Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 20, Issue 5, pp 1057–1072 | Cite as

Effects of species turnover on reserve site selection in a fragmented landscape

  • Birgit FelinksEmail author
  • Renata Pardini
  • Marianna Dixo
  • Klaus Follner
  • Jean P. Metzger
  • Klaus Henle
Original Paper


Changes in species composition is an important process in many ecosystems but rarely considered in systematic reserve site selection. To test the influence of temporal variability in species composition on the establishment of a reserve network, we compared network configurations based on species data of small mammals and frogs sampled during two consecutive years in a fragmented Atlantic Forest landscape (SE Brazil). Site selection with simulated annealing was carried out with the datasets of each single year and after merging the datasets of both years. Site selection resulted in remarkably divergent network configurations. Differences are reflected in both the identity of the selected fragments and in the amount of flexibility and irreplaceability in network configuration. Networks selected when data for both years were merged did not include all sites that were irreplaceable in one of the 2 years. Results of species number estimation revealed that significant changes in the composition of the species community occurred. Hence, temporal variability of community composition should be routinely tested and considered in systematic reserve site selection in dynamic systems.


Reserve site selection Species turn-over Hyperdynamism Tropical rainforest Species estimation 



This study was part of the project “Biodiversity conservation in a fragmented landscape at the Atlantic Plateau of São Paulo” (BIOTA/Caucaia and BioCAPSP) funded by FAPESP (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo, project n. 99/05123-4, 01/13309-2, 02/02125-0, 02/02126-7), CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, project n. 690144/01-6), Fundação O Boticário de Proteção à Natureza, and by BmBF (German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, project n. 01LB0202). The revision of the work was funded under the EU-project SCALES (Henle et al. 2010), grant number 226 852. We thank A. Percequillo and R. Rossi for help in identifying small mammal species and S.M. de Souza, R. Braga-Neto, F. Umetsu, and J.M.B. Ghellere for invaluable help during field work with small mammals and frogs, and two anonymous reviewers whose critical and thorough comments markedly improved this article.


  1. Altmoos M, Henle K (2007) Differences in characteristics of reserve network selection using population data versus habitat surrogates. Biodivers Conserv 16:113–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Araújo MB, Williams PH, Fuller RJ (2002) Dynamics of extinction and the selection of nature reserves. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B 269:1971–1980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ball I, Possingham HP (2000) Marxan (v1.8.2)—Marine reserve design using spatially explicit annealing. A manual prepared for the great barrier reef marine park authorityGoogle Scholar
  5. Bani L, Baietto M, Bottoni L, Massa R (2002) The use of focal species in designing a habitat network for a lowland area of Lambardy, Italy. Conserv Biol 16:826–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bibby CJ (1998) Selecting areas for conservation. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Boulinier T, Nichols JD, Sauer JR, Hines JE, Pollock KH (1998) Estimating species richness: the importance of heterogeneity in species detectability. Ecology 79:1018–1028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brooks T, da Fonseca GAB, Rodrigues ASL (2004) Species, data, and conservation planning. Conserv Biol 18:1682–1688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burnham KP, Overton WS (1978) Estimation of the size of a closed population when capture probabilities vary among animals. Biometrika 65:625–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cabeza M (2003) Habitat loss and connectivity of reserve networks in probability approaches to reserve design. Ecol Lett 6:665–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cabeza M, Moilanen A (2001) Design of reserve networks and the persistence of biodiversity. Trends Ecol Evol 16:242–248PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Caughley J (1985) Effect of fire on the reptile fauna of mallee. In: Grigg G, Shine R, Erman H (eds) Biology of Australasian frogs and reptiles. Surrey Beatty, Chipping NortonGoogle Scholar
  13. Chape S, Harrison J, Spalding M, Lysenko I (2005) Measuring the extent and effectiveness of protected areas as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity targets. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences 360:443–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cowling RM, Heijnis CE (2001) Broad habitat units as biodiversity entities for systematic conservation planning in the Cape Floristic Region. S Afr J Bot 67:15–38Google Scholar
  15. Cowling RM, Pressey RL, Rouget M, Lombard AT (2003) A conservation plan for a global biodiversity hotspot—the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa. Biol Conserv 112:191–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dixo M, Metzger JP (2009) Are corridors, fragment size and forest structure important for the conservation of leaf-litter lizards in a fragmented landscape. Oryx 43:435–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dixo M, Metzger JP, Morgante JS, Zamudio KR (2009) Habitat fragmentation reduces genetic diversity and connectivity among toad populations in the Brazilian Atlantic Coastal Forest. Biol Conserv 142:1560–1569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Drechsler M, Johst K (2010) Rapid viability analysis for metapopulations in dynamic habitat networks. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B 277:1889–1897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Faith DP, Margules CR, Walker PA, Stein J, Natera G (2001) Practical application of biodiversity surrogates and percentage targets for conservation in Papua New Guinea. Pacific Conservation Biology 6:289–303Google Scholar
  20. Follner K (2006) Exactness and reliability of nonparametric estimators of species richness compared by simulation and field data. UFZ-Dissertationen, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  21. Frank K (2004) Ecologically differentiated rules of thumb for habitat network design—lessons from a formula. Biodivers Conserv 13:189–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Frank K (2005) Metapopulation persistence in heterogeneous landscapes: Lessons about the effect of stochasticity. Am Nat 165:374–388PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Freudenberger D, Brooker L (2004) Development of the focal species approach for biodiversity conservation in the temperate agricultural zones of Australia. Biodivers Conserv 13:253–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gaston KJ, Pressey RL, Margules CR (2002) Persistence and vulnerability: retaining biodiversity in the landscape and in protected areas. J Biosci 27:361–384PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haddad CFB (1998) Biodiversidade dos anfíbios no Estado de São Paulo. In: Castro RMC (ed) Biodiversidade do Estado de São Paulo, Brasil: síntese do conhecimento ao final do século XX, 17–26. FAPESP, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  26. Hanski IAA (1999) Habitat connectivity, habitat continuity, and metapopulations in dynamic landscapes. Oikos 87:209–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Henle K (2005) Analysis of recapture data from breeding populations of amphibians: on temporary emigration, model assumptions, bias, and common toads. Amphibia-Reptilia 26:7–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Henle K, Davies KF, Kleyer M, Margules CR, Settele J (2004a) Predictors of species sensitivity to fragmentation. Biodivers Conserv 13:207–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Henle K, Sarre S, Wiegand K (2004b) The role of density regulation in extinction processes and viability analysis. Biodivers Conserv 13:9–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Henle K, Kunin W, Schweiger O, Schmeller DS, Grobelnik V, Matsinos Y, Pantis J, Penev L, Potts SG, Ring I, Similä J, Tzanopoulos J, van den Hove S, Baguette M, Clobert J, Excoffier L, Framstad E, Grodinska-Jurczak M, Lengyel S, Marty P, Moilanen A, Porcher E, Storch D, Steffan-Dewenter I, Sykes MT, Zobel M, Settele J (2010) Securing the conservation of biodiversity across administrative levels and spatial, temporal, and ecological scales. GAIA 19(3):187–193Google Scholar
  31. Hice CL, Schmidly D (2002) The effectiveness of pitfall traps for sampling small mammals in the Amazon basin. Mastozoologia Neotropical/Journal of Neotropical Mammalogy 9:85–89Google Scholar
  32. Hopkinson P, Travis JMJ, Evans J, Gregory RD, Telfer MG, Williams PH (2001) Flexibility and the use of indicator taxa in the selection of sites of nature reserves. Biodivers Conserv 10:271–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Huntley B, Collingham YC, Green RE, Hilton GM, Rahbek C, Willis SG (2006) Potential impacts of climatic change upon geographical distributions of birds. Ibis 148:8–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ilg C, Dziock F, Foeckler F, Follner K, Gerisch M, Gläßer J, Rink A, Schanowski A, Scholz M, Deichner O, Henle K (2008) Long-term reactions of plants and macroinvertebrates to extreme floods in floodplain grasslands. Ecology 89:2392–2398PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kleyer M, Biedermann R, Henle K, Obermaier E, Poethke HJ, Poschlod P, Schröder B, Settele J, Vetterlein D (2007) Mosaic cycles in agricultural landscapes of Northwest Europe. Basic Appl Ecol 8:295–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Knight AT, Cowling RM (2007) Embracing opportunism in the selection of priority conservation areas. Conserv Biol 21:1124–1126PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Knight AT, Cowling RM, Difford M, Campbell BM (2010) Mapping human and social dimensions of conservation opportunity for the scheduling of conservation action on private land. Conserv Biol 24:1348–1358PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lambeck RJ (1997) Focal species: a multi species umbrella for nature conservation. Conserv Biol 11:849–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Laurance WF (2002) Hyperdynamism in fragmented habitats. J Veget Sci 13:595–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lindenmayer DB, Possingham HP (1996) Applications of population viability analysis in conservation biology in Australia. In: Settele J, Margules CR, Poschlod P, Henle K (eds) Species survival in fragmented landscapes. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 102–110Google Scholar
  41. Lindenmayer DB, Franklin JF, Fischer J (2006) General management principles and a checklist of strategies to guide forest biodiversity conservation. Biol Conserv 131:433–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Lyra-Jorge MC, Pivello VR (2001) Combining live trap and pitfall to survey terrestrial small mammals in savanna and forest habitats in Brazil. Mammalia 65:524–530Google Scholar
  44. MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, Royle JA, Pollock KH, Bailey LL, Hines JE (2006) Occupancy estimation and modeling. Inferring patterns and dynamics of species occupancy. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  45. Margules CR, Pressey RL (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243–253PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Margules CR, Nicholls AO, Usher MB (1994) Apparent species turnover, probability of extinction and the selection of nature reserves: a case study of the Ingleborough limestone pavements. Conserv Biol 8:398–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Margules CR, Pressey RL, Williams PH (2002) Representing biodiversity: data and procedures for identifying areas for conservation. J Biosci 27:309–326PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Maron M, Lill A, Watson DM, Mac Nally R (2005) Temporal variation in bird assemblages: how representative is a one-year snapshot? Aust J Ecol 30:383–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McGeoch MA (1998) The selection, testing and application of terrestrial insects as bioindicators. Biol Rev 73:181–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Metzger JP (2009) Conservation issues in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Biol Conserv 142:1138–1140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Moilanen A (2008) Two paths to a suboptimal solution—once more about optimality in reserve selection. Biol Conserv 141:1919–1923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Moilanen A, Cabeza M (2002) Single-species dynamic site selection. Ecol Appl 12:913–926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Moilanen A, Wintle BA (2006) Uncertainty analysis favours selection of spatially aggregated reserve networks. Biol Conserv 129:427–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Newbold SC, Siikamäki J (2009) Prioritizing conservation activities using reserve site selection methods and population viability analysis. Ecol Appl 19:1774–1790PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nicholls AO (1998) Integrating population abundance, dynamics and distribution into broad-scale priority setting. In: Mace GM, Balmford A, Ginsberg JM (eds) Conservation in a changing world. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 251–272Google Scholar
  56. Oliveira-Filho AT, Fontes MAL (2000) Patterns of floristic differentiation among atlantic forests in southeastern Brasil and the influence of climate. Biotropica 32:793–810Google Scholar
  57. Pardini R, de Souza S, Braga-Neto R, Metzger JP (2005) The role of forest structure, fragment size and corridors in maintaining small mammal abundance and diversity in an Atlantic forest landscape. Biol Conserv 124:253–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Possingham HP, Ball I, Andelman SJ (2000) Mathematical methods for reserve design. In: Ferson S, Burgman MA (eds) Quantitative methods for conservation biology. Springer, New York, pp 291–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Possingham H, Moilanen A, Wilson KA (2009) Accounting for habitat dynamics in conservation planning. In: Possingham H, Moilanen A, Wilson KA (eds) Spatial conservation prioritization. Quantitative methods and computational tools. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 135–144Google Scholar
  60. Pressey RL (2004) Conservation planning and biodiversity: assembling the best data for the job. Conserv Biol 18:1677–1681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ribeiro CM, Metzger JP, Martensen AC, Ponzoni FJ, Hirota MM (2009) The Brazilian Atlantic Forest: how much is left, and how is the remaining forest distributed? Implications for conservation. Biol Conserv 142:1141–1153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rodrigues ASL, Gregory RD, Gaston KJ (2000a) Robustness of reserve selection procedures under temporal species turnover. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B 267:49–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rodrigues ASL, Gaston KJ, Gregory RD (2000b) Using presence–absence data to establish reserve selection procedures that are robust to temporal species turnover. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B 267:897–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rothley KD, Berger CN, Gonzales C, Webster EM, Rubenstein DI (2004) Combining strategies to select reserves in fragmented landscapes. Conserv Biol 18:1121–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rouget M, Richardson DM, Cowling RM (2003) The current configuration of protected areas in the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa—reservation bias and representation of biodiversity patterns and processes. Biol Conserv 112:129–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sarkar S, Margules CR (2002) Operationalizing biodiversity for conservation planning. J Biosci 27:299–308PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sarkar S, Justus J, Fuller T, Kelley C, Garson J, Mayfield M (2005) Effectiveness of environmental surrogates for the selection of conservation area networks. Conserv Biol 19:815–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sarkar S, Pressey RL, Faith DP, Margules CR, Fuller T, Stoms DM, Moffett A, Wilson KA, Williams KJ, Williams PH, Andelman S (2006) Biodiversity conservation planning tools: present status and challenges for the future. Annu Rev Environ Resour 31:123–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Silva WG, Metzger JP, Simoes S, Simonetti C (2007) Relief influence on the spatial distribution of the Atlantic Forest cover at the Ibiúna Plateau, SP. Braz J Biol 67:403–411PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sokal RR, Rohlf JF (1995) Biometry. WH Freeman and Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  71. Spring DA, Cacho O, Mac Nally R, Sabbadin R (2007) Pre-emptive conservation versus “fire-fighting”: a decision theoretic approach. Biol Conserv 136:531–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Steinicke H (2008) Impact of habitat fragmentation on selected amphibian species in the fragmented landscape of the Mata Atlântica Plateau of Sao Paulo, Brazil. Dissertation, University Halle-WittenbergGoogle Scholar
  73. Stelter C, Reich M, Grimm V, Wissel C (1997) Modelling persistence in dynamic landscapes: lessons from a metapopulation of the grasshopper Bryodema tuberculata. J Anim Ecol 66:508–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sykes MT, Prentice IC (1996) Climate change, tree species distributions and forest dynamics: a case study in the mixed conifer northern hardwoods zone of northern Europe. Clim Change 34:161–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Teixeira AMG, Soares-Filho BS, Freitas SR, Metzger JP (2009) Modeling landscape dynamics in an Atlantic Rainforest region: implications for conservation. For Ecol Manag 257:1219–1230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Trakhtenbrot A, Kadmon R (2005) Environmental cluster analysis as a tool for selecting complementary networks of conservation sites. Ecol Appl 15:335–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Umetsu F, Pardini R (2007) Small mammals in a mosaic of forest remnants and anthropogenic habitats—evaluating matrix quality in an Atlantic forest landscape. Landscape Ecol 22:517–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Umetsu F, Metzger JP, Pardini R (2008) Importance of estimating matrix quality for modeling species distribution in complex tropical landscapes: a test with Atlantic forest small mammals. Ecography 31:359–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 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 266:1141–1146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Watson J, Freudenberger D, Paull D (2001) An assessment of the focal-species approach for conserving birds in variegated landscapes in southeastern Australia. Conserv Biol 15:1364–1373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wessels KJ, Freitag S, van Jaarsveld AS (1999) The use of land facets as biodiversity surrogates during reserve selection at a local scale. Biol Conserv 89:21–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wiegand T, Revilla E, Moloney KA (2005) Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on population dynamics. Conserv Biol 19:108–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Williams PH (1998) Key sites for conservation: area-selection methods for biodiversity. In: Mace GM, Balmford A, Ginsberg JM (eds) Conservation in a changing world. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 211–249Google Scholar
  84. Williams PH, Araújo MB (2000) Using probability of persistence to identify important areas for biodiversity conservation. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B 267:1959–1966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Williams PH, Margules CR, Hilbert DW (2002) Data requirements and data sources for biodiversity priority area selection. J Biosci 27:327–338PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Birgit Felinks
    • 1
    • 4
    Email author
  • Renata Pardini
    • 2
  • Marianna Dixo
    • 3
  • Klaus Follner
    • 1
  • Jean P. Metzger
    • 3
  • Klaus Henle
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Conservation BiologyHelmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZLeipzigGermany
  2. 2.Department of ZoologyUniversity of São Paulo, Institute of BiosciencesSao PauloBrazil
  3. 3.Department of EcologyUniversity of São Paulo, Institute of BiosciencesSao PauloBrazil
  4. 4.Department of Agriculture, Ecotrophology and Landscape DevelopmentAnhalt University of Applied SciencesBernburgGermany

Personalised recommendations