



Many thanks to the bryologists of the North West Naturalists’ Union, whose data have been used extensively in the present study. Thanks also to Mark O. Hill, John Lowell and Ron Porley for providing helpful comments on a draft of the manuscript.


  1. Abellan P, Sanchez-Fernandez D, Velasco J, Millan A (2005) Conservation of freshwater biodiversity: a comparison of different area selection methods. Biodivers Conserv 14:3457–3474. doi: 10.1007/s10531-004-0550-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arponen A, Heikkinen RK, Thomas CD, Moilanen A (2005) The value of biodiversity in reserve selection: representation, species weighting and benefit functions. Conserv Biol 19:2009–2014. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00218.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arponen A, Kondelin H, Moilanen A (2007) Area-based refinement for selection of reserve sites with the benefit-function approach. Conserv Biol 21:527–533. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00607.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blackstock TH, Rothero GP, Hill MO (2005) Census catalogue of British and Irish bryophytes updated 2005. Cited 10 Mar 2008
  5. Brooks TM, Bakarr MI, Boucher T, da Fonseca GAB, Hilton-Taylor C, Hoekstra JM, Moritz T, Olivieri S, Parrish J, Pressey RL, Rodrigues ASL, Sechrest W, Stattersfield A, Strahm W, Stuart SN (2004) Coverage provided by the global protected-area system: is it enough? Bioscience 54:1081–1091. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[1081:CPBTGP]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biological Heritage Sites Partnership (1998) Biological Heritage Sites: guidelines for site selection. Lancashire County Council, PrestonGoogle Scholar
  7. Cabeza M, Moilanen A (2003) Site-selection algorithms and habitat loss. Conserv Biol 17:1402–1413. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01421.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Callaghan DA, Ashton PA (2008) Attributes of rarity in a regional bryophyte assemblage. J Bryol (in press)Google Scholar
  9. Church JM, Hodgetts NG, Preston CD, Stewart NF (2001) British red data books: mosses and liverworts. Joint Nature Conservation Council, PeterboroughGoogle Scholar
  10. Department for Environment, Food, Rural Affairs (2006) Local sites: guidance on their identification selection and management. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. European Committee for the Conservation of Bryophytes (1995) Red data book of European bryophytes. European Committee for the Conservation of Bryophytes, TrondheimGoogle Scholar
  12. Eken G, Bennun L, Brooks TM, Darwall W, Fishpool LDC, Foster M, Knox D, Langhammer P, Matiku P, Radford E, Salaman P, Sechrest W, Smith ML, Spector S, Tordoff A (2004) Key biodiversity areas as site conservation targets. Bioscience 54:1110–1118. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[1110:KBAASC]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fowler SV, Lawton JH (1982) The effect of host-plant distribution and local abundance on the species richness of agromyzid flies attacking British umbellifers. Ecol Entomol 7:257–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gaston KJ (1994) Rarity. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Gaston KJ (1997) What is rarity? In: Kunin WE, Gaston KJ (eds) The biology of rarity: causes and consequences of rare-common differences. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 30–47Google Scholar
  16. Higgins CL, Willig MR, Strauss RE (2006) The role of stochastic processes in producing nested patterns of species distributions. Oikos 114:159–167. doi: 10.1111/j.2006.0030-1299.14720.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hill MO, Preston CD (1998) The geographical relationships of British and Irish bryophytes. J Bryol 20:127–226Google Scholar
  18. Hill MO, Preston CD, Smith AJE (eds) (1991–1994) Atlas of the bryophytes of Britain and Ireland, vols 1–3. Harley, ColchersterGoogle Scholar
  19. Hodgetts NG (1992) Guidelines for the selection of biological SSSIs: non-vascular plants. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, PeterboroughGoogle Scholar
  20. Holyoak DT, Pederson N (2007) Conflicting molecular and morphological evidence of evolution within the Bryaceae (Bryopsida) and its implications for generic taxonomy. J Bryol 29:111–124. doi: 10.1179/174328207X189198 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kaufman L, Rousseeuw PJ (2005) Finding groups in data: an introduction to cluster analysis. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  22. Kennedy CEJ, Southwood TRE (1984) The number of species of insects associated with British trees: a re-analysis. J Anim Ecol 53:455–478. doi: 10.2307/4528 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kershaw M, Williams PH, Mace GM (1994) Conservation of Afrotropical antelopes: consequences and efficiency of using different site selection methods and diversity criteria. Biodivers Conserv 3:354–372. doi: 10.1007/BF00056508 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kershaw M, Mace GM, Williams PH (1995) Threatened status, rarity and diversity as alternative selection measures for protected areas: a test using Afrotropical antelopes. Conserv Biol 9:324–334. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1995.9020324.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kunin WE, Gaston KJ (eds) (1997) The biology of rarity: causes and consequences of rare-common differences. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. MacArthur RH, Wilson EO (1967) The theory of island biogeography. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  27. Maechler M, Rousseeuw P, Struyf A, Hubert M (2005) Cluster: analysis basics and extensions. Available via R.
  28. Moilanen A (2006) RSW software: reserve selection with weights. University of Helsinki, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  29. Moilanen A (2007) Landscape zonation, benefit functions and target-based planning: unifying reserve selection strategies. Biol Conserv 134:571–579. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.09.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. O’Dea N, Araújo MB, Whittaker RJ (2006) How well do important bird areas represent species and minimize conservation conflict in the tropical Andes? Divers Distrib 12:205–214. doi: 10.1111/j.1366-9516.2006.00235.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pressey RL (1994) Ad hoc reservations—forward or backward steps in developing representative reserve systems. Conserv Biol 8:662–668. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1994.08030662.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pressey RL, Cowling RM (2001) Reserve selection algorithms and the real world. Conserv Biol 15:275–277. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.99541.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Preston CD (2006) A revised list of nationally scarce bryophytes. Field Bryol 90:22–30Google Scholar
  34. R Development Core Team (2007) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  35. Ratcliffe DA (1989) Guidelines for the selection of biological SSSIs. The Nature Conservancy Council, PeterboroughGoogle Scholar
  36. Thompson K, Hodgson JG, Gaston KJ (1998) Abundance-range size relationships in the herbaceous flora of central England. J Ecol 86:439–448. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2745.1998.00264.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Usher MB (1986) Wildlife conservation evaluation: attributes, criteria and values. In: Usher MB (ed) Wildlife conservation evaluation. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 3–44Google Scholar
  38. Virolainen KM, Virola T, Suhonen J, Kuitunen M, Lammi A, Siikamäki P (1999) Selecting networks of nature reserves: methods do affect the long-term outcome. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B 266:1141–1146. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1999.0755 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Williams PH (2000) WORLDMAP iv WINDOWS: software and help document 4.2. Privately distributed, LondonGoogle Scholar
  40. Williams PH, Moore JL, Toham AK, Brooks TM, Strand H, D’Amico J, Wisz M, Burgess ND, Balmford A, Rahbek C (2003) Integrating biodiversity priorities with conflicting socio-economic values in the Guinean-Congolian forest region. Biodivers Conserv 12:1297–1320. doi: 10.1023/A:1023092100942 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Edge Hill UniversityOrmskirkUK

Personalised recommendations