Efficiency and effectiveness in representative reserve design in Canada: the contribution of existing protected areas

To be effective, reserve networks should represent all target species in protected areas that are large enough to ensure species persistence. Given limited resources to set aside protected areas for biodiversity conservation, and competing land uses, a prime consideration for the design of reserve networks is efficiency (the maximum biodiversity represented in a minimum number of sites). However, to be effective, networks may sacrifice efficiency. We used reserve selection algorithms to determine whether collections of existing individual protected areas in Canada were efficient and/or effective in terms of representing the diversity of disturbance-sensitive mammals in Canada in comparison to (1) an optimal network of reserves, and (2) sites selected at random. Unlike previous studies, we restricted our analysis to individual protected areas that met a criterion for minimum reserve size, to address issues of representation and persistence simultaneously. We also tested for effectiveness and efficiency using historical and presentday data to see whether protected area efficiency and/or effectiveness varied over time. In general, existing protected areas did not effectively capture the full suite of mammalian species diversity, nor are most existing protected areas part of a near-optimal solution set. To be effective, Canada’s network of reserves will require at minimum 22 additional areas of >2700 km2. This study shows that even when only those reserves large enough to be effective are considered, protected areas systems may not be representative, nor were they representative at the time of establishment

Environmental variability and population dynamics: do European and North American ducks play by the same rules?

Density dependence, population regulation, and variability in population size are fundamental population processes, the manifestation and interrelationships of which are affected by environmental variability. However, there are surprisingly few empirical studies that distinguish the effect of environmental variability from the effects of population processes. We took advantage of a unique system, in which populations of the same duck species or close ecological counterparts live in highly variable (north American prairies) and in stable (north European lakes) environments, to distinguish the relative contributions of environmental variability (measured as between-year fluctuations in wetland numbers) and intraspecific interactions (density dependence) in driving population dynamics. We tested whether populations living in stable environments (in northern Europe) were more strongly governed by density dependence than populations living in variable environments (in North America). We also addressed whether relative population dynamical responses to environmental variability versus density corresponded to differences in life history strategies between dabbling (relatively "fast species" and governed by environmental variability) and diving (relatively "slow species" and governed by density) ducks. As expected, the variance component of population fluctuations caused by changes in breeding environments was greater in North America than in Europe. Contrary to expectations, however, populations in more stable environments were not less variable nor clearly more strongly density dependent than populations in highly variable environments. Also, contrary to expectations, populations of diving ducks were neither more stable nor stronger density dependent than populations of dabbling ducks, and the effect of environmental variability on population dynamics was greater in diving than in dabbling ducks. In general, irrespective of continent and species life history, environmental variability contributed more to variation in species abundances than did density. Our findings underscore the need for more studies on populations of the same species in different environments to verify the generality of current explanations about population dynamics and its association with species life history.Peer reviewe

A Potential Role for Bat Tail Membranes in Flight Control

Wind tunnel tests conducted on a model based on the long-eared bat Plecotus auritus indicated that the positioning of the tail membrane (uropatagium) can significantly influence flight control. Adjusting tail position by increasing the angle of the legs ventrally relative to the body has a two-fold effect; increasing leg-induced wing camber (i.e., locally increased camber of the inner wing surface) and increasing the angle of attack of the tail membrane. We also used our model to examine the effects of flying with and without a tail membrane. For the bat model with a tail membrane increasing leg angle increased the lift, drag and pitching moment (nose-down) produced. However, removing the tail membrane significantly reduced the change in pitching moment with increasing leg angle, but it had no significant effect on the level of lift produced. The drag on the model also significantly increased with the removal of the tail membrane. The tail membrane, therefore, is potentially important for controlling the level of pitching moment produced by bats and an aid to flight control, specifically improving agility and manoeuvrability. Although the tail of bats is different from that of birds, in that it is only divided from the wings by the legs, it nonetheless, may, in addition to its prey capturing function, fulfil a similar role in aiding flight control