User:Brittany Mendrikis/New sandbox
This idea was challenged by Wilson's former student Daniel Simberloff, who pointed out that this idea relied on the assumption that smaller reserves had a nested species composition — it assumed that each larger reserve had all the species presented in any smaller reserve. If the smaller reserves had unshared species, then it was possible that two smaller reserves could have more species than a single large reserve[1].
Alternate Theories
[edit]In 1986, Michael Soule and Daniel Simberloff proposed that the SLOSS debate was irrelevant and that a three step process was the ideal way to determine reserve size[2]. The proposed steps were to firstly decide the species who's presence was most important to the reserves biodiversity, secondly, decide how many of the species were required for the species to survive, and lastly, based on other metapopulation densities, estimate how much space is needed to sustain the required number of individuals.
Applications of SLOSS
[edit]Urban Areas
[edit]The SLOSS debate has come in to play in urban planning concerning green spaces, with considerations extending beyond biodiversity to human well being[3]
Current Status of Debate
[edit]The general consensus of the SLOSS debate is that neither option fit every situation, and that they must all be evaluated on a case to case basis to decide the best course of action[4][5].
- ^ Baz, Arturo; Garcia-Boyero, Antonio (1996). "The SLOSS dilemma: a butterfly case study". Biodiversity and Conservation. 5 (4): 493–502. doi:10.1007/bf00056393. ISSN 0960-3115.
- ^ Soulé, Michael E.; Simberloff, Daniel (1986-01-01). "What do genetics and ecology tell us about the design of nature reserves?". Biological Conservation. 35 (1): 19–40. doi:10.1016/0006-3207(86)90025-X. ISSN 0006-3207.
- ^ Valente, Donatella; Pasimeni, Maria Rita; Petrosillo, Irene (2020-01). "The role of green infrastructures in Italian cities by linking natural and social capital". Ecological Indicators. 108: 105694. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105694. ISSN 1470-160X.
{{cite journal}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ Tjørve, Even (2010-05). "How to resolve the SLOSS debate: Lessons from species-diversity models". Journal of Theoretical Biology. 264 (2): 604–612. doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2010.02.009. ISSN 0022-5193.
{{cite journal}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ Lindenmayer, David B.; Wood, Jeff; McBurney, Lachlan; Blair, David; Banks, Sam C. (2015-03). "Single large versus several small: The SLOSS debate in the context of bird responses to a variable retention logging experiment". Forest Ecology and Management. 339: 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2014.11.027. ISSN 0378-1127.
{{cite journal}}: Check date values in:|date=(help)