Cited by 123

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

RONDININI, CARLO, STUART, SIMON, BOITANI, LUIGI·2005·Conservation Biology

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

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00204.x

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. 10.1126/science.291.5513.2616 · DOI
  2. 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.015003603.x · DOI
  3. Da Fonseca G. A. B., 2000, Following Africa's lead in setting priority, Nature, 405, 393, 10.1038/35013249 · DOI
  4. 10.1080/10635150252899806 · DOI
  5. 10.1017/S0030605304000043 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.2307/3545251 · DOI
  7. 10.1890/06-0539 · DOI
  8. Heglund P. J., 2002, Predicting species occurrences—issues of accuracy and scale, 35
  9. 10.2307/1937156 · DOI
  10. 10.1016/0006-3207(83)90056-3 · DOI
  11. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2003.00233.x · DOI
  12. 10.1038/35013247 · DOI
  13. 10.1038/35012251 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Morrison M. L., 1998, Wildlife‐habitat relationships—concepts and applications
  15. 10.1126/science.287.5459.1759 · DOI
  16. 10.1038/35002501 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1016/0006-3207(95)00094-1 · DOI
  18. 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99115.x · DOI
  19. 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1995.09010034.x · DOI
  20. 10.1007/0-387-22648-6_17 · DOI
  21. 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1994.08030662.x · DOI
  22. 10.1016/S0006-3207(02)00424-X · DOI
  23. 10.1038/nature02205 · DOI
  24. 10.1046/j.1461-0248.2001.00275.x · DOI
  25. 10.1098/rspb.2000.1087 · DOI
  26. 10.1098/rspb.2000.0965 · DOI
  27. Scott J. M., 2002, Predicting species occurrences—issues of accuracy and scale
  28. 10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00115-7 · DOI
  29. Soulé M. E., 1998, Conservation targets: do they help, Science, 279, 2060, 10.1126/science.279.5359.2060 · DOI
  30. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00538.x · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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