The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Habitat Suitability Models and the Shortfall in Conservation Planning for African Vertebrates
Abstract
Abstract: Ongoing loss of biodiversity requires identifying large‐scale conservation priorities, but the detailed information on the distribution of species required for this purpose is often missing. We present a systematic reserve selection for 1223 African mammals and amphibians in which habitat suitability models are used as estimates of the area occupied by species. In the framework of the World Conservation Union (IUCN) Global Amphibian Assessment and IUCN Global Mammal Assessment, we collected the geographic range (extent of occurrence) and habitat preferences for each species. We used the latter to build species‐specific habitat suitability models inside geographic ranges, and for 181 species we verified the models by comparing suitability levels to presence‐absence data collected in the field. We then used the suitable areas as estimators of the area of occupancy and compared the results of systematic reserve selection based on geographic ranges to those based on estimated areas of occupancy. Our results showed that the reserve system would need a 30‐100% expansion to achieve minimal conservation targets, concentrated in the tropics, where species richness reaches a maximum. Comparative analyses revealed that using geographic ranges, which overestimate the area occupied by species, underestimates the total amount of area that needs to be conserved. The area selected for conservation doubled when we used the estimated area of occupancy in place of the geographic ranges. This happened because the suitable areas potentially occupied by each species overlapped less than their geographic ranges. As a result, any given protected area contained fewer species than predicted by the analysis of ranges. Because species are more specialized than our estimates of distribution based on extent of occurrence suggest, we propose that this is a general effect in systematic conservation planning.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Other types of data available for highly diverse tropical areas, such as observed points or geographic ranges, usually produce more errors than SDMs.
“However, other types of data available for highly diverse tropical areas, such as observed points or geographic ranges, usually produce more errors than SDMs (Rondinini et al. 2005; Carvalho et al. 2010).”
From Maximizing species conservation in continental E cuador: a case of systematic conservation planning for biodiverse regions (2014) · cites this paper as Rondinini et al. 2005
Citations
Cites
Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity
Rodrigues, A. S. L., Andelman, S. J., Bakarr, M. I., Boitani, L., Brooks, T. M., Cowling, R. M., Fishpool, L. D. C., da Fonseca, G. A. B., Gaston, K. J., Hoffmann, M., et al. (2004) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature02422 · Cited by 1,525
Self-citationGaps in the protected area network for threatened Afrotropical birds
De Klerk, H. M., Fjeldså, J., Blyth, S., & Burgess, N. D. (2004) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2003.09.006 · Cited by 63
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 30
- 10.1126/science.291.5513.2616 · DOI
- 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.015003603.x · DOI
- Da Fonseca G. A. B., 2000, Following Africa's lead in setting priority, Nature, 405, 393, 10.1038/35013249 · DOI
- 10.1080/10635150252899806 · DOI
- 10.1017/S0030605304000043 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.2307/3545251 · DOI
- 10.1890/06-0539 · DOI
- Heglund P. J., 2002, Predicting species occurrences—issues of accuracy and scale, 35
- 10.2307/1937156 · DOI
- 10.1016/0006-3207(83)90056-3 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2003.00233.x · DOI
- 10.1038/35013247 · DOI
- 10.1038/35012251 · DOI · Paper page
- Morrison M. L., 1998, Wildlife‐habitat relationships—concepts and applications
- 10.1126/science.287.5459.1759 · DOI
- 10.1038/35002501 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/0006-3207(95)00094-1 · DOI
- 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99115.x · DOI
- 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1995.09010034.x · DOI
- 10.1007/0-387-22648-6_17 · DOI
- 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1994.08030662.x · DOI
- 10.1016/S0006-3207(02)00424-X · DOI
- 10.1038/nature02205 · DOI
- 10.1046/j.1461-0248.2001.00275.x · DOI
- 10.1098/rspb.2000.1087 · DOI
- 10.1098/rspb.2000.0965 · DOI
- Scott J. M., 2002, Predicting species occurrences—issues of accuracy and scale
- 10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00115-7 · DOI
- Soulé M. E., 1998, Conservation targets: do they help, Science, 279, 2060, 10.1126/science.279.5359.2060 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00538.x · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Making Robust Policy Decisions Using Global Biodiversity Indicators
Nicholson, E., Collen, B., Barausse, A., Blanchard, J. L., Costelloe, B. T., Sullivan, K. M. E., Underwood, F. M., Burn, R. W., Fritz, S., Jones, J. P. G., et al. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0041128 · Cited by 128
Lessmann, J., Muñoz, J., & Bonaccorso, E. (2014) · Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1002/ece3.1102 · Cited by 80
Metadata
- Authors
- RONDININI, C., STUART, S., & BOITANI, L.
- Venue
- Conservation Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-08-16
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1488-1497
- ISSN
- 0888-8892
- 1523-1739
- Cited by
- 123
- References
- 2
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review