How Well Do Ecosystem-Based Planning Units Represent Different Components of Biodiversity?

There are many proposals for managing biodiversity by using surrogates, such as umbrella, indicator, focal, and flagship species. We use the term biodiversity management unit for any ecosystem-based classificatory scheme for managing biodiversity. The sufficiency of biodiversity management unit clas...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Ecological applications 2002-06, Vol.12 (3), p.900-912
Hauptverfasser: Nally, Ralph Mac, Bennett, Andrew F., Brown, Geoff W., Lumsden, Linda F., Yen, Alan, Hinkley, Simon, Lillywhite, Peter, Ward, Darren
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 912
container_issue 3
container_start_page 900
container_title Ecological applications
container_volume 12
creator Nally, Ralph Mac
Bennett, Andrew F.
Brown, Geoff W.
Lumsden, Linda F.
Yen, Alan
Hinkley, Simon
Lillywhite, Peter
Ward, Darren
description There are many proposals for managing biodiversity by using surrogates, such as umbrella, indicator, focal, and flagship species. We use the term biodiversity management unit for any ecosystem-based classificatory scheme for managing biodiversity. The sufficiency of biodiversity management unit classification schemes depends upon (1) whether different biotic elements (e.g., trees, birds, reptiles) distinguish between biodiversity management units within a classification (i.e., coherence within classes}; and (2) whether different biotic elements agree upon similarities and dissimilarities among biodiversity management unit classes (i.e., conformance among classes). Recent evaluations suggest that biodiversity surrogates based on few or single taxa are not useful. Ecological vegetation classes are an ecosystem-based classification scheme used as one component for biodiversity management in Victoria, Australia. Here we evaluated the potential for ecological vegetation classes to be used as biodiversity management units in the box-ironbark ecosystem of central Victoria, Australia. Eighty sites distributed among 14 ecological vegetation classes were surveyed in the same ways for tree species, birds, mammals, reptiles, terrestrial invertebrates, and nocturnal flying insects. Habitat structure and geographic separations also were measured, which, with the biotic elements, are collectively referred to as variables. Less than half of the biotic element-ecological vegetation class pairings were coherent. Generalized Mantel tests were used to examine conformance among variables with respect to ecological vegetation classes. While most tests were not significant, birds, mammals, tree species, and habitat structure together showed significant agreement on the rating of similarities among ecological vegetation classes. In this system, use of ecological vegetation classes as biodiversity management units may account reasonably well for birds, mammals, and trees; but reptiles and invertebrates would not be accommodated. We conclude that surrogates will usually have to be augmented or developed as hierarchies to provide general representativeness.
doi_str_mv 10.1890/1051-0761(2002)012[0900:HWDEBP]2.0.CO;2
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_18423741</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>3060998</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>3060998</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4220-c32057e4d1456d99274ebcc203cfce35950be7400e8549b70539d90f247e982c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqdkNFq2zAUhs3YYF3bd9DFGNuFs6MjKba2i9E4WVMoJJSVwsYQjnw8VBwrldyVvP1kvMKup5vzC_364HxZ9pHDjJca0lQ8h2LO3yMAfgCOP0ADfFrfLVeL7U-cwazafMYX2QnXQudKlfgy5edfr7M3Md5DOoh4kn1f-yd2R13Hlp6trI_HONA-X9SRGrbt6r53_S9227shshs6BIrUD2zp2pbCmCq_P_g-pch8yxbON-43heiG45ez7FVbd5HO_87T7Pbr6lu1zq83l1fVxXVuJSLkViCogmTDpZo3WmMhaWctgrCtJaG0gh0VEoBKJfWuACV0o6FFWZAu0YrT7N3EPQT_8EhxMHsXbVqp7sk_RsNLiaKQPBUvp6INPsZArTkEt6_D0XAwo1szWjKjJTO6NcmtGd2aya1JN1NtDCbSzUR6ch0d_xdjVhfbscBRpNcEfTtB7-Pgw79QFFAYAXPQuhR_ADNWkf4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>18423741</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>How Well Do Ecosystem-Based Planning Units Represent Different Components of Biodiversity?</title><source>Wiley Journals</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><creator>Nally, Ralph Mac ; Bennett, Andrew F. ; Brown, Geoff W. ; Lumsden, Linda F. ; Yen, Alan ; Hinkley, Simon ; Lillywhite, Peter ; Ward, Darren</creator><creatorcontrib>Nally, Ralph Mac ; Bennett, Andrew F. ; Brown, Geoff W. ; Lumsden, Linda F. ; Yen, Alan ; Hinkley, Simon ; Lillywhite, Peter ; Ward, Darren</creatorcontrib><description>There are many proposals for managing biodiversity by using surrogates, such as umbrella, indicator, focal, and flagship species. We use the term biodiversity management unit for any ecosystem-based classificatory scheme for managing biodiversity. The sufficiency of biodiversity management unit classification schemes depends upon (1) whether different biotic elements (e.g., trees, birds, reptiles) distinguish between biodiversity management units within a classification (i.e., coherence within classes}; and (2) whether different biotic elements agree upon similarities and dissimilarities among biodiversity management unit classes (i.e., conformance among classes). Recent evaluations suggest that biodiversity surrogates based on few or single taxa are not useful. Ecological vegetation classes are an ecosystem-based classification scheme used as one component for biodiversity management in Victoria, Australia. Here we evaluated the potential for ecological vegetation classes to be used as biodiversity management units in the box-ironbark ecosystem of central Victoria, Australia. Eighty sites distributed among 14 ecological vegetation classes were surveyed in the same ways for tree species, birds, mammals, reptiles, terrestrial invertebrates, and nocturnal flying insects. Habitat structure and geographic separations also were measured, which, with the biotic elements, are collectively referred to as variables. Less than half of the biotic element-ecological vegetation class pairings were coherent. Generalized Mantel tests were used to examine conformance among variables with respect to ecological vegetation classes. While most tests were not significant, birds, mammals, tree species, and habitat structure together showed significant agreement on the rating of similarities among ecological vegetation classes. In this system, use of ecological vegetation classes as biodiversity management units may account reasonably well for birds, mammals, and trees; but reptiles and invertebrates would not be accommodated. We conclude that surrogates will usually have to be augmented or developed as hierarchies to provide general representativeness.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1051-0761</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1939-5582</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1890/1051-0761(2002)012[0900:HWDEBP]2.0.CO;2</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Ecological Society of America</publisher><subject>biodiversity ; Biodiversity conservation ; biodiversity management unit ; Birds ; box–ironbark woodland ; coherence ; conformance ; Conservation biology ; conservation planning ; ecological vegetation classes ; ecoregions ; ecosystem-based planning ; Habitat conservation ; habitat structure ; Invertebrates ; Mammals ; Mantel test ; Plant biodiversity ; Species ; surrogates ; Vegetation ; Vegetation structure</subject><ispartof>Ecological applications, 2002-06, Vol.12 (3), p.900-912</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2002 Ecological Society of America</rights><rights>2002 by the Ecological Society of America</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4220-c32057e4d1456d99274ebcc203cfce35950be7400e8549b70539d90f247e982c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4220-c32057e4d1456d99274ebcc203cfce35950be7400e8549b70539d90f247e982c3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3060998$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/3060998$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575,58017,58250</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Nally, Ralph Mac</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bennett, Andrew F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brown, Geoff W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lumsden, Linda F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yen, Alan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hinkley, Simon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lillywhite, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ward, Darren</creatorcontrib><title>How Well Do Ecosystem-Based Planning Units Represent Different Components of Biodiversity?</title><title>Ecological applications</title><description>There are many proposals for managing biodiversity by using surrogates, such as umbrella, indicator, focal, and flagship species. We use the term biodiversity management unit for any ecosystem-based classificatory scheme for managing biodiversity. The sufficiency of biodiversity management unit classification schemes depends upon (1) whether different biotic elements (e.g., trees, birds, reptiles) distinguish between biodiversity management units within a classification (i.e., coherence within classes}; and (2) whether different biotic elements agree upon similarities and dissimilarities among biodiversity management unit classes (i.e., conformance among classes). Recent evaluations suggest that biodiversity surrogates based on few or single taxa are not useful. Ecological vegetation classes are an ecosystem-based classification scheme used as one component for biodiversity management in Victoria, Australia. Here we evaluated the potential for ecological vegetation classes to be used as biodiversity management units in the box-ironbark ecosystem of central Victoria, Australia. Eighty sites distributed among 14 ecological vegetation classes were surveyed in the same ways for tree species, birds, mammals, reptiles, terrestrial invertebrates, and nocturnal flying insects. Habitat structure and geographic separations also were measured, which, with the biotic elements, are collectively referred to as variables. Less than half of the biotic element-ecological vegetation class pairings were coherent. Generalized Mantel tests were used to examine conformance among variables with respect to ecological vegetation classes. While most tests were not significant, birds, mammals, tree species, and habitat structure together showed significant agreement on the rating of similarities among ecological vegetation classes. In this system, use of ecological vegetation classes as biodiversity management units may account reasonably well for birds, mammals, and trees; but reptiles and invertebrates would not be accommodated. We conclude that surrogates will usually have to be augmented or developed as hierarchies to provide general representativeness.</description><subject>biodiversity</subject><subject>Biodiversity conservation</subject><subject>biodiversity management unit</subject><subject>Birds</subject><subject>box–ironbark woodland</subject><subject>coherence</subject><subject>conformance</subject><subject>Conservation biology</subject><subject>conservation planning</subject><subject>ecological vegetation classes</subject><subject>ecoregions</subject><subject>ecosystem-based planning</subject><subject>Habitat conservation</subject><subject>habitat structure</subject><subject>Invertebrates</subject><subject>Mammals</subject><subject>Mantel test</subject><subject>Plant biodiversity</subject><subject>Species</subject><subject>surrogates</subject><subject>Vegetation</subject><subject>Vegetation structure</subject><issn>1051-0761</issn><issn>1939-5582</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2002</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqdkNFq2zAUhs3YYF3bd9DFGNuFs6MjKba2i9E4WVMoJJSVwsYQjnw8VBwrldyVvP1kvMKup5vzC_364HxZ9pHDjJca0lQ8h2LO3yMAfgCOP0ADfFrfLVeL7U-cwazafMYX2QnXQudKlfgy5edfr7M3Md5DOoh4kn1f-yd2R13Hlp6trI_HONA-X9SRGrbt6r53_S9227shshs6BIrUD2zp2pbCmCq_P_g-pch8yxbON-43heiG45ez7FVbd5HO_87T7Pbr6lu1zq83l1fVxXVuJSLkViCogmTDpZo3WmMhaWctgrCtJaG0gh0VEoBKJfWuACV0o6FFWZAu0YrT7N3EPQT_8EhxMHsXbVqp7sk_RsNLiaKQPBUvp6INPsZArTkEt6_D0XAwo1szWjKjJTO6NcmtGd2aya1JN1NtDCbSzUR6ch0d_xdjVhfbscBRpNcEfTtB7-Pgw79QFFAYAXPQuhR_ADNWkf4</recordid><startdate>200206</startdate><enddate>200206</enddate><creator>Nally, Ralph Mac</creator><creator>Bennett, Andrew F.</creator><creator>Brown, Geoff W.</creator><creator>Lumsden, Linda F.</creator><creator>Yen, Alan</creator><creator>Hinkley, Simon</creator><creator>Lillywhite, Peter</creator><creator>Ward, Darren</creator><general>Ecological Society of America</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>C1K</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200206</creationdate><title>How Well Do Ecosystem-Based Planning Units Represent Different Components of Biodiversity?</title><author>Nally, Ralph Mac ; Bennett, Andrew F. ; Brown, Geoff W. ; Lumsden, Linda F. ; Yen, Alan ; Hinkley, Simon ; Lillywhite, Peter ; Ward, Darren</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4220-c32057e4d1456d99274ebcc203cfce35950be7400e8549b70539d90f247e982c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2002</creationdate><topic>biodiversity</topic><topic>Biodiversity conservation</topic><topic>biodiversity management unit</topic><topic>Birds</topic><topic>box–ironbark woodland</topic><topic>coherence</topic><topic>conformance</topic><topic>Conservation biology</topic><topic>conservation planning</topic><topic>ecological vegetation classes</topic><topic>ecoregions</topic><topic>ecosystem-based planning</topic><topic>Habitat conservation</topic><topic>habitat structure</topic><topic>Invertebrates</topic><topic>Mammals</topic><topic>Mantel test</topic><topic>Plant biodiversity</topic><topic>Species</topic><topic>surrogates</topic><topic>Vegetation</topic><topic>Vegetation structure</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Nally, Ralph Mac</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bennett, Andrew F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brown, Geoff W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lumsden, Linda F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yen, Alan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hinkley, Simon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lillywhite, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ward, Darren</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><jtitle>Ecological applications</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Nally, Ralph Mac</au><au>Bennett, Andrew F.</au><au>Brown, Geoff W.</au><au>Lumsden, Linda F.</au><au>Yen, Alan</au><au>Hinkley, Simon</au><au>Lillywhite, Peter</au><au>Ward, Darren</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>How Well Do Ecosystem-Based Planning Units Represent Different Components of Biodiversity?</atitle><jtitle>Ecological applications</jtitle><date>2002-06</date><risdate>2002</risdate><volume>12</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>900</spage><epage>912</epage><pages>900-912</pages><issn>1051-0761</issn><eissn>1939-5582</eissn><abstract>There are many proposals for managing biodiversity by using surrogates, such as umbrella, indicator, focal, and flagship species. We use the term biodiversity management unit for any ecosystem-based classificatory scheme for managing biodiversity. The sufficiency of biodiversity management unit classification schemes depends upon (1) whether different biotic elements (e.g., trees, birds, reptiles) distinguish between biodiversity management units within a classification (i.e., coherence within classes}; and (2) whether different biotic elements agree upon similarities and dissimilarities among biodiversity management unit classes (i.e., conformance among classes). Recent evaluations suggest that biodiversity surrogates based on few or single taxa are not useful. Ecological vegetation classes are an ecosystem-based classification scheme used as one component for biodiversity management in Victoria, Australia. Here we evaluated the potential for ecological vegetation classes to be used as biodiversity management units in the box-ironbark ecosystem of central Victoria, Australia. Eighty sites distributed among 14 ecological vegetation classes were surveyed in the same ways for tree species, birds, mammals, reptiles, terrestrial invertebrates, and nocturnal flying insects. Habitat structure and geographic separations also were measured, which, with the biotic elements, are collectively referred to as variables. Less than half of the biotic element-ecological vegetation class pairings were coherent. Generalized Mantel tests were used to examine conformance among variables with respect to ecological vegetation classes. While most tests were not significant, birds, mammals, tree species, and habitat structure together showed significant agreement on the rating of similarities among ecological vegetation classes. In this system, use of ecological vegetation classes as biodiversity management units may account reasonably well for birds, mammals, and trees; but reptiles and invertebrates would not be accommodated. We conclude that surrogates will usually have to be augmented or developed as hierarchies to provide general representativeness.</abstract><pub>Ecological Society of America</pub><doi>10.1890/1051-0761(2002)012[0900:HWDEBP]2.0.CO;2</doi><tpages>13</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1051-0761
ispartof Ecological applications, 2002-06, Vol.12 (3), p.900-912
issn 1051-0761
1939-5582
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_18423741
source Wiley Journals; JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing
subjects biodiversity
Biodiversity conservation
biodiversity management unit
Birds
box–ironbark woodland
coherence
conformance
Conservation biology
conservation planning
ecological vegetation classes
ecoregions
ecosystem-based planning
Habitat conservation
habitat structure
Invertebrates
Mammals
Mantel test
Plant biodiversity
Species
surrogates
Vegetation
Vegetation structure
title How Well Do Ecosystem-Based Planning Units Represent Different Components of Biodiversity?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-05T03%3A32%3A03IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=How%20Well%20Do%20Ecosystem-Based%20Planning%20Units%20Represent%20Different%20Components%20of%20Biodiversity?&rft.jtitle=Ecological%20applications&rft.au=Nally,%20Ralph%20Mac&rft.date=2002-06&rft.volume=12&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=900&rft.epage=912&rft.pages=900-912&rft.issn=1051-0761&rft.eissn=1939-5582&rft_id=info:doi/10.1890/1051-0761(2002)012%5B0900:HWDEBP%5D2.0.CO;2&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E3060998%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=18423741&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=3060998&rfr_iscdi=true