Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Bioregionalization approaches for conservation: methods, biases, and their implications for Australian biodiversity

  • Review Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Biogeographic classification schemes have been developed to prioritize biodiversity conservation efforts at large scales, but their efficacy remains understudied. Here we develop a systematic map of the literature on bioregional planning, based on a case study of the Interim Biogeographic Regionalization for Australia (IBRA), to identify where and how such schemes have been used in scientific research. We identified 67 relevant studies, finding that the majority investigated biodiversity exclusively within a single bioregion (65.7%), with 18 of these studies splitting the targeted bioregion based on administrative boundaries. Most used inferential techniques (74.6%) or pattern-based measures (68.7%), and few studies (9%) both considered biodiversity across multiple bioregions and compared findings between bioregions. Species were investigated ten times more frequently than ecosystems attributes, with mammals and birds monopolizing scientists’ attention. These findings show that our knowledge of biodiversity at bioregional scales is patchy, even for well-studied taxa, and that we have a limited understanding of the synthetic relationship between biodiversity and IBRA bioregions (which are demarcated according to other biophysical factors). This creates a barrier for systematic conservation planning, which requires unbiased information on the spatial attributes of biodiversity, and therefore this knowledge deficit warrants more attention.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by Australian Research Council Laureate Fellowship (Grant Number FL160100101).

Funding

This work was funded by Australian Research Council Laureate Fellowship (Grant Number FL160100101).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cristian S. Montalvo-Mancheno.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Communicated by Dirk Sven Schmeller.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 850 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Montalvo-Mancheno, C.S., Ondei, S., Brook, B.W. et al. Bioregionalization approaches for conservation: methods, biases, and their implications for Australian biodiversity. Biodivers Conserv 29, 1–17 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-019-01913-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-019-01913-6

Keywords

Navigation