Improving bioregional frameworks for conservation by including mammal distributions GILAD BINO, 1 * DANIEL RAMP 1,2 AND RICHARD T. KINGSFORD 1 1 AustralianWetlands and Rivers Centre, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New SouthWales, Sydney, NSW 2052,Australia (Email: gilad.bino@unsw.edu.au), and 2 School of the Environment, University of Technology, Sydney, New SouthWales,Australia Abstract Large identifiable landscape units, such as ecoregions, are used to prioritize global and continental conservation efforts, particularly where biodiversity knowledge is inadequate. Setting biodiversity representation targets using coarse large-scale biogeographic boundaries, can be inefficient and under-representative. Even when using fine-scale biodiversity data, representation deficiencies can occur through misalignment of target distributions with such prioritization frameworks. While this pattern has been recognized, quantitative approaches highlighting misalignments have been lacking, particularly for assemblages of mammal species. We tested the efficacy of Australia’s bioregions as a spatial prioritization framework for representing mammal species, within protected areas, in New South Wales.We produced an approach based on mammal assemblages and assessed its performance in representing mammal distributions. Substantial spatial misalignment between New South Wales’s bioregions and mammal assemblages was revealed, reflecting deficiencies in the representation of more than half of identified mammal assemblages. Using a systematic approach driven by fine-scale mammalian data, we compared the efficacy of these two frameworks in securing mammalian representation within protected areas. Of the 61 species, 38 were better represented by the mammalian framework, with remaining species only marginally better represented when guided by bioregions. Overall, the rate at which mammal species were incorporated into the protected area network was higher (5.1%  0.6 sd) when guided by mammal assemblages. Guided by bioregions, systematic conservation planning of protected areas may be constrained in realizing its full potential in securing representation for all of Australia’s biodiversity. Adapting the boundaries of prioritization frameworks by incorporating amassed informa- tion from a broad range of taxa should be of conservation significance. Key words: bioregion, feeding guild, generalized additive model, Iterative Self-Organizing Data Analysis Tech- nique, mammal assemblage, Marxan, species distribution model, systematic conservation planning. INTRODUCTION Establishing protected areas are the cornerstone of conservation strategies (Rodrigues et al. 2004). The development of systematic methods for prioritizing conservation areas continues to be a fruitful area of research and improvement (Margules & Sarkar 2007; Pressey & Bottrill 2008; Watson et al. 2011), primarily driven by an increased availability of geographically explicit data along with advances in the science of conservation planning. Rather than mere theoretical exercises, systematic conservation initiatives are becoming widely adopted, influencing planning and legislation (Pressey & Bottrill 2008). When limited by data, conservation initiatives have relied on classifica- tion and demarcation of ecosystems into ecoregions via reoccurring patterns and processes in the land- scape (Lindenmayer et al. 2008). These principally reflect the Earth’s macroclimate and interactions with elevation, latitude and continental arrangement (Bailey 2009). Ecoregions can be hierarchically classi- fied, nested into domains, divisions and provinces (Bailey & Ropes 1998). At regional scales, vegetation and other forms of natural land cover are typically used for classification.Their utility lies in their value in setting conservation priorities, as comparable ecosys- tems are assumed to incorporate similar biological and environmental processes and therefore respond simi- larly to management (Bryce et al. 1999). The relative ease in ascribing ecosystems to landscape patterns (Dinerstein et al. 1995) has led to rapid adoption of ecoregions for conservation prioritization, particularly identification and gazettal of protected areas at various scales (Olson et al. 2001; Olson & Dinerstein 2002; Brooks et al. 2006). At a coarse scale, there are 200 global ecoregions (Olson & Dinerstein 2002), integrat- ing biogeography, habitat and elevation into landscape units, a particularly attractive and practical approach in data-poor regions (Faith et al. 2001; Jepson & *Corresponding author. Accepted for publication May 2012. Austral Ecology (2012) ••, ••–•• © 2012 The Authors doi:10.1111/j.1442-9993.2012.02423.x Austral Ecology © 2012 Ecological Society of Australia