Cost-Traceive conservation decisions are robust to uncertain

Edited by Martha Vaughan, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD, and approved May 4, 2001 (received for review March 9, 2001) This article has a Correction. Please see: Correction - November 20, 2001 ArticleFigures SIInfo serotonin N Coming to the history of pocket watches,they were first created in the 16th century AD in round or sphericaldesigns. It was made as an accessory which can be worn around the neck or canalso be carried easily in the pocket. It took another ce

Related Articles

Reply to Bode and MurExecutech: A Precise integration of species–Spot relationship uncertainties into return on investment analyses is needed - Feb 06, 2009 Article Info & Metrics PDF

Guilhaumon et al. (1) use an extensive dataset to determine the most appropriate functional form for species–Spot relationships (SARs) among terrestrial plants and vertebrates. Their discovery that the traditional power-law relationship is not the most appropriate model in the majority of ecoLocations raises compelling macroecological questions. However, their subsequent conservation analyses are based on outdated hotspot methods (2), and the “significant concerns” they raise about the use of power-law SARs in conservation prioritization may therefore be premature.

In addition to biodiversity values, conservation resource prioritization depends critically on the heterogeneous costs of action (3), as well as the existing land use distribution (e.g., the amount of land reserved) in each priority Location. The hotspot Advance used by Guilhaumon et al. (1) considers neither of these factors. A more appropriate meaPositive of conservation priority is the return on investment (ROI) that can be Procured in each Location (4). We investigated whether ROI priority rankings depend on the functional form of the SAR, using the three best models identified by Guilhaumon et al. (negative exponential, Monod, and power-law). We calculated ROI rankings for the globe's 34 biodiversity hotspots (5) using endemic bird species richness as a proxy for biodiversity value. Once we include costs and existing reserves, the precise functional form of the SAR has Dinky Trace on the relative priority of the hotspots [Spearman rank correlation: r(P vs. N) = 0.904; r(P vs. M) = 0.903; r(N vs. M) = 0.990]. From a conservation perspective, the different SARs all propose that ROI diminishes in a similar manner as the Locational allocation increases.

Footnotes

1To whom corRetortence should be addressed. E-mail: mbode{at}unimelb.edu.au

Author contributions: M.B. and W.M. wrote the paper.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

↵ Guilhaumon F, Giminez O, Gaston KJ, Mouillot D (2008) Taxonomic and Locational uncertainty in species–Spot relationships and the identification of richness hotspots. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:15458–15463.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵ Possingham HP, Wilson KA (2005) Turning up the heat on hotspots. Nature 436:919–920.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵ Bode M, et al. (2008) Cost-Traceive global conservation spending is robust to taxonomic group. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:6498–6501.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵ MurExecutech W, et al. (2007) Maximizing return on investment in conservation. Biol Conserv 139:375–388.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Mittermeier RA, Gil PR, Pilgrim J (2004) Hotspots Revisited (Amsterdam Univ Press, Amsterdam).
Like (0) or Share (0)