The Value of Biodiversity in Reserve Selection: Representation, Species Weighting, and Benefit Functions

Abstract:  The limited availability of resources for conservation has led to the development of many quantitative methods for selecting reserves that aim to maximize the biodiversity value of reserve networks. In published analyses, species are often considered equal, although some are in much greater need of protection than others. Furthermore, representation is usually treated as a threshold: a species is either represented or not, but varying levels of representation over or under a given target level are not valued differently. We propose that a higher representation level should also have higher value. We introduce a framework for reserve selection that includes species weights and benefit functions for under- and overrepresentation (number of locations for each species). We applied the method to conservation planning for herb-rich forests in southern Finland. Our use of benefit functions and weighting changed the identity of about 50% of the selected sites at different funding levels and improved the representation of rare and threatened species. We also identified a small area of additional land that would substantially enhance the existing reserve network. We suggest that benefit functions and species weighting should be considered as standard options in reserve-selection applications.     

Biodiversity Differences between Managed and Unmanaged Forests: Meta-Analysis of Species Richness in Europe

Abstract: Past and present pressures on forest resources have led to a drastic decrease in the surface area of unmanaged forests in Europe. Changes in forest structure, composition, and dynamics inevitably lead to changes in the biodiversity of forest‐dwelling species. The possible biodiversity gains and losses due to forest management (i.e., anthropogenic pressures related to direct forest resource use), however, have never been assessed at a pan‐European scale. We used meta‐analysis to review 49 published papers containing 120 individual comparisons of species richness between unmanaged and managed forests throughout Europe. We explored the response of different taxonomic groups and the variability of their response with respect to time since abandonment and intensity of forest management. Species richness was slightly higher in unmanaged than in managed forests. Species dependent on forest cover continuity, deadwood, and large trees (bryophytes, lichens, fungi, saproxylic beetles) and carabids were negatively affected by forest management. In contrast, vascular plant species were favored. The response for birds was heterogeneous and probably depended more on factors such as landscape patterns. The global difference in species richness between unmanaged and managed forests increased with time since abandonment and indicated a gradual recovery of biodiversity. Clearcut forests in which the composition of tree species changed had the strongest effect on species richness, but the effects of different types of management on taxa could not be assessed in a robust way because of low numbers of replications in the management‐intensity classes. Our results show that some taxa are more affected by forestry than others, but there is a need for research into poorly studied species groups in Europe and in particular locations. Our meta‐analysis supports the need for a coordinated European research network to study and monitor the biodiversity of different taxa in managed and unmanaged forests.     

Application of the Red‐List Index at a National Level for Multiple Species Groups

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List Index (RLI) is recognized as one of the key indicators of trends in the status of species. The red‐list assessment done by Finnish authorities of species in Finland is taxonomically one of the most extensive national assessments. We used the Finnish Red Lists from 2000 and 2010 to calculate for the first time the national RLIs for 11 taxonomic groups at different trophic levels and with different life cycles. The red‐list index is calculated on the basis of changes in red‐list categories and indicates trends in the status of biological diversity of sets of species. The RLI value ranges from 0 to 1. The lower the value the faster the set of species is heading toward extinction. If the value is 1, all species in the set are least concern and if the value is 0, all species are (regionally) extinct. The overall RLI of Finnish species decreased. This means that, in Finland, these taxonomic groups were heading toward extinction faster in 2010 than in 2000. Of the analyzed groups of organisms, RLIs of 5 decreased and RLIs of 6 increased. At the national level, the RLIs and status trends varied markedly between species groups. Thus, we concluded that generalizations on the basis of RLIs of a few taxa only may yield a biased view of ongoing trends in the status of biological diversity at the species level. In addition, one overall RLI that includes many different species groups may also be misleading if variation in RLI among species groups is not considered and if RLI values are not presented separately for each group. Aplicación del Índice de la Lista Roja a Nivel Nacional para Grupos de Especies Múltiples