Utility of measuring abundance versus consistent occupancy in predicting biodiversity persistence.

The primary goals of reserve selection are to represent all chosen units of biodiversity and to ensure their long-term persistence while minimizing costs. We considered two simple proxies of species persistence: a time series of point-count data to calculate abundance and a time series of presence-absence data to calculate permanence (a measure of consistent occupancy over time). Using two 10-year intervals of data from the North American Breeding Bird Survey, we compared the performance of each measure at predicting persistence 18 years later. For nonrare species, abundance and permanence predicted persistence similarly well. We performed complementarity-based reserve selections with data on species abundance and permanence (from 1970 to 1979) and then evaluated the effectiveness of the reserve networks at maintaining species populations and efficiency in land use (data from 1997 to 2006). Abundance proved a better predictor of future local persistence than permanence, which justifies the relatively larger financial and temporal costs of collecting a time series of point-count data to estimate abundance. If future extinction events were used as a measure of reserve-network effectiveness, the performance of abundance and permanence did not differ markedly. Nevertheless, when future abundance, which is a more sensitive measure of network effectiveness, was used, abundance was significantly better than permanence at selecting longer-term, high-quality, species-specific habitat but required larger reserves to do so.