Focusing on the Landscape - BushBlitz

larger (following Rodrigues et al 2004). We are particularly interested in seeing if there are
common biological or geographical characteristics for species that are either well or under
“reserved”. This can provide indications of the level of protection likely to be afforded to
species for which we have few site records. Species that are likely to be under represented in
reserves can be considered for priority conservation action if land clearance and/or
degradation is likely to be an immediate and severe threatening process.
Methods
The methods used in this paper are based on those used to undertake an analysis of the status
of frogs in the PAs of Australian undertaken by Lemckert et al (2009). Please refer to this
paper for further details.
The 2006 CAPAD database lists 8780 IUCN criteria PAs (see Figure 1) that protect
768,826,956 hectares (11.6%) of continental Australia, including Tasmania (see Error!
Reference source not found.2). This level of reservation provided the baseline for
comparisons of the expected reservation levels for each group.
Records for the 50 most speciose families of Australian vascular flora were supplied by the
Australian Government Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts
through the Australian Natural Heritage Assessment Tool (ANHAT) database. This included
data on species which have yet to be formally described. This database has been compiled
from specimen and site records held in State, Territory and Commonwealth flora and fauna
collections and wildlife atlases, and from the work of individual researchers. ANHAT is a
custom-designed analysis tool built on Microsoft Access (Microsoft, 2003) and ArcGIS
geographic information system (ESRI, 2005).
Records dated pre-1950 were excluded from the data sets, as earlier historical site records
rarely have sufficient spatial accuracy for this type of analysis. Furthermore, site records
with a spatial error range >20 km were excluded and duplicate records removed. Records
within 500 m of each other were considered the same site and listed as a single spatial record.
Due to time limitations, review of taxonomic and nomenclatural changes of the species in
ANHAT was not performed. Time limitations also meant that names of undescribed species
were not able to be put into the correct taxonomic format, so that in many cases informal
names may appear italicised and/or not indicative of taxonomic rank.
Within each of the 50 flora families, any species with 30 or fewer records was noted and
removed from further consideration. Extinct species were listed where they occurred for
each family, but were not considered further in the report. Species with 30 or fewer records
may have been rarely recorded because they are truly rare, difficult to identify, occur in
remote locations or are very cryptic (e.g., subterranean orchids). Many of these species
probably have a combination of these factors acting to limit their records. We removed them
because we believe it is difficult to assess their relative state of reservation with reasonable
accuracy. For example, if a plant species has two site records and both fall in a reserve, it is
not reasonable to assume that it is highly protected when most of its predicted range falls
outside of reserves. We also removed species that are now considered extinct.
17