Integration of wildlife into the process of selection and evaluation of protected areas in Alberta

Alberta joined the international community in efforts to conserve biodiversity by protecting a representative sample of province's natural regions in a system of protected areas (PA). The assumption was that if we protect diverse landscapes we should also be able to protect wildlife associated with those landscapes. This study was undertaken to determine if the landscape approach addresses the representation needs of wildlife and evaluate other methods that could allow integrating wildlife into the process of selection of PA in Alberta.;In Alberta, almost 10% of the province is allocated in 241 PA. Many of the current PA are dispersed and very small. Assuming species continuous distribution throughout their range, a minimum of 80% of all known birds, mammals, butterflies, fishes, amphibians, and reptiles in Alberta could potentially be found in more than three of the PA. The species representation is most likely overestimated. Among the represented species are species that are experiencing population declines, suggesting that representation does not constitute protection. Those species not represented or underrepresented are rare breeders, migrants, highly localized species, species endangered or threatened in Canada, or species on the fringe of their distribution. These analyses also identified gaps in our knowledge on species presence and distribution in Alberta.;In search of efficient strategies to locate additional reserves to improve the representation of species and natural regions in the PA system in Alberta, first I tested the assumption that centers of species richness and centers of species rarity of birds, mammals, fishes, and butterflies coincide. The correlation was moderate (r = 0.60, p = 0.001), therefore, various richness and rarity heuristic algorithms and random selection algorithm were evaluated to determine which of them would be suitable to complete the species representation in the PA. The richness algorithm that selected sites based of high number on species and within a buffer of 10 grid cells (if cells were otherwise of equal conservation value), selected sites efficiently and in less dispersed configuration than other algorithms. The rarity algorithm was equally efficient but resulted in more dispersed configuration of cells. Both algorithms were applied to assess their suitability to complete wildlife and landscape representation in the PA system.;For the purpose of this evaluation, the goal was to represent 10% of provincial ranges of birds, mammals, fishes, butterflies, and natural regions in the reserve system. Both algorithms showed a similar performance in terms of efficiency and configuration; however, the rarity algorithm selected more cells already in the PA. These analyses provide basis for the development of future heuristic algorithms as tools for establishing new PA and monitoring the PA network in Alberta. They could assist with future land negotiations and help establish corridors among protected areas to reduce their isolation. Iterative methods could be applied anywhere because they are scale independent using any type of criteria as long as they are quantitative.