Letter | Published:

Best shape for nature reserves

Abstract

The ideas of classical island biogeography1 have been used2–6 to derive rules for the optimal design strategy for nature reserves. For example, Diamond3 states that, given limited (financial) resources, it is better to purchase a few large reserves rather than many small ones of equal total area; and that reserves should be as close to one another as possible. The validity of some of these rules has, however, been questioned7–10; for example it has recently been shown9,10 that several small reserves may contain more species than a single one of equivalent area. These rules have nevertheless been accepted uncritically by others, including the IUCN11. Here, I examine Diamond's rule3 that reserves should be as round as possible and conclude that in certain circumstances the optimal shape may be other than circular. There is no a priori reason for believing that these circumstances are unrealistic, and I know of no observational evidence to suggest whether they are found in nature or not. I also reason that the rule that reserves should be as close to each other as possible is inconsistent with the statement that they should be circular.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1

    MacArthur, R. H. & Wilson, E. O. Evolution 17, 373–387 (1963); The Theory of Island Biogeography (Princeton University Press, 1967).

  2. 2

    Terborgh, J. Bioscience 24, 715–722 (1974); Tropical Ecological Systems, Trends in Terrestrial and Aquatic Research (eds Golley, F. B. & Medina, E.) 369–380 (Springer, New York, 1975).

  3. 3

    Diamond, J. M. Biol. Conserv. 7, 129–146 (1975).

  4. 4

    Diamond, J. M. & May, R. M. Theoretical Ecology, Principles and Applications (ed. May, R. M.) 163–186 (Blackwell, Oxford, 1976).

  5. 5

    Wilson, E. O. & Willis, E. O. Ecology and Evolution of Communities (eds Cody, M. L. & Diamond, J. M.) 522–534 (Harvard University Press, 1975).

  6. 6

    Hooper, M. D. The Scientific Management of Animal and Plant Communities for Conservation (eds Duffey, E. & Watt, A. S.) 555–561 (Blackwell, Oxford, 1971).

  7. 7

    Simberloff, D. S. & Abele, L. G. Science 191, 285–286 (1976).

  8. 8

    Abele, L. G. & Connor, E. F. Proc. First Conf. sci. Res. in The nat. Parks (ed. Linn, R. M.) Vol. I, 89–94 (1979).

  9. 9

    Higgs, A. J. & Usher, M. B. Nature 285, 568–569 (1980).

  10. 10

    Gilpin, M. E. & Diamond, M. D. Nature 285, 567–568 (1980).

  11. 11

    Int. Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources World Conservation Strategy (IUCN-UNEP-WWF, 1980).

  12. 12

    Faeth, S. H. & Kane, T. C. Oecologia 32, 127–133 (1978).

  13. 13

    Gilpin, M. E. & Diamond, J. M. Proc. nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 73, 4130–4134 (1976).

  14. 14

    Preston, F. W. Ecology 41, 611–627 (1960); 43, 185–215, 410–432 (1962).

  15. 15

    Connor, E. F. & McCoy, E. D. Am. Nat. 113, 791–833 (1979).

  16. 16

    Diamond, J. M. Proc. natn. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 68, 2742–2745 (1971); Proc. natn. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 69, 3199–3203 (1972).

  17. 17

    Pickett, S. T. A. & Thompson, J. N. Biol. Conserv. 13, 27–38 (1978).

  18. 18

    Diamond, J. M. Ecology and Evolution of Communities (eds Cody, M. L. & Diamond, J. M.) 342–445 (Harvard University Press, 1975).

  19. 19

    Peterken, G. F. Biol. Conserv. 6, 239–245 (1974).

Download references

Author information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Further reading

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.