Based on your answers to Questions 7 and 8, are larger or smaller habitats more prone to species loss due to reduction in habitat size? If you were identifying habitat to protect, would you recommend protecting one 400 km2 area or four 100 km2 areas? What other factors might you consider? What factors would make a species more deserving of protection? Are all species deserving of equal protection?

Question

Use Figure 29.4 and the trend line to answer the question.

Answer 1

The smaller habitat had a greater spp loss due to a halving of area. This suggests that larger habitats are less prone to spp loss. However, other factors to consider include the types of habitats. Protecting four smaller areas that are all different habitats could be more important than one larger area with one habitat type. When designing protected areas for species conservation another consideration could be what type of organisms are being protected. Birds would have very different requirements than tortoises. Protecting four species of ant might be viewed as less important than protecting one endangered species of a larger organism, such as panda bears or spotted owls or salmon.