Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Representing biodiversity: Data and procedures for identifying priority areas for conservation

  • Articles
  • Published:
Journal of Biosciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Biodiversity priority areas together should represent the biodiversity of the region they are situated in. To achieve this, biodiversity has to be measured, biodiversity goals have to be set and methods for implementing those goals have to be applied. Each of these steps is discussed. Because it is impossible to measure all of biodiversity, biodiversity surrogates have to be used. Examples are taxa sub-sets, species assemblages and environmental domains. Each of these has different strengths and weaknesses, which are described and evaluated. In real-world priority setting, some combination of these is usually employed. While a desirable goal might be to sample all of biodiversity from genotypes to ecosystems, an achievable goal is to represent, at some agreed level, each of the biodiversity features chosen as surrogates. Explicit systematic procedures for implementing such a goal are described. These procedures use complementarity, a measure of the contribution each area in a region makes to the conservation goal, to estimate irreplaceability and flexibility, measures of the extent to which areas can be substituted for one another in order to take competing land uses into account. Persistence and vulnerability, which also play an important role in the priority setting process, are discussed briefly.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abate T 1992 Environmental rapid-assessment programs have appeal and critics;BioScience 42 486–489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackery P R, Smith C R and Vane-Wright R I (eds) 1995Carcasson’s African butterflies: an annotated catalogue of the Papilionoidea and Hesperioidea of the Afrotropical region (Melbourne: CSIRO)

    Google Scholar 

  • Ackery P R and Vane-Wright R I 1984Milkweed butterflies (Cornell: Cornell University Press)

    Google Scholar 

  • Adam P 1992 The end of conservation on the cheap;Natl. Parks J. 36 19–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Aiken S R 1994 Peninsular Malaysia’s protected areas’ coverage 1903-92: creation, rescission, excision, and intrusion;Environ. Conserv. 21 49–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ando A, Camm J, Polasky S and Solow A 1998 Species distributions, land values, and efficient conservation;Science 279 2126–2128

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Austin M P 1985 Continuum concept, ordination methods and niche theory;Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 16 39–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin M P and Heyligers P C 1989 Vegetation survey design for conservation: gradsect sampling of forests in north-eastern New South Wales;Biol. Conserv. 50 13–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin M P and Heyligers P C 1991 New approaches to vegetation survey design: gradsect sampling; inNature conservation: cost effective biological surveys and data analysis (eds) C R Margules and M P Austin (Melbourne: CSIRO) pp 31–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin M P, Cunningham R B and Fleming P M 1984 New approaches to direct gradient analysis using environmental scalars and statistical curve-fitting procedures;Vegetatio 55 11–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin M P and Meyers J A 1996 Current approaches to modelling the environmental niche of eucalypts: implications for management of forestry;For. Ecol. Manag. 85 95–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin M P, Nicholls A O and Margules C R 1990 Measurement of the realised qualitative niche: environmental niches of fiveEucalyptus species;Ecol. Monogr. 60 161–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Awimbo J A, Norton D A and Overmars F B 1996 An evaluation of representativeness for nature conservation, Hokitika ecological district, New Zealand;Biol. Conserv. 75 177–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnard P, Brown C J, Jarvis A M and Robertson A 1998 Extending the Namibian protected area network to safeguard hotspots of endemism and diversity;Biodiver. Conserv. 7 531–547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bean M J and Wilcove D S 1997 The private-land problem;Conserv. Biol. 11 1–2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beardsley K and Stoms D 1993 Compiling a map of areas managed for biodiversity in California;Nat. Areas J. 13 177–190

    Google Scholar 

  • Belbin L 1993 Environmental representativeness: regional partitioning and reserve selection;Biol. Conserv. 66 223–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benson D H and Howell J 1990 Sydney’s vegetation 1788-1988: utilization, degradation and rehabilitation;Proc. Ecol. Soc. Aust. 16 115–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Bink F A 1992 The butterflies of the future, their strategy; inFuture of butterflies in Europe: strategies for survival (eds) T Pavlick van Beek, A H Ovaa and J G van der Made (The Netherlands: Department of Nature Conservation, Agricultural University of Wageningen) pp 134–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodmer R E, Eisenberg J F and Redford K H 1997 Hunting and the likelihood of extinction of Amazonian mammals;Conserv. Biol. 11 460–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bull A L, Thackway R and Cresswell I D 1993Assessing conservation of the major Murray-Darling ecosystems [Canberra: Environmental Resources Information Network (ERIN), Australian Nature Conservation Agency]

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgman M A, Keith D A, Rohlf F J and Todd C R 1999 Probabilistic classification rules for setting conservation priorities;Biol. Conserv. 89 227–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busby J R 1986 A biogeoclimatic analysis ofNothofagus cunninghamii (Hook.) Oerst. in southeastern Australia;Aust. J. Ecol. 11 1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busby J R 1991 BIOCLIM — a bioclimatic analysis and prediction system; inNature conservation: cost effective biological surveys and data analysis (eds) C R Margules and M P Austin (Melbourne: CSIRO) pp 64–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Caughley G 1994 Directions in conservation biology;J. Anim. Ecol. 63 215–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christian C S and Stewart G A 1968 Methodology of integrated surveys; inProceedings of the Toulouse conference on aerial surveys and integrated studies (Paris: UNESCO) pp 233–280

    Google Scholar 

  • Clifford H T and Stephenson W 1975An introduction to numerical classification (New York: Academic Press)

    Google Scholar 

  • Cocks K D and Baird I A 1989 Using mathematical programming to address the multiple reserve selection problem: an example from the Eyre Peninsula, South Australia;Biol. Conserv. 49 113–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Commonwealth of Australia 1995National Forest Conservation Reserves: Commonwealth Proposed Criteria (Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service)

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowling R M, Pressey R L, Lombard A T, Heijnis C E, Richardson D M and Cole N 1999 Framework for a conservation plan for the Cape Floristic Region (Cape Town: University of Cape Town, Institute for Plant Conservation Report 9902)

    Google Scholar 

  • Csuti B, Polasky S, Williams P H, Pressey R L, Camm J D, Kershaw M, Kiester A R, Downs B, Hamilton R, Huso M and Sahr K 1997 A comparison of reserve selection algorithms using data on terrestrial vertebrates in Oregon;Biol. Conserv. 80 83–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies K F, Margules C R and Lawrence J F 2000 Which traits of species predict population declines in experimental forest fragments?;Ecology 81 1450–1461

    Google Scholar 

  • Disney R H L 1986 Inventory surveys of insect faunas: discussion of a particular attempt;Antenna (London)10 112–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards V M and Sharp B M H 1990 Institutional arrangements for conservation on private land in New Zealand;J. Environ. Manag. 31 313–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrlich P R and Wilson E O 1991 Biodiversity studies: science and policy;Science 253 758–762

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eldredge N and Salthe S N 1984 Hierarchy and evolution; inOxford surveys in evolutionary biology (eds) R Dawkins and M Ridley (Oxford: Oxford University Press) vol. 1, pp 184–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Erwin T L 1982 Tropical forests: their richness in Coleoptera and other arthropod species;Coleopterists’ Bull. 36 74–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Erwin T L 1983 Tropical forest canopies: the last biotic frontier;Bull. Entomol. Soc. Am. 30 14–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Faith D P 1992a Conservation evaluation and phylogenetic diversity;Biol. Conserv. 61 1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faith D P 1992b Systematics and conservation: on predicting the feature diversity of subsets of taxa;Cladistics 8 361–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faith D P 1994 Phylogenetic pattern and the quantification of organismal biodiversity;Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London B345 45–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Faith D P and Walker P A 1996a Environmental diversity: on the best-possible use of surrogate data for assessing the relative biodiversity of sets of areas;Biodiver. Conserv. 5 399–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faith D P and Walker P A 1996b Integrating conservation and development: incorporating vulnerability into biodiversity-assessment of areas;Biodiver. Conserv. 5 417–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faith D P, Margules C R and Walker P A 2001a A biodiversity conservation plan for Papua New Guinea based on biodiversity trade-offs analysis;Pacific Conserv. Biol. 6 304–324

    Google Scholar 

  • Faith D P, Margules C R, Walker P A, Stein J and Natera G 2001b Practical application of biodiversity surrogates and percentage targets for conservation in Papua New Guinea;Pacific Conserv. Biol. 6 289–303

    Google Scholar 

  • Faith D P, Walker P A and Margules C R 2001c Some future prospects for systematic biodiversity planning in Papua New Guinea — and for biodiversity planning in general;Pacific Conserv. Biol. 6 325–334

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrier D 1995 Policy instruments for conserving biodiversity on private land; inConserving biodiversity: threats and solutions (eds) R A Bradstock, T D Auld, D A Keith, R T Kingsford, D Lunney and D P Sivertsen (Sydney: Surrey Beatty) pp 337–359

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrier S, Pressey R L and Barrett T W 2000 A new predictor of the irreplaceability of areas for achieving a conservation goal, its application to real-world planning, and a research agenda for further refinement;Biol. Conserv. 93 303–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrier S and Watson G 1997An evaluation of the effectiveness of environmental surrogates and modelling techniques in predicting the distribution of biological diversity (Canberra: Environment Australia)

    Google Scholar 

  • Forey P L, Humphries C J and Vane-Wright R I (eds) 1994Systematics and conservation evaluation (Oxford: Oxford University Press)

    Google Scholar 

  • Freitag S, Nicholls A O and van Jaarsveld A S 1996 Nature reserve selection in the Transvaal, South Africa: what data should we be using?;Biodiver. Conserv. 5 685–698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gámez R 1991 Biodiversity conservation through facilitation of its sustainable use: Costa Rica’s National Biodiversity Institute;Trends Ecol. Evol. 6 377–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaston K J, Pressey R L and Margules C R 2002 Persistence and vulnerability: retaining biodiversity in the landscape and in protected areas;J. Biosci. (Suppl. 2)27 361–384

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gaston K J, Williams P H, Eggleton P J and Humphries C J 1995 Large scale patterns of biodiversity: spatial variation in family richness;Proc. R. Soc. London B260 149–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gauch H G 1982Multivariate analysis in community ecology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillison A N and Brewer K R W 1985 The use of gradient directed transects in natural resource surveys;J. Environ. Manag. 20 103–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond P M 1992 Species inventory; inGlobal biodiversity: status of the Earth’s living resources (ed.) B Groombridge (London: Chapman and Hall) pp 17–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson N 1992 Wilderness and the nature conservation ideal: Britain, Canada and the United States contrasted;Ambio 21 394–399

    Google Scholar 

  • Hovore F T 1991 INBio: by biologists, for biologists;Am. Entomol. (Fall 1991) 157–158

  • Howard P C, Viskanic P, Davenport T R B, Kigenyi F W, Baltzer M, Dickinson C J, Lwanga J S, Matthews R A and Balmford A 1998 Complementarity and the use of indicator groups for reserve selection in Uganda;Nature (London)394 472–475

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes J B, Daily G C and Ehrlich P R 1997 Population diversity: its extent and extinction;Science 278 689–692

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Humphries C J, Williams P H and Vane-Wright R I 1995 Measuring biodiversity value for conservation;Annu. Rev. Syst. Ecol. 26 93–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchinson G E 1958 Concluding remarks;Cold Spring Harbor Symp. Quant. Biol. 22 415–427

    Google Scholar 

  • JANIS (Joint ANZECC/MCFFA National Forest Policy Statement Implementation Sub-committee) 1997Nationally agreed criteria for the establishment of a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system for forests in Australia (Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia)

    Google Scholar 

  • Janzen D H 1991 How to save tropical biodiversity: the National Biodiversity Institute of Costa Rica;Am. Entomol. (Fall 1991) 159–171

  • Keith D A 1995 Involving ecologists and local communities in survey, planning and action for conservation in a rural landscape: an example from the Bega Valley, New South Wales; inNature conservation 4 — the role of networks (eds) D A Saunders, J L Craig and E M Mattiske (Sydney: Surrey Beatty) pp 385–400

    Google Scholar 

  • Keith D A and Bedward M 1999 Native vegetation of the south east forests region, Eden, New South Wales;Cunninghamia 61–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirchhofer A 1997 The assessment of fish vulnerability in Switzerland based on distribution data;Biol. Conserv. 80 1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkpatrick J B 1983 An iterative method for establishing priorities for the selection of nature reserves: an example from Tasmania;Biol. Conserv. 25 127–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkpatrick J B 1987 Forest reservation in Tasmania;Search 18 138–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight R L 1999 Private lands: the neglected geography;Conserv. Biol. 13 223–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knopf F L and Samson, F B 1994 Biological diversity — science and action;Conserv. Biol. 8 909–911

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kremen C 1992 Assessing the indicator properties of species assemblages for natural areas monitoring;Ecol. Appl. 2 203–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambert J and Elix J 1996 Community involvement: incorporating the values, needs and aspirations of the wider community in bioregional planning; inApproaches to bioregional planning, Part 1 (ed.) R Breckwoldt (Canberra: Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories Biodiversity Series Paper No. 10) pp 59–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Leader-Williams N, Harrison J and Green M J B 1990 Designing protected areas to conserve natural resources;Sci. Prog. 74 189–204

    Google Scholar 

  • Ludwig D 1999 Is it meaningful to estimate a probability of extinction?;Ecology 80 298–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackey B G, Nix H A, Stein J A, Cork S E and Bullen F T 1989 Assessing the representativeness of the wet tropics of Queensland World Heritage property;Biol. Conserv. 50 279–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon J 1992The Logic of MASS (Hong Kong: Asian Bureau for Conservation)

    Google Scholar 

  • Majer J D 1983 Ants as bio-indicators of minesite rehabilitation, land use and land conservation;Environ. Manag. 7 375–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margules C R 1986 Conservation evaluation in practice; inWildlife conservation evaluation (ed.) M B Usher (London: Chapman and Hall) pp 297–314

    Google Scholar 

  • Margules C R 1989 Introduction to some Australian developments in conservation evaluation;Biol. Conserv. 50 1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margules C R and Austin M P 1994 Biological models for monitoring species decline: the construction and use of data bases;Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London B343 69–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Margules C R and Pressey R L 2000 Systematic conservation planning;Nature (London)405 243–253

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Margules C R, Cresswell I D and Nicholls A O 1994 A scientific basis for establishing networks of protected areas; inSystematics and conservation evaluation (eds) P L Forey, C J Humphries and R I Vane-Wright (Oxford: Oxford University Press) pp 327–350

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margules C R, Redhead T D, Faith D P and Hutchinson M F 1995BioRap: guidelines for using the biorap methodology and tools (Canberra: CSIRO)

    Google Scholar 

  • Margules C R and Usher M B 1981 Criteria used in assessing wildlife conservation potential: a review;Biol. Conserv. 21 79–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKenzie N L, Belbin L, Margules C R and Keighery G J 1989 Selecting representative reserve systems in remote areas: a case study in the Nullarbor region, Australia;Biol. Conserv. 50 239–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKinney M L 1997 Extinction vulnerability and selectivity: combining ecological and paleontological views;Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 28 495–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller K R 1996Balancing the scales: guidelines for increasing biodiversity’s chances through bioregional management (Washington DC: World Resources Institute)

    Google Scholar 

  • Mittermeier R A, Myers N, Thomsen J B, da Fonseca GAB and Olivieri S 1998 Biodiversity hotspots and major tropical wilderness areas: approaches to setting conservation priorities;Conserv. Biol. 12 516–520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore N W 1987The bird of time: the science and politics of nature conservation — a personal account (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers N, Mittermeier R A, Mittermeier C G, da Fonseca GAB and Kent J 2000 Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities;Nature (London)403 853–858

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson G 1985 Class and individual: a reply to M Ghiselin;Cladistics 1 386–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholls A O 1989 How to make biological surveys go further with Generalised Linear Models;Biol. Conserv. 50 51–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholls A O 1991 Examples of the use of Generalised Linear Models in Analysis of Survey Data for Conservation Evaluation; inNature conservation: cost effective biological surveys and data analysis (eds) C R Margules and M P Austin (Melbourne: CSIRO) pp 54–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholls A O and Margules C R 1993 An upgraded reserve selection algorithm;Biol. Conserv. 64 165–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nix H A 1982 Environmental determinants of biogeography and evolution in Terra Australis; inEvolution of the flora and fauna of arid Australia (eds) W R Baker and P J M Greenslade (South Australia: Peacock Publishers) pp 47–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Nix H A 1986 A biogeographic analysis of Australian elapid snakes; inAtlas of elapid snakes of Australia (Australian Flora and Fauna Series No. 7) (ed.) R Longmore (Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service) pp 4–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Nix H A, Faith D P, Hutchinson M F, Margules C R, West J, Allison A, Kesteven J L, Natera G, Slater W, Stein J L and Walker P 2000The BioRap Toolbox: A National Study of Biodiversity Assessment and Planning for Papua New Guinea (Canberra: Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian National University)

    Google Scholar 

  • Noss R F 1987 From plant communities to landscapes in conservation inventories: a look at the Nature Conservancy (USA);Biol. Conserv. 41 11–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noss R F 1990 Indicators and monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach;Conserv. Biol. 4 355–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noss R F and Cooperrider A Y 1994Saving nature’s legacy: protecting and restoring biodiversity (Washington DC: Island Press)

    Google Scholar 

  • Noss R F, Strittholt J R, Vance-Borland K, Carroll C and Frost P 1999 A conservation plan for the Klamath-Siskiyou eco-region;Nat. Areas J. 19 392–411

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver I and Beattie A J 1993 A possible method for the rapid assessment of biodiversity;Conserv. Biol. 7 562–568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olivieri S, Bowles I A, Cavalvanti R B, de Fonseca GAB, Mittermeier R A and Rodstrum C B 1995A participatory approach to biodiversity conservation: the regional priority setting workshop (Washington DC: Conservation International)

    Google Scholar 

  • Paal J 1998 Rare and threatened plant communities of Estonia;Biodiver. Conserv. 7 1027–1049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perring F 1958 A theoretical approach to a study of chalk grassland;J. Ecol. 46 665–679

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perring F 1959 Topographical gradients in chalk grassland;J. Ecol. 47 447–481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prendergast J R and Eversham B C 1997 Species richness covariance in higher taxa: empirical tests of the biodiversity indicator concept;Ecography 20 210–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prendergast J R, Quinn R M, Lawton J H, Eversham B C and Gibbons D W 1993 Rare species, the coincidence of diversity hotspots and conservation strategies;Nature (London)365 335–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressey R L 1992 Nature conservation in rangelands: lessons from research on reserve selection in New South Wales;Rangeland J. 14 214–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressey R L 1994 Ad hoc reservations: forward or backward steps in developing representative reserve systems?;Conserv. Biol. 8 662–668

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressey R L 1998 Algorithms, politics and timber: an example of the role of science in a public political negotiation process over new conservation areas in production forests; inEcology for everyone: Communicating ecology to scientists, the public and politicians (eds) R Willis and R Hobbs (Sydney: Surrey Beatty) pp 73–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressey R L, Ferrier S, Hager T C, Woods C A, Tully S L and Weinman K M 1996a How well protected are the forests of north-eastern New South Wales? — analyses of forest environments in relation to tenure, formal protection measures and vulnerability to clearing;For. Ecol. Manag. 85 311–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressey R L, Possingham H P and Margules C R 1996b Optimality in reserve selection algorithms: when does it matter and how much?;Biol. Conserv. 76 259–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressey R L, Hager T C, Ryan K M, Schwarz J, Wall S, Ferrier S and Creaser P M 2000 Using abiotic data for conservation assessments over extensive regions: quantitative methods applied across New South Wales, Australia;Biol. Conserv. 96 55–82

    Article  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. 8 124–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressey R L, Johnson I R and Wilson P D 1994 Shades of irreplaceability: towards a measure of the contribution of sites to a reservation goal;Biodiver. Conserv. 3 242–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressey R L and Logan V S 1995 Reserve coverage and requirements in relation to partitioning and generalisation of land classes: analysis of western New South Wales;Conserv. Biol. 9 1506–1517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressey R L and Nicholls, A O 1989 Efficiency in conservation evaluation: scoring versus iterative approaches;Biol. Conserv. 50 199–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressey R L and Tully S L 1994 The cost of ad hoc reservation: a case study in western New South Wales;Aust. J. Ecol. 19 375–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prober S and Thiele K 1993 Surviving in cemeteries — the grassy white box woodlands;Natl. Parks J. 37 13–15

    Google Scholar 

  • RACAC (Resource and Conservation Assessment Council) 1996Draft interim forestry assessment report (Sydney: RACAC)

    Google Scholar 

  • Redford K, Andrews M, Braun D, Buttrick S, Chaplin S, Coon M, Cox R, Ellis L, Grossman D, Groves C, Livermore D, Pearsall S, Shopland J, Tabas P, Wall K, Williamson D and Rousmaniere N 1997Designing a geography of hope: guidelines for ecoregion conservation in the Nature Conservancy 1st edition (Arlington: Nature Conservancy)

    Google Scholar 

  • Rebelo A G 1994 Iterative selection procedures: centres of endemism and optimal placement of reserves; inBotanical diversity in southern Africa (ed.) B J Huntley (Pretoria: National Botanical Institute) pp 231–257

    Google Scholar 

  • Rebelo A G 1997 Conservation; inVegetation of southern Africa (eds) R M Cowling, D M Richardson and S M Pierce (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) pp 571–590

    Google Scholar 

  • Rebelo A G and Siegfried W R 1990 Protection of Fynbos vegetation: ideal and real-world options;Biol. Conserv. 54 15–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rebelo A G and Siegfried W R 1992 Where should nature reserves be located in the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa? Models for the spatial configuration of a reserve network aimed at maximising the protection of floral diversity;Conserv. Biol. 6 243–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richards B N, Bridges R G, Curtin R A, Nix H A, Shepherd, K R and Turner J 1990Biological conservation of the south-east forests (Report of the Joint Scientific Committee) (Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service)

    Google Scholar 

  • Runte A 1979National parks: the American experience (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press)

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryti R T 1992 Effect of the focal taxon on the selection of nature reserves;Ecol. Appl. 2 404–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandlund O T 1991 Costa Rica’s INBio: towards sustainable use of natural diversity;Norw. Inst. Nat. Res. Notat 7 1–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar S 1999 Wilderness preservation and biodiversity conservation — keeping divergent goals distinct;BioScience 49 405–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulz S, Boppré M and Vane-Wright R I 1993 Specific mixtures of secretions from male scent organs of Kenyan milkweed butterflies (Danainae);Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London B342 161–181

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith P G R and Theberge J B 1986 A review of criteria for evaluating natural areas;Environ. Manag. 10 715–734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith P G R and Theberge J B 1987 Evaluating natural areas using multiple criteria: theory and practice;Environ. Manag. 11 447–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soulé M E 1990 The real work of systematics;Ann. Missouri Bot. Garden 77 4–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stork N E 1988 Insect diversity: fact, fiction and speculation;Biol. J. Linnean Soc. 35 321–337

    Google Scholar 

  • Stork N E and Gaston K J 1990 Counting species one by one;NewSci. 127 31–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Strom A A 1979 Impressions of a developing conservation ethic, 1870–1930;Parks Wildlife 2 45–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Strom A A 1990 Response to: Conserving what? — the basis for nature conservation reserves in New South Wales 1967–1989;Aust. Zool. 26 94–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas J and Lewington R 1991The butterflies of Britain and Ireland (London: Dorling Kindersley)

    Google Scholar 

  • Underhill L G 1994 Optimal and suboptimal reserve selection algorithms;Biol. Conserv. 70 85–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Usher M B 1986 Wildlife conservation evaluation: attributes, criteria and values; inWildlife conservation evaluation (ed.) M B Usher (London: Chapman and Hall) pp 3–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Vane-Wright R I 1978 Ecological and behavioural origins of diversity in butterflies; inDiversity of insect faunas (eds) L A Mound and N Waloff (Oxford: Blackwell) pp 56–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Vane-Wright R I 1992 Systematics and diversity. Species concepts; inGlobal biodiversity: status of the Earth’s living resources (ed.) B Groombridge (London: Chapman and Hall) pp 7–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Vane-Wright R I 1996 Identifying priorities for the conservation of biodiversity: systematic biological criteria within a socio-political framework; inBiodiversity: a biology of numbers and difference (ed.) K J Gaston (Oxford: Blackwell) pp 309–344

    Google Scholar 

  • Vane-Wright R I, Humphries C J and Williams P H 1991 What to protect? — systematics and the agony of choice;Biol. Conserv. 55 235–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Jaarsveld A S, Freitag S, Chown S L, Muller C, Koch S, Hull H, Bellamy C, Kroeger M, Endroedy-Younga S, Mansell M W and Scholtz C H 1998 Biodiversity assessment and conservation strategies;Science 279 2106–2108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ward T J, Kenchington R A, Faith D P and Margules C R 1998Marine BioRap Guidelines: Rapid Assessment of Marine Biological Diversity (Perth: CSIRO)

    Google Scholar 

  • Wessels K J, vanJaarsveld A S, Grimbeek J D and van derLinde M J 1998 An evaluation of the gradsect biological survey method;Biodiver. Conserv. 7 1093–1121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White D, Minotti P G, Barczak M J, Sifneos J C, Freemark K E, Santelmann M V, Steinitz C F, Kiester A R and Preston E M 1997 Assessing risks to biodiversity from future landscape change;Conserv. Biol. 11 349–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead P 1990 Systematics: an endangered species;Syst. Zool. 39 179–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker R H 1956 Vegetation of the Great Smoky Mountains;Ecol. Monogr. 26 1–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker R H 1960 Vegetation of the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon and California;Ecol. Monogr. 30 279–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wille C 1993 Costa Rica’s parataxonomists search for “green gold”; inNature Conservancy Annual Report, January/ February 1993, pp 11–17

  • Williams P H 1996 Measuring biodiversity value;World Conserv. 1 12–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams P H and Gaston K J 1994 Measuring more of biodiversity: can higher-taxon richness predict wholesale species richness?;Biol. Conserv. 67 211–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams P H and Gaston K J 1998 Biodiversity indicators: graphical techniques, smoothing and searching for what makes relationships work;Ecography 21 551–560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams P H, Humphries C J, Araujo M B, Lahti T, Lampinen, Uotila P and Vane-Wright R I 1999 Important Plant Areas of Europe: exploring the consequences of selection criteria; inPlanta Europa (eds) H Synge and J Akeroyd (London: Plantlife) pp 103–109

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams P H, Humphries C J and Vane-Wright R I 1991 Measuring biodiversity: taxonomic relatedness for conservation priorities;Aust. Syst. Bot. 4 665–679

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams P H, Margules C R and Hilbert D W 2002 Data requirements and data sources for biodiversity priority area selection;J. Biosci. (Suppl. 2)27 327–338

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Williams W T 1976Pattern analysis in agricultural science (Melbourne: CSIRO)

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson E O and Peters F M (eds) 1988Biodiversity (Washington DC: National Academy Press)

    Google Scholar 

  • Yen A L 1987 A preliminary assessment of the correlation between plant, vertebrate and Coleoptera communities in the Victorian mallee; inThe role of invertebrates in conservation and biological survey (ed.) J D Majer (Perth, Western Australia: Department of Conservation and Land Management) pp 73–88

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Tropical Forest Research Centre and the Rainforest Cooperative Research Centre, 4883, Atherton, Queensland, Australia

    C. R. Margules, R. L. Pressey & P. H. Williams

  2. New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service, 2350, Armidale, New South Wales, Australia

    R. L. Pressey & P. H. Williams

Authors
  1. C. R. Margules
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. L. Pressey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. P. H. Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. R. Margules.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Margules, C.R., Pressey, R.L. & Williams, P.H. Representing biodiversity: Data and procedures for identifying priority areas for conservation. J Biosci 27, 309–326 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02704962

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02704962

Keywords

Search

Navigation