Ceauşu Silvia, Gomes Inês, Pereira Henrique Miguel
German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Deutscher Platz 5e, 04103, Leipzig, Germany,
Environ Manage. 2015 May;55(5):1168-80. doi: 10.1007/s00267-015-0453-9. Epub 2015 Apr 3.
Several of the most important conservation prioritization approaches select markedly different areas at global and regional scales. They are designed to maximize a certain biodiversity dimension such as coverage of species in the case of hotspots and complementarity, or composite properties of ecosystems in the case of wilderness. Most comparisons between approaches have ignored the multidimensionality of biodiversity. We analyze here the results of two species-based methodologies-hotspots and complementarity-and an ecosystem-based methodology-wilderness-at local scale. As zoning of protected areas can increase the effectiveness of conservation, we use the data employed for the management plan of the Peneda-Gerês National Park in Portugal. We compare the approaches against four criteria: species representativeness, wilderness coverage, coverage of important areas for megafauna, and for regulating ecosystem services. Our results suggest that species- and ecosystem-based approaches select significantly different areas at local scale. Our results also show that no approach covers well all biodiversity dimensions. Species-based approaches cover species distribution better, while the ecosystem-based approach favors wilderness, areas important for megafauna, and for ecosystem services. Management actions addressing different dimensions of biodiversity have a potential for contradictory effects, social conflict, and ecosystem services trade-offs, especially in the context of current European biodiversity policies. However, biodiversity is multidimensional, and management and zoning at local level should reflect this aspect. The consideration of both species- and ecosystem-based approaches at local scale is necessary to achieve a wider range of conservation goals.
几种最重要的保护优先排序方法在全球和区域尺度上选择的区域明显不同。它们旨在最大化某个生物多样性维度，例如在热点地区和互补性方面的物种覆盖范围，或者在荒野方面的生态系统综合属性。大多数方法之间的比较都忽略了生物多样性的多维度性。我们在此分析两种基于物种的方法——热点地区和互补性——以及一种基于生态系统的方法——荒野——在地方尺度上的结果。由于保护区的分区可以提高保护的有效性，我们使用了葡萄牙佩内达-热雷斯国家公园管理计划所采用的数据。我们根据四个标准对这些方法进行比较：物种代表性、荒野覆盖范围、大型动物重要区域的覆盖范围以及调节生态系统服务的覆盖范围。我们的结果表明，基于物种和基于生态系统的方法在地方尺度上选择的区域显著不同。我们的结果还表明，没有一种方法能很好地涵盖所有生物多样性维度。基于物种的方法能更好地覆盖物种分布，而基于生态系统的方法则有利于荒野地区、对大型动物重要的区域以及生态系统服务。应对生物多样性不同维度的管理行动可能会产生矛盾影响、社会冲突以及生态系统服务权衡，尤其是在当前欧洲生物多样性政策的背景下。然而，生物多样性是多维度的，地方层面的管理和分区应反映这一方面。在地方尺度上同时考虑基于物种和基于生态系统的方法对于实现更广泛的保护目标是必要的。
