%0 Journal Article
%T Efficient Evaluation of Biodiversity Concerns in Protected Areas
%A Sam Ferreira
%A Mahlomola Daemane
%A Andrew Deacon
%A Hendrik Sithole
%A Hugo Bezuidenhout
%J International Journal of Biodiversity
%D 2013
%I Hindawi Publishing Corporation
%R 10.1155/2013/298968
%X Monitoring is a vital component of keeping protected areas in desired states. Lack of robust designs, however, impedes efficient monitoring. We ask two questions¡ªhow does effort at a specific site as well as number of sites in a plant community influence richness, abundance, and diversity indicators. Large mammal herbivory biodiversity influences are a key concern for managers of Mokala National Park. We anticipated that changes in biodiversity indicators (vegetation, ants, and birds) associate with herbivore intensity of use of landscapes. We identified flat deep sandy plains and undulating shallow rocky hills as focal landscapes. Our focus was on finding optimized effort at survey sites as well as the number of sites. Monitoring to evaluate change in diversity and abundance needs far less effort than evaluating change in richness. Furthermore, given the variance at the landscape level, monitoring of species abundance and diversity allows easier detection with less effort and at shorter intervals between surveys than that required for richness. Even though a mechanisms-based approach directs monitoring, conservationists need to evaluate feasibility. In our case, measurement of richness is unlikely to detect herbivore effects. In general though, we have illustrated that focused monitoring designs can robustly evaluate conservation objectives. 1. Introduction Ecological monitoring is a key component of adaptive management [1¨C3], an approach commonly used in resource management when faced with uncertainty [4]. In theory, adaptive management requires managers to have information or opinions on how a specific ecosystem is functioning. The information or opinion of ecosystem functioning predicts how a system should respond. Managers measure these predictions robustly and adapt management actions accordingly if needed [5]. Monitoring designs, however, are often haphazard at best [6]. Reasons include ill-defined objectives or linkages to higher level objectives such as that of park management plans, uncertainties of ecological indices, and what to measure to evaluate a specific objective [7]. Consolidated planning that focuses on defining mechanisms (i.e., the way in which a factor has biological effects, and what modulators adjust or regulate a mechanism) of how threats may impose on managers achieving objectives (i.e., the outcome they seek to achieve) [8] may address many of these shortcomings. Even if these shortcomings have been accounted for, managers often face uncertainties in how to measure responses robustly [7]. Such challenges carry trade-offs that
%U http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijbd/2013/298968/