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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Ecological applications 2002-06, Vol.12 (3), p.900-912 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
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 |