Cited by 99

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Terrestrial Reserve Networks Do Not Adequately Represent Aquatic Ecosystems

HERBERT, MATTHEW E., MCINTYRE, PETER B., DORAN, PATRICK J., ALLAN, J. DAVID, ABELL, ROBIN·2010·Conservation Biology

Abstract

Abstract: Protected areas are a cornerstone of conservation and have been designed largely around terrestrial features. Freshwater species and ecosystems are highly imperiled, but the effectiveness of existing protected areas in representing freshwater features is poorly known. Using the inland waters of Michigan as a test case, we quantified the coverage of four key freshwater features (wetlands, riparian zones, groundwater recharge, rare species) within conservation lands and compared these with representation of terrestrial features. Wetlands were included within protected areas more often than expected by chance, but riparian zones were underrepresented across all (GAP 1–3) protected lands, particularly for headwater streams and large rivers. Nevertheless, within strictly protected lands (GAP 1–2), riparian zones were highly represented because of the contribution of the national Wild and Scenic Rivers Program. Representation of areas of groundwater recharge was generally proportional to area of the reserve network within watersheds, although a recharge hotspot associated with some of Michigan's most valued rivers is almost entirely unprotected. Species representation in protected areas differed significantly among obligate aquatic, wetland, and terrestrial species, with representation generally highest for terrestrial species and lowest for aquatic species. Our results illustrate the need to further evaluate and address the representation of freshwater features within protected areas and the value of broadening gap analysis and other protected‐areas assessments to include key ecosystem processes that are requisite to long‐term conservation of species and ecosystems. We conclude that terrestrially oriented protected‐area networks provide a weak safety net for aquatic features, which means complementary planning and management for both freshwater and terrestrial conservation targets is needed.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01460.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 44

  1. 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.08.017 · DOI
  2. Aichele S. S., 2005, Estimation of shallow ground‐water recharge in the Great Lakes Basin, 3
  3. Allan J. D., 2007, Stream ecology—structure and function of running waters
  4. 10.2307/1312104 · DOI
  5. Comer P. J., 1995, Michigan's presettlement vegetation, as interpreted from the General Land Office Surveys 1816–1856 (digital map)
  6. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 2006, Decision VII/4: biological diversity of inland water ecosystems. VII/4
  7. Dahl T. E, 1990, Wetlands losses in the United States 1780's to 1980's
  8. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00114.x · DOI
  9. DU (Ducks Unlimited) and TNC (The Nature Conservancy), 2007, Conservation and recreation lands (CARL)
  10. 10.1016/S0006-3207(97)00132-8 · DOI
  11. 10.1017/S1464793105006950 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Frissell C. A., 1997, Watershed restoration: principles and practices, 96
  13. 10.2307/1311607 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Higgins J., 2007, Ecoregional status measures version 1.0: Framework and technical guidance to estimate effective conservation
  15. 10.1016/S0006-3207(99)00041-5 · DOI
  16. 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99099.x · DOI
  17. Kost M. A., 2007, Natural communities of Michigan: classification and description
  18. 10.1007/s10531-004-5355-8 · DOI
  19. 10.1672/0277-5212(2005)025[0697:WIOWMI]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  20. 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2007.00008.x · DOI
  21. Michigan Center for Geographic Information (MCGI), 2007, Hydropoly_miv7b
  22. Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR), 2003, Integrated forest monitoring assessment and prescription (IFMAP)/GAP Lower Peninsula land cover. Remote sensing image. Time period of content 1997–2001
  23. Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI), 2008, Statewide Biotics 4 database
  24. 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10030847.x · DOI
  25. Mitsch W. J., 2007, Wetlands
  26. 10.1016/0006-3207(87)90045-0 · DOI
  27. 10.1016/j.foreco.2007.03.053 · DOI
  28. 10.2307/1313099 · DOI · Paper page
  29. 10.1890/1051-0761(2001)011[0981:HCATMO]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  30. Ramsar Bureau, 2009, Strategic framework for the list of Wetlands of International Importance of the Convention on Wetlands
  31. 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.98380.x · DOI
  32. 10.1016/j.biocon.2007.09.002 · DOI
  33. 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.99562.x · DOI
  34. Scott J. M., 1993, Gap analysis: a geographic approach to protection of biological diversity, Wildlife Monographs, 123, 1
  35. 10.1890/1051-0761(2001)011[0999:NRDTCT]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  36. Seaber P. R., 1987, Hydrologic unit maps
  37. 10.1890/06-1253.1 · DOI
  38. The Nature Conservancy, 2001, Aquatic ecoregional planning in the U.S. portion of the Great Lakes watershed
  39. 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.10.054 · DOI
  40. U.S. Geological Survey, 1999, Standards for national hydrography dataset
  41. 10.1007/s002670010076 · DOI
  42. World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA), 2004, World database on protected areas
  43. 10.1126/science.289.5478.383 · DOI
  44. 10.1577/1548-8659(2002)131<0070:DOSFAT>2.0.CO;2 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 99

Metadata

Authors
HERBERT, M. E., MCINTYRE, P. B., DORAN, P. J., ALLAN, J. D., & ABELL, R.
Venue
Conservation Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-07-15
Volume
24
Issue
4
Pages
1002-1011
ISSN
  • 0888-8892
  • 1523-1739
Cited by
99
References
1
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