Using endemism to assess representation of protected areas - the family Myrtaceae in the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area

Publisher:
Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Publication Type:
Journal Article
Citation:
Journal of Biogeography, 2013, 40 pp. 570 - 578
Issue Date:
2013-01
Full metadata record
Files in This Item:
Filename Description Size
Thumbnail2011008286OK.pdf1 MB
Adobe PDF
Aim We assess how much of species' ranges are present within protected areas and how different land units within protected areas contribute to overall protection, both within their region and at continental scales. We do this using the plant family Myrtaceae in relation to the globally important Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area (GBMWHA) in New South Wales, Australia. Location South-eastern Australia. Methods Compiling data throughout the region and nationally, we considered two spatially based quantitative measures of endemism (relative range restriction): weighted endemism (WE) and corrected weighted endemism (CWE). In both measures, species are weighted by the proportion of their ranges found within the analysis window, with the ranges calculated as the total number of cells in which they occur (10 km ï½ 10 km in this research). We also derived a novel expectation for the contribution of each species to the endemism scores at each taxonomic level based on the additive properties of the metrics and their relationship to species richness. We used this expectation to assess the proportional contribution of each genus to the endemism scores. Results The degree to which Myrtaceae species within the GBMWHA are endemic to the GBMWHA area is 16%, meaning that an average of 16% of the ranges of species found in the GBMWHA are restricted to that area. The figure for those species with ranges less than or equal to the median (80 cells) is 33%. The genus Eucalyptus contributes the most to the endemism scores obtained, but no more than would be expected given its number of species. The genus Leptospermum is 3.7% less restricted to the GBMWHA than would be expected, while the genus Melaleuca is 5% more restricted than expected.
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: