This may sound a strange question. However there are two very important
implications to wearing this questionably prominent label
Land use and development projects often incur significant
additional costs to ensure such rare species are not further threatened, or worse driven
to extinction by our actions.
Prevention is better than cure. Too often in the past, the plight
of species has been recognised too late to prevent extinction. Even if we have been able
to intervene in the nick of time, the costs associated with single species rescue programs
can be enormous. Far better to be alerted early, when a few simple and relatively
inexpensive adjustments to land management or policy can often allow natural systems to
stabilise and maintain their constituent plants and animals.
Here we offer some insight into how the definition of "rare"
tends to occur. We then offer a much more robust and accurate option developed by
MapMakers, to offer significant benefits both to our fellow plants and animals, and to
society as a whole which has to wear the cost of untimely intervention, or the guilt of
human generated extinctions..
The total plant species database for this project comprises over
20,000 records collected from almost 1,200 sites.
In this 650 km˛
section of the Flinders Ranges, the rarity value based on these records has been directly
defined using a combination of abundance and geographical distribution. The map shows a
maximum of four "rare" species defined by this method.
Existing expert opinion concerning rarity underpins most
legislation concerned with fauna and flora conservation. We have consolidated all
available opinion for the study area, and assigned each species listed a composite value
of rarity, according to how many authorities consider each species to be "rare".
The result is shown on the map. The difference between the maps is
striking!
However, the first map considers only survey records in the study
area, while the expert map considers broader state, national and international rarity.
This
map integrates the two data sources to offer a definitive statement of rare plant
distribution in the study area.
Recall how we were able to derive standing crop or
"biomass" in a previous example?
This
allowed us to see which parts of the study area were comparatively fertile and well
watered. While of obvious value to the management of primary production enterprises, we
may integrate the results of such work into quite separate processes, for example the
conservation priority example here.
While not attempting to make a
definitive statement here, the example illustrates how an understanding of natural
processes combined with appropriate technological tools, can help resolve the often bitter
debate between "development" and "conservation".
Please note that most of the images on our site have been generated primarily
for hard copy, and therefore might not display optimally on your terminal.
![[Company Logo Image]](_borders/Copy_of_mmlogo6_trnspnt_bkgnd.gif)
