Limitations of habitats as biodiversity surrogates for conservation planning in estuaries

UTSePress Research/Manakin Repository

Search UTSePress Research


Advanced Search

Browse

My Account

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Shokri, Mohammad en_US
dc.contributor.author Gladstone, William en_US
dc.contributor.editor en_US
dc.date.accessioned 2013-11-03T17:05:20Z
dc.date.available 2013-11-03T17:05:20Z
dc.date.issued 2013 en_US
dc.identifier 2012001297 en_US
dc.identifier.citation Shokri, Mohammad and Gladstone, William 2013, 'Limitations of habitats as biodiversity surrogates for conservation planning in estuaries', Springer, vol. 185, pp. 3477-3492. en_US
dc.identifier.issn 0167-6369 en_US
dc.identifier.other C1 en_US
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10453/24039
dc.description.abstract Increasing pressures on global biodiversity and lack of data on the number and abundance of species have motivated conservation planners and researchers to use more readily available information as proxies or surrogates for biodiversity. "Habitat" is one of the most frequently used surrogates but its assumed value in marine conservation planning is not often tested. The present study developed and tested three alternative habitat classification schemes of increasing complexity for a large estuary in south-east Australia and tested their effectiveness in predicting spatial variation in macroinvertebrate biodiversity and selecting estuarine protected areas to represent species. The three habitat classification schemes were: (1) broad-scale habitats (e.g., mangroves and seagrass), (2) subdivision of each broad-scale habitat by a suite of environmental variables that varied significantly throughout the estuary, and (3) subdivision of each broad-scale habitat by the subset of environmental variables that best explained spatial variation in macroinvertebrate biodiversity. Macroinvertebrate assemblages differed significantly among the habitats in each classification scheme. For each classification scheme, habitat richness was significantly correlated with species richness, total density of macroinvertebrates, assemblage dissimilarity, and summed irreplaceability. However, in a reserve selection process designed to represent examples of each habitat, no habitat classification scheme represented species significantly better than a random selection of sites. Habitat classification schemes may represent variation in estuarine biodiversity; however, the results of this study suggest they are inefficient in designing representative networks of estuarine protected areas. en_US
dc.language en_US
dc.publisher Springer en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon en_US
dc.title Limitations of habitats as biodiversity surrogates for conservation planning in estuaries en_US
dc.parent Environmental Monitoring and Assessment en_US
dc.journal.volume 185 en_US
dc.journal.number en_US
dc.publocation Dordrecht, Netherlands en_US
dc.identifier.startpage 3477 en_US
dc.identifier.endpage 3492 en_US
dc.cauo.name SCI.School of the Environment en_US
dc.conference Verified OK en_US
dc.for 050000 en_US
dc.personcode 0000061516 en_US
dc.personcode 108858 en_US
dc.percentage 100 en_US
dc.classification.name Environmental Sciences en_US
dc.classification.type FOR-08 en_US
dc.edition en_US
dc.custom en_US
dc.date.activity en_US
dc.location.activity en_US
dc.description.keywords Estuary; Reserve selection; Irreplaceability; Complementarity; Species richness; Macroinvertebrates; Environmental diversity en_US
dc.staffid 108858 en_US


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record