Because conservation planners typically lack data on where species occur, environmental surrogates—including geophysical settings and climate types—have been used to prioritize sites within a planning area. We reviewed 622 evaluations of the effectiveness of abiotic surrogates in representing species in 19 study areas. Sites selected using abiotic surrogates represented more species than an equal number of randomly selected sites in 43% of tests (55% for plants) and on average improved on random selection of sites by about 8% (21% for plants). Environmental diversity (ED) (42% median improvement on random selection) and biotically informed clusters showed promising results and merit additional testing. We suggest 4 ways to improve performance of abiotic surrogates. First, analysts should consider a broad spectrum of candidate variables to define surrogates, including rarely used variables related to geographic separation, distance from coast, hydrology, and within‐site abiotic diversity. Second, abiotic surrogates should be defined at fine thematic resolution. Third, sites (the landscape units prioritized within a planning area) should be small enough to ensure that surrogates reflect species’ environments and to produce prioritizations that match the spatial resolution of conservation decisions. Fourth, if species inventories are available for some planning units, planners should define surrogates based on the abiotic variables that most influence species turnover in the planning area. Although species inventories increase the cost of using abiotic surrogates, a modest number of inventories could provide the data needed to select variables and evaluate surrogates. Additional tests of nonclimate abiotic surrogates are needed to evaluate the utility of conserving nature's stage as a strategy for conservation planning in the face of climate change. 相似文献
Objective: The aim of this study was to explore whether varying levels of operational and tactical driving task demand differentially affect drivers with Parkinson's disease (PD) and control drivers in their sign recall.
Methods: Study participants aged between 50 and 70 years included a group of drivers with PD (n = 10) and a group of age- and sex-matched control drivers (n = 10). Their performance in a sign recall task was measured using a driving simulator.
Results: Drivers in the control group performed better than drivers with PD in a sign recall task, but this trend was not statistically significant (P =.43). In addition, regardless of group membership, subjects' performance differed according to varying levels of task demand. Performance in the sign recall task was more likely to drop with increasing task demand (P =.03). This difference was significant when the variation in task demand was associated with a cognitive task; that is, when drivers were required to apply the instructions from working memory.
Conclusions: Although the conclusions drawn from this study are tentative, the evidence presented here is encouraging with regard to the use of a driving simulator to examine isolated cognitive functions underlying driving performance in PD. With an understanding of its limitations, such driving simulation in combination with functional assessment batteries measuring physical, visual, and cognitive abilities could comprise one component of a multitiered system to evaluate medical fitness to drive. 相似文献