Strict reserves, IUCN classification, and the use of reserves for scientific research: a comment on Schultze et al. (2014)

Abstract

Schultze et al. (Biodiv Conserv 23:3519–3542, 2014) analysed criteria for the selection of strictly protected forest reserves in central Europe, but did not clarify the value of strict reserves (IUCN type 1a) for scientific research. We suggest that research in protected areas (PAs) should be included in the criteria that are used for their selection; in particular, scientific research is essential for monitoring the reasons (species and habitats) for establishing the reserve, and can contribute to testing the available alternatives for habitat management in PAs. This is particularly true for forest reserves, since most which are designated for strict protection are mid-aged, and typically secondary successions from historically more open habitats. The research may include habitat manipulation and non-manipulated reference areas (minimal intervention) which need long-term studies, since forests develop slowly. Strict reserves are ideal for such scientific research, since the strong protection means strong control of the land, whereas other land may be subject to change. There are many IUCN type 1a strict reserves, and a network of such reserves for scientific research would need to use only a small proportion of them. We encourage conservation organisations and researchers to establish such research networks in cooperation with PA managers.