Site Prioritisation

Question 1

Sites are normally a conservation target - like…

Answer 1

1. Protected areas
   Targets by 2020 - 17% of terrestrial and freshwater, 10% marine
   Half Earth goal - 50% terrestrial, need to look at restoration
   Set aside from humanity
2. Wider landscape conservation - restoration
3. Specific management - invasive species control

Question 2

Prioritisation scales…

Answer 2

Global scale - large regions of conservation value (Madagascar has 12,000 endemic species)
Local scale - specific localities in these hotspots

Question 3

Global scale prioritisation strategies

Answer 3

1. Biodiversity hotspots
2. Crisis ecoregions
3. Endemic bird areas
4. Centres plant endemism
5. Megadiverse countries
6. Global 200 ecoregions of importance
7. Frontier forests
8. High biodiversity wilderness areas
9. Last of the wild

Question 4

Strategies based on vulnerability and measuring it as…

Answer 4

5 strategies measuring it as…
% habitat loss (4) - only on past, no guide to future
Human population density (2) - good measure
Protected area coverage (1) - good measure
Total forest cover (1) - poor measure
None use no. of threatened species though ???

Question 5

Proactive schemes

Answer 5

Low vulnerability…
Frontier forests
High biodiversity wilderness areas
Last of the wild

Question 6

Reactive schemes

Answer 6

High vulnerability…
Biodiversity hotspots
Crisis Ecoregions

Question 7

Biodiversity hotspots

Answer 7

Based on at least 1,500 endemic vascular plants i.e. irreplaceable and highly threatened
35 cover 2.3% of land, homes 50% of worlds plants
Houses 43% of birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians

Question 8

Irreplaceability indications

Answer 8

Commonly - endemism (4 on plants, 1 on birds)
Assumes strong relationship on endemism in different groups = reasonable
No measure relies on spp richness - these patterns are determined by common spp so good

Question 9

The prioritisation scales revised

Answer 9

Global - well defined but conflicting and not as robust as ideal
Local - limited standardisation, most rigorous in UK by Ratcliffe
-major influence in UK (SSSIs) and other countries

Question 10

Ratcliffe’s criteria

Answer 10

1. Size
2. Diversity (habitat and spp)
3. Rarity
4. Naturalness
5. Fragility/threat
6. Typicalness
7. Recorded history
8. Position within an ecological/geographic unit
9. Potential value

Question 11

Ratcliffe’s size criteria

Answer 11

Larger sites contain more spp
Species-area relationships are non-linear
-above threshold has little effect in increasing yield past point (varies in taxa and regions)
-fewer edge effects
Carnivores - smaller sites = bigger extinction risk

Question 12

Edge effects

Answer 12

Less damage from intruders like human impacts of resource extraction or pesticide drift
If too small there is 0 core area which remains untouched
Animals interact with outside world of reserve more

Question 13

Ratcliffe’s habitat Diversity criteria

Answer 13

-high habitat diversity = sppR
-lots of spp require different habitats at different life stages (amphibians)
Can be bad though - if low quality habitats are included and if they’re small (not enough space etc.)

Question 14

Ratcliffe’s species Diversity criteria

Answer 14

Not all species are equal - naive to prioritise sites with high sppR
Can include generalist species - indicate highly degraded habitats
Need to focus on spp specific for that habitat

Question 15

Ratcliffe’s rarity criteria

Answer 15

Most in UK that are rare, are highly threatened too
So, equivalent of threatened
Need to consider long-term viability

Question 16

Ratcliffe’s naturalness criteria

Answer 16

Areas least modified by humans should be prioritised
Difficult to quantify and not necessarily filled with bioD
Often areas that are highly human modified are very useful - unmodified not so much

Question 17

Ratcliffe’s fragility/threat criteria

Answer 17

Those more threatened - only if threat can be countered by site-based protection
Threats like N deposition and CC can’t be solved that easily

Question 18

Ratcliffe’s typicalness criteria

Answer 18

Sites most characteristic of focal habitats are better
Species representatives of habitat X (indicators) - if more at site = better
Causes similar sites to be conserved

Question 19

Ratcliffe’s recorded history criteria

Answer 19

Long ecological history

Provides understanding and indicators of changing etc.

Question 20

Ratcliffe’s position within an ecological/geographic unit

Answer 20

Species at edge of distribution may be of more value:
Can gain data on limiting conditions for pop management to increase growth
Unique local adaptations preserves GD
Facilitate range shifts in response to CC

Question 21

Ratcliffe’s potential value criteria

Answer 21

Contributing to habitat restoration in future - will value change?
Will CC impact?
Spp move away if not suitable
New spp may colonise

Question 22

Ratcliffe’s intrinsic appeal criteria

Answer 22

“Sites with charismatic taxa are important”
Controversial and incorrect
May be okay for some ecosystems e.g. if want recreational services

Question 23

Beyond Ratcliffe’s criteria

Answer 23

Representation
-each species represented by at least 1 protected area across globe (300 critically endangered occur outside PAs)
Cost effectiveness

Question 24

Cost effectiveness in more detail…

Answer 24

Priority list on conservation benefit n then this per uni = very different results (different top 3)
Replacing 1% of least effective keeps costs identical, but habitats goes from 18 to 54
Should sites lose protected status?
Cause constant shift as sites lose value
Shouldn’t allow idea to government