Search

AimMost risk assessments and decisions in conservation are based on surrogate approaches, where a group of species or environmental indicators are selected as proxies for other aspects of biodiversity. In the focal species approach, a suite of species is selected based on life history characteristics, such as dispersal limitation and area requirements. Testing the validity of the focal species concept has proved difficult, due to a lack of theory justifying the underlying framework, explicit objectives and measures of success. We sought to understand the conditions under which the focal species concept has merit for conservation decisions. LocationOur model system comprised 10 vertebrate species in 39 patches of native forest embedded in pine plantation in New South Wales, Australia. MethodsWe selected three focal species based on ecological traits. We used a multiple-species reserve selection method that minimizes the expected loss of species, by estimating the risk of extinction with a metapopulation model. We found optimal reserve solutions for multiple species, including all 10 species, the three focal species, for all possible combinations of three species, and for each species individually. ResultsOur case study suggests that the focal species approach can work: the reserve system that minimized the expected loss of the focal species also minimized the expected species loss in the larger set of 10 species. How well the solution would perform for other species and given landscape dynamics remains unknown. Main conclusionsThe focal species approach may have merit as a conservation short cut if placed within a quantitative decision-making framework, where the aspects of biodiversity for which the focal species act as proxies are explicitly defined, and success is determined by whether the use of the proxy results in the same decision. Our methods provide a framework for testing other surrogate approaches used in conservation decision-making and risk assessment.

Although the aim of conservation planning is the persistence of biodiversity, current methods trade-off ecological realism at a species level in favour of including multiple species and landscape features. For conservation planning to be relevant, the impact of landscape configuration on population processes and the viability of species needs to be considered. We present a novel method for selecting reserve systems that maximize persistence across multiple species, subject to a conservation budget. We use a spatially explicit metapopulation model to estimate extinction risk, a function of the ecology of the species and the amount, quality and configuration of habitat. We compare our new method with more traditional, area-based reserve selection methods, using a ten-species case study, and find that the expected loss of species is reduced 20-fold. Unlike previous methods, we avoid designating arbitrary weightings between reserve size and configuration; rather, our method is based on population processes and is grounded in ecological theory

A recent model indicating that good competitiors and abundant species face the greatest risk of extinction from habitat destruction is critically examined. The conclusions drawn from the model are shown to rely on a number of assumptions regarding the mechanism of species coexistence, the relationship between abundance and competitive ability, and spatial characteristics of habitat destruction. The generality of these assumptions is questioned. Of particular concern are the assumptions that good competitors are poor dispersers, and that good competitors are the most abundant species. Furthermore, we suggest that the spatial scale of metapopulation dynamics in the model may not be appropriate for representing impacts of habitat destrustion. Empirical evidence is discussed indicating the limited applicability of the model for describing effects of habitat destruction on risks of species extinctions. Examples from a number of fragmented systems demonstrate that poor competitors and rare species are vulnerable to habitat destruction. Examinamos críticamente un modelo desarrollado recientemente que indica que buenos competidores y especies abundantes enfrentan el mayor riesgo de extinción debido a la destrucción de su hábitat. Las conclusiones alcanzadas por este modelo están basados en los mecanismos de coexistencia de las especies, la relación entre abundancia y abilidad competitiva, y las características espaciales de la destrucción del hábitat. La generalidad de estas asumpciones son cuestionadas. Es de particular preocupación las asumpciones de que buenos competidores son pobres dispersores y que buenos competidores son las especies más abundantes. Mas aún, sugerimos que la escala espacial de dinámica metapoblacional en el modelo podría no ser apropiada para representar los impactos de la destrucción del hábitat. Evidencia empírica sugiere la limitada aplicación del modelo en describir los efectos de la destrucción del hábitat en el riesgo de extinción de las especi