Premium
SELECTING HERB‐RICH FOREST NETWORKS TO PROTECT DIFFERENT MEASURES OF BIODIVERSITY
Author(s) -
Virolainen Kaija M.,
Nättinen Kati,
Suhonen Jukka,
Kuitunen Markku
Publication year - 2001
Publication title -
ecological applications
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.864
H-Index - 213
eISSN - 1939-5582
pISSN - 1051-0761
DOI - 10.1890/1051-0761(2001)011[0411:shrfnt]2.0.co;2
Subject(s) - biodiversity , species richness , selection (genetic algorithm) , phylogenetic diversity , range (aeronautics) , ecology , heuristic , geography , biology , computer science , phylogenetic tree , machine learning , engineering , artificial intelligence , biochemistry , gene , aerospace engineering
Data on vascular plants of herb‐rich forests in Finland were used to compare the efficiency of reserve selection methods in representing three measures of biodiversity: species richness, phylogenetic diversity, and restricted‐range diversity. Comparisons of reserve selection methods were carried out both with and without consideration of the existing reserve system. Our results showed that the success of a reserve network of forests in representing different measures of biodiversity depends on the selection procedure, selection criteria, and data set used. Ad hoc selection was the worst option. A scoring procedure was generally more efficient than maximum random selection. Heuristic methods also appeared to be efficient. Each biodiversity measure can be used as a criterion for a selection algorithm and as a measure of efficiency of protection at the network level. The results indicate that different measures of biodiversity should be taken into account. For instance, phylogenetic diversity of a network was maximized by a heuristic method using phylogenetic diversity as the selection criterion. However, a heuristic method based on restricted‐range diversity was more efficient than that based on species richness in representing high species richness in a forest network. Our results showed also that complementing the existing reserves is less efficient than selection starting with a blank slate. That is, the total number of sites required to protect a given level of biodiversity is higher when complementing the existing network, because some previously protected sites contribute relatively little diversity to the network. Data on species of a historic network should be available when new sites are selected for complementing the historic network.