Skip to main content
Log in

Environmental diversity: on the best-possible use of surrogate data for assessing the relative biodiversity of sets of areas

  • Papers
  • Published:
Biodiversity & Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

The conservation goal of representation of biodiversity (in the broad sense of all species) in protected areas requires best-possible use of available surrogate information. One standard approach is based on ‘indicator’ groups of taxa. A minimum set of areas having at least one representation of each indicator species is taken to be representative of other organisms. This same minimum-set approach is adapted to other ‘attributes’ of biodiversity, for example, derived environmental clusters. A weakness of these approaches is that useful information is lost; for example, for environmental clusters, there is no distinction made either among or within clusters. A more powerful surrogate approach can use some expression of environmental and/or biotic pattern so that variation among areas is seen as part of a continuum rather than partitioned into arbitrary clusters/attributes. The challenge in using pattern effectively is to adopt a robust model for the relationship between pattern and the underlying units of biodiversity, i.e. species. An environmental space (a continuum or ordination pattern), combined with the standard ecological continuum model relating species to environmental space, has advantages over other patterns based on hierarchy or distance matrices. Because an environmental space can be estimated either directly (observed environmental data) or indirectly (data on indicator groups), the corresponding surrogate-measure of biodiversity, ‘environmental diversity’ (ED) makes best-possible use of either kind of data. We conclude that the arbitrariness of the ‘attribute’ approach can be replaced by a robust surrogate ‘pattern’ approach that is flexible and avoids unwarranted assumptions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Austin, M.P. and Margules, C.R. (1986) Assessing representativeness. Chapter 2 in (M.B. Usher, ed.) Wildlife Conservation Evaluation. pp. 45–68.

  • Bedward, M., Pressey, R.L. and Keith, D. (1992) A new approach for selecting fully representative reserve networks: addressing efficiency, reserve design and land suitability with an iterative analysis. Biol. Conserv. 62, 115–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belbin, L. (1992) Comparing two sets of community data: a method for testing reserve adequacy. Aus. J. Ecol. 17, 255–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belbin, L. (1993) Environmental representativeness: regional partitioning and reserve selection. Biol. Conserv. 66, 223–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belbin, L., Faith, D.P. and Milligan, G. (1993) A comparison of two approaches to Beta-flexible clustering. Multiv. Behav. Res. 27, 417–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandeau, M.L. and Chiu, S.S. (1989) An overview of representative problems in location research. Management Science 35, 645–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colwell, R.K. and Coddington, J.A. (1994) Estimated terrestrial biodiversity through extrapolation. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 345, 101–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeVelice, R.L., DeVelice, J.W. and Park, G.N. (1988) Gradient analysis in nature reserve design: a New Zealand example. Conserv. Biol. 2, 206–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erkut, E. (1990) The discrete p-dispersion problem. European Journal of Operational Res. 46, 48–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faith, D.P. (1992) Conservation evaluation and phylogenetic diversity. Biol. Conserv. 61, 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faith, D.P. (1994) Phylogenetic pattern and the quantification of organismal biodiversity. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 345, 45–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faith, D.P., Minchin, P. and Belbin, L. (1987) Compositional dissimilarity as a robust measure of ecological distance. Vegetatio 69, 57–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faith, D.P. and Norris, R. (1989) Correlation of environmental variables with patterns of distribution and abundance of common and rare freshwater macroinvertebrates. Biological Conservation — Special Issue: Australian Developments in Conservation Evaluation 50, 77–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faith, D.P. and Walker, P.A. (1993) DIVERSITY: a software package for sampling phylogenetic and environmental diversity. Reference and user's guide. v. 1.0 Canberra: CSIRO Division of Wildlife and Ecology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faith, D.P. and Walker, P.A. (1996a) Integrating conservation and development: effective trade-offs between biodiversity and cost in the selection of protected areas. Biodiv. Conserv. 6, 431–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faith, D.P. and Walker, P.A. (1996b) Integrating conservation and development: incorporating vulnerability into biodiversity-assessment of areas. Biodiv. Conserv. 6, 417–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forey, P.L., Humphries, C.J., Kitching, I.J., Scotland, R.W., Siebert, D.J. and Williams, D.M. (1992) Cladistics: a Practical Course in Systematics. London: Systematics Association Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gauch, H.G. (1982) Multivariate Analysis in Community Ecology. Cambridge University Press.

  • Handler, G.Y. and Rozman, M. (1985) The continuous m-center problem on a network. Networks 15, 191–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kremen, C. (1992) Assessing the indicator properties of species assemblages for natural areas monitoring. Ecol. Applic. 2, 203–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Love, R.F., Morris, J.G. and Wesolowsky, G.O. (1988) Facilities Location: Models and Methods. New York: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margules, C.R. (1986) Conservation evaluation in practice. In (M.B. Usher, ed.) Wildlife Conservation Evaluation. pp. 297–314. London: Chapman and Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margules, C.R., Nicholls, A.O. and Pressey, R.L. (1988) Selecting networks of reserves to maximise biological diversity. Biol. Conserv. 43, 63–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margules, C.R., Cresswell, I.D. and Nicholls, A.O. (1994) A scientific basis for establishing networks of protected areas. In Systematics and Conservation Evaluation (P.L. Forey, C.J. Humphries and R.I. Vane-Wright, eds) pp. 327–350. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholls, A.O. and Margules, C.R. (1993) An upgraded reserve selection algorithm. Biol. Conserv. 64, 165–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortians, G.H. (1993) Endangered at what level? Ecol. Appl. 3, 206–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressey, R.L. (1994) Land classifications are necessary for conservation planning but what do they tell us about fauna? In Future of the Fauna of Western New South Wales (D. Lunney, S. Hand, P. Reed and D. Butcher, eds) Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressey, R.L., Humphries, C.J., Margules, C.R., Vane-Wright, R.I. and Williams, P.H. (1993) Beyond opportunism: key principles for systematic reserve selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 8, 124–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressey, R.L., Bedward, M. and Keith, D.A. (1994) New procedures for reserve selection in New South Wales: maximising the chances of achieving a representative network. In Systematics and Conservation Evaluation (P.L. Forey, C.J. Humphries and R.I. Vane-Wright, eds) pp. 351–73. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressey, R.L. and Logan, V.S. (1994) Level of geographical subdivision and its effects on assessments of reserve coverage: a review of regional studies. Conserv. Biol. 8, 1037–1046.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, B.N., Bridges, R.G., Curtin, R.A., Nix, H.A., Sheperd, K.R. and Turner, J. (1990) Biological Conservation of the South-East Forests. Report of the Joint Scientific committee. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Publishing Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sætersdal, M. and Birks, H.J.B. (1993) Assessing the representativeness of nature reserves using multivariate analysis: vascular plants and breeding birds in deciduous forests, western Norway. Biol. Conserv. 65, 121–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J.M., Davis, F., Csuti, B., Noss, R., Butterfield, B., Groves, C., Anderson, H., Caicco, S., D'Erchia, F., Edwards, T.C., Ulliman, J. and Wright, R.G. (1993) Gap analysis: a geographic approach to protection of biological diversity. Wildlife Monographys 123, 1–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solow, A., Polasky, S., and Broadus, J. (1993) On the measurement of biological diversity. J. Envir. Econ. Manag. 24, 60–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taggart, J.B. (1994) Ordination as an aid in determining priorities for plant community protection. Biol. Conserv. 68, 135–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tansel, B.C., Francis, R.L. and Lowe, T.J. (1983) Location on networks: a survey. Part I: the p-center and p-median problems. Management Science 29, 482–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thackway, R. and Cresswell, I.D. (1993) Environmental regionalisations of Australia: a user oriented approach. E.R.I.N.

  • Walker, P.A. and Faith, D.P. (1993) DIVERSITY: a software package for sampling phylogenetic and environmental diversity. v. 1.0. Canberra: CSIRO Division of Wildlife and Ecology.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Faith, D.P., Walker, P.A. Environmental diversity: on the best-possible use of surrogate data for assessing the relative biodiversity of sets of areas. Biodivers Conserv 5, 399–415 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00056387

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00056387

Keywords

Navigation