Setting conservation targets for sandy beach ecosystems
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, ISSN: 0272-7714, Vol: 150, Issue: PA, Page: 45-57
2014
- 41Citations
- 125Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
Representative and adequate reserve networks are key to conserving biodiversity. This begs the question, how much of which features need to be placed in protected areas? Setting specifically-derived conservation targets for most ecosystems is common practice; however, this has never been done for sandy beaches. The aims of this paper, therefore, are to propose a methodology for setting conservation targets for sandy beach ecosystems; and to pilot the proposed method using data describing biodiversity patterns and processes from microtidal beaches in South Africa. First, a classification scheme of valued features of beaches is constructed, including: biodiversity features; unique features; and important processes. Second, methodologies for setting targets for each feature under different data-availability scenarios are described. From this framework, targets are set for features characteristic of microtidal beaches in South Africa, as follows. 1) Targets for dune vegetation types were adopted from a previous assessment, and ranged 19–100%. 2) Targets for beach morphodynamic types (habitats) were set using species–area relationships (SARs). These SARs were derived from species richness data from 142 sampling events around the South African coast (extrapolated to total theoretical species richness estimates using previously-established species–accumulation curve relationships), plotted against the area of the beach (calculated from Google Earth imagery). The species-accumulation factor ( z ) was 0.22, suggesting a baseline habitat target of 27% is required to protect 75% of the species. This baseline target was modified by heuristic principles, based on habitat rarity and threat status, with final values ranging 27–40%. 3) Species targets were fixed at 20%, modified using heuristic principles based on endemism, threat status, and whether or not beaches play an important role in the species' life history, with targets ranging 20–100%. 4) Targets for processes and 5) important assemblages were set at 50%, following other studies. 6) Finally, a target for an outstanding feature (the Alexandria dunefield) was set at 80% because of its national, international and ecological importance. The greatest shortfall in the current target-setting process is in the lack of empirical models describing the key beach processes, from which robust ecological thresholds can be derived. As for many other studies, our results illustrate that the conservation target of 10% for coastal and marine systems proposed by the Convention on Biological Diversity is too low to conserve sandy beaches and their biota.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272771413002394; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2013.05.016; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84910003847&origin=inward; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0272771413002394; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2013.05.016
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know