Conservation area networks for the Indian region: Systematic methods and future prospects

Authors

  • Sahotra Sarkar Biodiversity and Biocultural Conservation Laboratory, Section of Integrative Biology, University of Texas at Austin, USA
  • Michael Mayfield Wello Horld, Inc., 195 Morgan Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, USA 11237
  • Susan Cameron Graduate Group in Ecology, Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California at Davis, Davis, California, USA 95616
  • Trevon Fuller Biodiversity and Biocultural Conservation Laboratory, Section of Integrative Biology, University of Texas at Austin, USA
  • Justin Garson Department of Philosophy, University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station C3500, Austin, Texas, USA 78712

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3126/hjs.v4i6.980

Keywords:

Indian biodiversity, Eastern Himalayas, complementarity, area prioritization, reserve selection, surrogacy

Abstract

We present a framework for systematic conservation planning for biodiversity with an emphasis on the Indian context. We illustrate the use of this framework by analyzing two data sets consisting of environmental and physical features that serve as surrogates for biodiversity. The aim was to select networks of potential conservation areas (such as reserves and national parks) which include representative fractions of these environmental features or surrogates. The first data set includes the entire subcontinent while the second is limited to the Eastern Himalayas. The environmental surrogates used for the two analyses result in the selection of conservation area networks with different properties. Tentative results indicate that these surrogates are successful in selecting most areas known from fieldwork to have high biodiversity content such as the broadleaf and subalpine conifer forests of the Eastern Himalayas. However, the place-prioritization algorithm also selected areas not known to be high in biodiversity content such as the coast of the Arabian Sea. Areas selected to satisfy a 10% target of representation for the complete surrogate set provide representation for 46.03% of the ecoregions in the entire study area. The algorithm selected a disproportionately small number of cells in the Western Ghats, a hotspot of vascular plant endemism. At the same target level, restricted surrogate sets represent 33.33% of the ecoregions in the entire study area and 46.67% of the ecoregions in the Eastern Himalayas. Finally, any more sophisticated use of such systematic methods will require the assembly of Geographical Information Systems (GIS)-based biogeographical data sets on a regional scale. Key words: Indian biodiversity, Eastern Himalayas, complementarity, area prioritization, reserve selection, surrogacy Himalayan Journal of Sciences Vol.4(6) 2007 p.27-40

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Abstract
786
PDF
597

Author Biographies

Sahotra Sarkar, Biodiversity and Biocultural Conservation Laboratory, Section of Integrative Biology, University of Texas at Austin, USA

Biodiversity and Biocultural Conservation Laboratory, Section of Integrative Biology, University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station C0930, Austin, Texas, USA 78712

Trevon Fuller, Biodiversity and Biocultural Conservation Laboratory, Section of Integrative Biology, University of Texas at Austin, USA

Biodiversity and Biocultural Conservation Laboratory, Section of Integrative Biology, University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station C0930, Austin, Texas, USA 78712

Downloads

How to Cite

Sarkar, S., Mayfield, M., Cameron, S., Fuller, T., & Garson, J. (2008). Conservation area networks for the Indian region: Systematic methods and future prospects. Himalayan Journal of Sciences, 4(6), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3126/hjs.v4i6.980

Issue

Section

Research Papers