resulting from profound socio-economic transformations is fomenting substantial
afforestation (Roura-Pascual et al. 2005; MacNeill 2003; Lasanta-Martínez et al.
2005). This afforestation, in turn, results in loss of the grasslands and open habitats
that play host to major elements of biodiversity. Managers can consider taking
actions focused on enhancing some of these habitats: this situation could be
interpreted as a trade-off. In these cases, the surface area occupied by different
human activities—commercial exploitation, provisioning and regulation services,
biodiversity conservation—represents a limiting resource that is likely to be promoted by management decisions. A negative correlation between different uses just
reflects, however, that their sum, rather than their product, is constant (i.e. the whole
territory), without any particular functional meaning. In contrast with an organism
that requires different essential functions that compete for resources to persist, a
territory will remain over time, regardless of whatever land cover it may support.
For a proper application of the trade-off concept, the abundance of a given land use
should be associated with any functional property of an upscaled, comprehensive
ecological system. We can establish trade-offs between different land uses if they
correspond to different conflicting benefits: for example, logging in forest areas—
with direct financial revenues—as opposed to the preservation of open habitats for
some species—a conservation goal. Similarly, different land uses may be associated
with distinct components of the species’ niche, such as foraging in open areas and
refuge in forest lands (May et al. 2010; Martin et al. 2012). This concept is
important because it highlights the fact that the conservation of ecological processes
is not based solely on the patterns of abundance of categorical entities (species, land
uses) but also on the functional properties with which they are associated. The
application of the ecological trade-off concept to conservation issues helps to frame
this functional perspective.
Alternatively, conservation can prioritise some categories (forests or open land,
particular species) irrespective of their functional properties but according to social
preferences, including rarity or aesthetic and iconic perceptions. This conservation
approach is based more on heritage preservation than on functionality or market
utility. Heritage diversity is high in mountain areas, given the particularities of these
environments and the associated evolutionary processes that are enhanced by isolation. The heritage perspective of conservation can easily lead to efforts to increase
species or habitats, especially if these have some distinctive value. So, in the face of
the dilemmas arising from the allocation of different land uses in a territory, the
obvious solution is to increase the total protected area, following a strategy of
accumulating heritage. According to this approach, the goal will be to include the
smallest surface of each land use that provides a plateau of diversity, according to the
asymptotic relationship between diversity and area. Alternatively, if the territory’s
area is limited, one preliminary solution would be to find the optimal combination of
the land use surfaces—according to the same asymptotic relationships for each land
use—and then consider those elements (species or habitats) that are common to the
different uses. Obviously, the procedure becomes much more complicated when
the relationship between diversity and area is dependent on the spatial context,
i.e. influenced by the proximity of other land uses (Bennett et al. 2006).
2 Trade-offs in High Mountain Conservation
49
afforestation (Roura-Pascual et al. 2005; MacNeill 2003; Lasanta-Martínez et al.
2005). This afforestation, in turn, results in loss of the grasslands and open habitats
that play host to major elements of biodiversity. Managers can consider taking
actions focused on enhancing some of these habitats: this situation could be
interpreted as a trade-off. In these cases, the surface area occupied by different
human activities—commercial exploitation, provisioning and regulation services,
biodiversity conservation—represents a limiting resource that is likely to be promoted by management decisions. A negative correlation between different uses just
reflects, however, that their sum, rather than their product, is constant (i.e. the whole
territory), without any particular functional meaning. In contrast with an organism
that requires different essential functions that compete for resources to persist, a
territory will remain over time, regardless of whatever land cover it may support.
For a proper application of the trade-off concept, the abundance of a given land use
should be associated with any functional property of an upscaled, comprehensive
ecological system. We can establish trade-offs between different land uses if they
correspond to different conflicting benefits: for example, logging in forest areas—
with direct financial revenues—as opposed to the preservation of open habitats for
some species—a conservation goal. Similarly, different land uses may be associated
with distinct components of the species’ niche, such as foraging in open areas and
refuge in forest lands (May et al. 2010; Martin et al. 2012). This concept is
important because it highlights the fact that the conservation of ecological processes
is not based solely on the patterns of abundance of categorical entities (species, land
uses) but also on the functional properties with which they are associated. The
application of the ecological trade-off concept to conservation issues helps to frame
this functional perspective.
Alternatively, conservation can prioritise some categories (forests or open land,
particular species) irrespective of their functional properties but according to social
preferences, including rarity or aesthetic and iconic perceptions. This conservation
approach is based more on heritage preservation than on functionality or market
utility. Heritage diversity is high in mountain areas, given the particularities of these
environments and the associated evolutionary processes that are enhanced by isolation. The heritage perspective of conservation can easily lead to efforts to increase
species or habitats, especially if these have some distinctive value. So, in the face of
the dilemmas arising from the allocation of different land uses in a territory, the
obvious solution is to increase the total protected area, following a strategy of
accumulating heritage. According to this approach, the goal will be to include the
smallest surface of each land use that provides a plateau of diversity, according to the
asymptotic relationship between diversity and area. Alternatively, if the territory’s
area is limited, one preliminary solution would be to find the optimal combination of
the land use surfaces—according to the same asymptotic relationships for each land
use—and then consider those elements (species or habitats) that are common to the
different uses. Obviously, the procedure becomes much more complicated when
the relationship between diversity and area is dependent on the spatial context,
i.e. influenced by the proximity of other land uses (Bennett et al. 2006).
2 Trade-offs in High Mountain Conservation
49