ABSTRACT

1
SPECIES ENDANGEREMENT IN CANADA THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE EXISTING RESERVE NETWORK AT
PROTECTING SPECIES AT RISK Isabelle E. Deguise
and Jeremy T. Kerr Department of Biology,
University of Ottawa, Box 450, Station A,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1N 6N5

• METHODS
• Geographic information for all terrestrial
  protected areas in Canada was obtained from the
  World Wildlife Fund.
• Distribution data for the 243 terrestrial species
  at risk used in this study was obtained from the
  Committee On the Status of Endangered Wildlife in
  Canada (COSEWIC).
• A terrestrial ecozone map was combined with a
  land use map of Canada (Figure 1 for details see
  Kerr and Cihlar 2003) to determine the amount of
  area permanently modified by human activity per
  ecozone (Figure 3).
• The map was modified to contain only two types of
  pixels modified and apparently unmodified.
• A computer algorithm was created to calculate the
  number of species at risk protected by reserves
  randomly placed in all 15 ecozones in Canada.
  These numbers were compared to existing reserves
  (Figures 2 and 4).
• All geographic data were processed using ArcInfo
  Grid and ArcMap.

Figure 1. Land use map of Canada
Figure 4. An example of the normal distribution
produced by the algorithm. The red bar represents
the number of species at risk protected by
existing reserves in this region.
Figure 3. Area permanently modified by human
activity in each of the 15 terrestrial ecozones
in Canada.
ABSTRACT Reserve networks are integral to
conservation strategies, especially for
endangered species. Using publicly available
spatial distribution data, we tested the
effectiveness of the current reserve network in
Canada at protecting species at risk. We
discovered that, in almost every region of
Canada, random reserve networks include
endangered species distributions at least as
effectively as existing reserves. There is no
significant relationship between the total area
protected and the number of species at risk.
Overall, the reserve network in Canada is not
very effective at sheltering endangered species.
Only about 1.5 of the total area of ecological
regions where species are most threatened (i.e.
gt30 endangered species) is protected. If the
erosion of Canadas biological diversity is to be
significantly slowed or reversed, significant
cooperative efforts from all political, social
and economic groups will be required in the
absence of legislation protecting the habitats of
endangered wildlife.

• RESULTS
• The Mixedwood Plains of Southern Ontario (ecozone
  14), has the lowest number of reserves (77), the
  least total area protected (482 km2 or 0.41),
  the smallest average size for parks (6.26 km2)
  and the most species at risk (101).
• The percent of species at risk protected by the
  current reserve network in Canada varies between
  56 and 90.
• In 13 of 15 ecozones, random reserves protect a
  significantly (p lt 0.05) higher number of species
  at risk than existing reserves. The only
  exceptions are the Taiga Shield (ecozone 7) and
  the Boreal Shield (ecozone 11).
• There was no relationship between the total area
  protected and the total number of species at risk
  (Figure 5a), a slightly positive correlation
  between the number of reserves and the total
  number of species at risk (Figure 5b), and a
  negative relationship between the average size of
  reserves and the number of species at risk
  (Figure 5c).
• There was a strong positive correlation between
  the number of reserves and the extent of modified
  area per ecozone (Table 1).
• There was a strong negative correlation between
  the extent of modified area and the average size
  of reserves as well as between the number of
  reserves and their average size (Table 1).
• In the 6 ecozones with gt30 species at risk, only
  1.5 of the total area is protected.

A
INTRODUCTION Species are declining at a faster
rate than ever before, with more populations
facing extinction every year. With an estimated
83 of the lands surface influenced by human
activity, it is no surprise that this
deterioration in biodiversity is human-induced
(Sanderson et al. 2002). In Canada, agricultural
land use intensity is the best predictor of
species endangerment (Kerr and Cihlar 2004).
However, most scientists agree that multiple
threats with synergistic effects are responsible
for the depletion of biodiversity throughout the
world. Reserve networks are integral to
conservation strategies, especially for
endangered species (Lawler et al. 2003).
Canadas reserve network is extensive and it is a
lynchpin of national conservation strategies.
There are more than 3000 protected areas in
Canada, including national and provincial parks
to private sanctuaries. They range in size from
over 50000 km2 to lt1 km2.
B

• Discussion
• Throughout most of Canada, randomly generated
  reserve networks include the ranges of species at
  risk more effectively than the actual reserve
  systems.
• The extent of protected area and density of
  species at risk is simply unrelated.
• Only about 1.5 of the total area of ecological
  regions where species are most threatened (i.e.
  gt30 endangered species) is protected.
• There are more reserves in areas of greatest
  threat from human activity but their small size
  is rendering them nearly useless to species at
  risk.
• The existing reserve network will do little to
  reduce extinction rates in Canada. There are too
  few reserves in areas of high human activity
  which are also areas of high species at risk
  density.
• Conservation of biodiversity in Canada needs to
  occur at both the practical level and the policy
  level and incorporate both protected areas and
  community-based conservation.
• Collaboration between political, economic and
  social groups is vital if the degradation of
  Canadas biological diversity is to be
  significantly slowed or reversed.
• Although the Canadian Species at Risk Act is a
  step in the right direction, it is unlikely to
  have the impact required to conserve biodiversity
  in Canada. The Canadian Species at Risk Act
  states, Canadas protected areas, especially
  national parks, are vital to the protection and
  recovery of species at risk (SARA 2002). Yet we
  have shown that reserves in Canada are
  ineffective at protecting these species.

• OBJECTIVES
• The aim of this study was to determine the
  effectiveness of the current reserve network in
  Canada at protecting species at risk
• Compare the number of species at risk protected
  with the extent of protected area, number of
  reserves and average size of reserves, per
  ecological region, known as ecozones.
• Determine the relationship between the extent of
  modified area, the number of reserves, and the
  average size of reserves per ecozone.
• Compare the existing reserve network to a random
  reserve system generated by computer algorithm.

C
Table 1. Pearson correlations between the extent
of modified land, the number of reserves and the
average size of all reserves among the 15
terrestrial ecozones in Canada.
Figure 2. Flowchart describing the computer
algorithm.

• References
• Kerr, J.T. and J. Cihlar. 2003. Land use and
  cover with intensity of agriculture for Canada
  from satellite and census data. Global Ecology
  Biogeography 12 161-172.
• Kerr, J.T. and J. Cihlar. 2004. Patterns and
  causes of species endangerment in Canada.
  Ecological Applications. In press.
• Lawler, J.J., White, D. and L.L. Master. 2003.
  Integrating representation and vulnerability two
  approaches for prioritizing areas for
  conservation. Ecological Applications 13(6)
  1762-1772.
• Sanderson, E.W., Malanding, J., Levy, M.A.,
  Redford, K.H., Wannebo, A.V. and G. Woolmer.
  2002. The human footprint and the last of the
  wild. BioScience 52(10) 891-904.
• Species at Risk Act. 2002.

Figure 5. Plots of the total number of species at
risk versus a) the amount of protected area and
b) the number of reserves and c) the average size
of reserves, all per ecozone.