The Reliability of Test Discriminations

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/66658/2/10.1177_001316445501500404.pd

A New Way to Measure the World's Protected Area Coverage

Protected areas are effective at stopping biodiversity loss, but their placement is constrained by the needs of people. Consequently protected areas are often biased toward areas that are unattractive for other human uses. Current reporting metrics that emphasise the total area protected do not account for this bias. To address this problem we propose that the distribution of protected areas be evaluated with an economic metric used to quantify inequality in income— the Gini coefficient. Using a modified version of this measure we discover that 73% of countries have inequitably protected their biodiversity and that common measures of protected area coverage do not adequately reveal this bias. Used in combination with total percentage protection, the Gini coefficient will improve the effectiveness of reporting on the growth of protected area coverage, paving the way for better representation of the world's biodiversity

Effectiveness of Biodiversity Surrogates for Conservation Planning: Different Measures of Effectiveness Generate a Kaleidoscope of Variation

Conservation planners represent many aspects of biodiversity by using surrogates with spatial distributions readily observed or quantified, but tests of their effectiveness have produced varied and conflicting results. We identified four factors likely to have a strong influence on the apparent effectiveness of surrogates: (1) the choice of surrogate; (2) differences among study regions, which might be large and unquantified (3) the test method, that is, how effectiveness is quantified, and (4) the test features that the surrogates are intended to represent. Analysis of an unusually rich dataset enabled us, for the first time, to disentangle these factors and to compare their individual and interacting influences. Using two data-rich regions, we estimated effectiveness using five alternative methods: two forms of incidental representation, two forms of species accumulation index and irreplaceability correlation, to assess the performance of ‘forest ecosystems’ and ‘environmental units’ as surrogates for six groups of threatened species—the test features—mammals, birds, reptiles, frogs, plants and all of these combined. Four methods tested the effectiveness of the surrogates by selecting areas for conservation of the surrogates then estimating how effective those areas were at representing test features. One method measured the spatial match between conservation priorities for surrogates and test features. For methods that selected conservation areas, we measured effectiveness using two analytical approaches: (1) when representation targets for the surrogates were achieved (incidental representation), or (2) progressively as areas were selected (species accumulation index). We estimated the spatial correlation of conservation priorities using an index known as summed irreplaceability. In general, the effectiveness of surrogates for our taxa (mostly threatened species) was low, although environmental units tended to be more effective than forest ecosystems. The surrogates were most effective for plants and mammals and least effective for frogs and reptiles. The five testing methods differed in their rankings of effectiveness of the two surrogates in relation to different groups of test features. There were differences between study areas in terms of the effectiveness of surrogates for different test feature groups. Overall, the effectiveness of the surrogates was sensitive to all four factors. This indicates the need for caution in generalizing surrogacy tests

Activity and Process Stability of Purified Green Pepper (Capsicum annuum) Pectin Methylesterase

Pectin methylesterase (PME) from green bell peppers (Capsicum annuum) was extracted and purified by affinity chromatography on a CNBr-Sepharose-PMEI column. A single protein peak with pectin methylesterase activity was observed. For the pepper PME, a biochemical characterization in terms of molar mass (MM), isoelectric points (pI), and kinetic parameters for activity and thermostability was performed. The optimum pH for PME activity at 22 °C was 7.5, and its optimum temperature at neutral pH was between 52.5 and 55.0 °C. The purified pepper PME required the presence of 0.13 M NaCl for optimum activity. Isothermal inactivation of purified pepper PME in 20 mM Tris buffer (pH 7.5) could be described by a fractional conversion model for lower temperatures (55?57 °C) and a biphasic model for higher temperatures (58?70 °C). The enzyme showed a stable behavior toward high-pressure/temperature treatments. Keywords: Capsicum annuum; pepper; pectin methylesterase; purification; characterization; thermal and high-pressure stabilit

Applying Decision-Theory Framework to Landscape Planning for Biodiversity: Follow-up to Watson et al

Because socioeconomic factors drive conservation planning, we believe that to be relevant to on-the-ground projects, conservation science should be focused more on formulating problems explicitly and showing how the broad variety of decision-making tools can be used to deliver solutions. Conservation biology cannot operate outside the reality of financial limitations

Avoiding Costly Conservation Mistakes: The Importance of Defining Actions and Costs in Spatial Priority Setting

Background: The typical mandate in conservation planning is to identify areas that represent biodiversity targets within the smallest possible area of land or sea, despite the fact that area may be a poor surrogate for the cost of many conservation actions. It is also common for priorities for conservation investment to be identified without regard to the particular conservation action that will be implemented. This demonstrates inadequate problem specification and may lead to inefficiency: the cost of alternative conservation actions can differ throughout a landscape, and may result in dissimilar conservation priorities

Ecosystem Services in Conservation Planning: Targeted Benefits vs. Co-Benefits or Costs?

There is growing support for characterizing ecosystem services in order to link conservation and human well-being. However, few studies have explicitly included ecosystem services within systematic conservation planning, and those that have follow two fundamentally different approaches: ecosystem services as intrinsically-important targeted benefits vs. substitutable co-benefits. We present a first comparison of these two approaches in a case study in the Central Interior of British Columbia. We calculated and mapped economic values for carbon storage, timber production, and recreational angling using a geographical information system (GIS). These ‘marginal’ values represent the difference in service-provision between conservation and managed forestry as land uses. We compared two approaches to including ecosystem services in the site-selection software Marxan: as Targeted Benefits, and as Co-Benefits/Costs (in Marxan's cost function); we also compared these approaches with a Hybrid approach (carbon and angling as targeted benefits, timber as an opportunity cost). For this analysis, the Co-Benefit/Cost approach yielded a less costly reserve network than the Hybrid approach (1.6% cheaper). Including timber harvest as an opportunity cost in the cost function resulted in a reserve network that achieved targets equivalently, but at 15% lower total cost. We found counter-intuitive results for conservation: conservation-compatible services (carbon, angling) were positively correlated with each other and biodiversity, whereas the conservation-incompatible service (timber) was negatively correlated with all other networks. Our findings suggest that including ecosystem services within a conservation plan may be most cost-effective when they are represented as substitutable co-benefits/costs, rather than as targeted benefits. By explicitly valuing the costs and benefits associated with services, we may be able to achieve meaningful biodiversity conservation at lower cost and with greater co-benefits

Restricted by borders: trade-offs in transboundary conservation planning for large river systems

Effective conservation of freshwater biodiversity requires accounting for connectivity and the propagation of threats along river networks. With this in mind, the selection of areas to conserve freshwater biodiversity is challenging when rivers cross multiple jurisdictional boundaries. We used systematic conservation planning to identify priority conservation areas for freshwater fish conservation in Hungary (Central Europe). We evaluated the importance of transboundary rivers to achieve conservation goals by systematically deleting some rivers from the prioritization procedure in Marxan and assessing the trade-offs between complexity of conservation recommendations (e.g., conservation areas located exclusively within Hungary vs. transboundary) and cost (area required). We found that including the segments of the largest transboundary rivers (i.e. Danube, Tisza) in the area selection procedure yielded smaller total area compared with the scenarios which considered only smaller national and transboundary rivers. However, analyses which did not consider these large river segments still showed that fish diversity in Hungary can be effectively protected within the country’s borders in a relatively small total area (less than 20 % of the country’s size). Since the protection of large river segments is an unfeasible task, we suggest that transboundary cooperation should focus on the protection of highland riverine habitats (especially Dráva and Ipoly Rivers) and their valuable fish fauna, in addition to the protection of smaller national rivers and streams. Our approach highlights the necessity of examining different options for selecting priority areas for conservation in countries where transboundary river systems form the major part of water resources.Full Tex

Absence of evidence for the conservation outcomes of systematic conservation planning around the globe : A systematic map

Background Systematic conservation planning is a discipline concerned with the prioritisation of resources for biodiversity conservation and is often used in the design or assessment of terrestrial and marine protected area networks. Despite being an evidence-based discipline, to date there has been no comprehensive review of the outcomes of systematic conservation plans and assessments of the relative effectiveness of applications in different contexts. To address this fundamental gap in knowledge, our primary research question was: what is the extent, distribution and robustness of evidence on conservation outcomes of systematic conservation planning around the globe? Methods A systematic mapping exercise was undertaken using standardised search terms across 29 sources, including publication databases, online repositories and a wide range of grey literature sources. The review team screened articles recursively, first by title only, then abstract and finally by full-text, using inclusion criteria related to systematic conservation plans conducted at sub-global scales and reported on since 1983. We sought studies that reported outcomes relating to natural, human, social, financial or institutional outcomes and which employed robust evaluation study designs. The following information was extracted from included studies: bibliographic details, background information including location of study and broad objectives of the plan, study design, reported outcomes and context. Results Of the approximately 10,000 unique articles returned through our searches, 1209 were included for full-text screening and 43 studies reported outcomes of conservation planning interventions. However, only three studies involved the use of evaluation study designs which are suitably rigorous for inclusion, according to best-practice guidelines. The three included studies were undertaken in the Gulf of California (Mexico), Réunion Island, and The Nature Conservancy’s landholdings across the USA. The studies varied widely in context, purpose and outcomes. Study designs were non-experimental or qualitative, and involved use of spatial landholdings over time, stakeholder surveys and modelling of alternative planning scenarios. Conclusion Rigorous evaluations of systematic conservation plans are currently not published in academic journals or made publicly available elsewhere. Despite frequent claims relating to positive implications and outcomes of these planning activities, we show that evaluations are probably rarely conducted. This finding does not imply systematic conservation planning is not effective but highlights a significant gap in our understanding of how, when and why it may or may not be effective. Our results also corroborate claims that the literature on systematic conservation planning is dominated by methodological studies, rather than those that focus on implementation and outcomes, and support the case that this is a problematic imbalance in the literature. We emphasise the need for academics and practitioners to publish the outcomes of systematic conservation planning exercises and to consider employing robust evaluation methodologies when reporting project outcomes. Adequate reporting of outcomes will in turn enable transparency and accountability between institutions and funding bodies as well as improving the science and practice of conservation planning