Search

Conservation planning assessments based on species atlas data are known to select planning units containing ecotones because these areas are relatively species-rich. However, this richness is often dependent on the presence of adjoining core habitat, so populations within these ecotones might not be viable. This suggests that atlas data may also fail to distinguish between planning units that are highly transformed by agriculture or urbanization with those from neighbouring untransformed units. These highly transformed units could also be identified as priority sites, based solely on the presence of species that require adjoining habitat patches to persist. This potential problem was investigated using bird and mammal atlas data from Swaziland and a landcover map and found that: (i) there was no correlation between planning unit species richness and proportion of natural landcover for both taxa; (ii) the priority areas that were identified for both birds and mammals were no less transformed than if the units had been chosen at random and (iii) an approach that aimed to meet conservation targets and minimize transformation levels failed to identify more viable priority areas. This third result probably arose because 4.8% of the bird species and 22% of the mammal species were recorded in only one planning unit, reducing the opportunity to choose between units when aiming to represent each species. Therefore, it is suggested that using species lists to design protected area networks at a fine spatial scale may not conserve species effectively unless population viability data are explicitly included in the analysis.Resume On sait que les evaluations de planifications de la conservation qui se basent sur les donnees d'atlas des especes choisissent des unites de planification qui contiennent des ecotones parce que ces zones sont relativement riches en especes. Cependant, cette richesse depend souvent de la presence proche d'un habitat principal, de sorte que les populatio