INTRODUCTION

Over the past three decades, conservation biology has shown quite clearly that the maintenance of biodiversity cannot by itself be achieved solely with networks of protected areas, no matter how functional those may be (Janzen 1983; Boersma and Parrish 1999; Gaston et al. 2002; Rodriguez et al. 2004). The managed matrix into which such protected areas are embedded greatly matters. Approaches to ensure the retention of native habitats outside protected areas and within managed landscapes is of paramount importance for fulfilling the long-term maintenance of biodiversity. Traditionally, wildlife management has tackled issues of biological conservation by using single-species habitat requirements approaches focused on game species, endangered species, or indicator species (Rosene 1969; Severinghaus 1981; Bart 1995; Block et al. 1995). Incorporating the conservation of all native species in managed landscapes raises concerns about the appropriateness of single-species approaches or even conservation shortcuts such as flagship, keystone, or umbrella species (Caro and O'Doherty 1999; Caro 2003; Roberge and Angelstam 2004; Huggett 2005; Lindenmayer et al. 2005).

Another conservation planning approach has increasingly been proposed as an alternative to species-oriented conservation: ecosystem-oriented conservation planning, also referred to as coarse-filter strategies (Noss 1987; Hunter et al. 1988). The coarse-filter approach implies that at landscape and regional scales, an adequate representation (distribution and abundance) of forest cover types should be maintained.