User:Brittany Mendrikis/New sandbox

This idea was challenged by Wilson's former student Daniel Simberloff, who pointed out that this idea relied on the assumption that smaller reserves had a nested species composition — it assumed that each larger reserve had all the species presented in any smaller reserve. If the smaller reserves had unshared species, then it was possible that two smaller reserves could have more species than a single large reserve.

Alternate Theories
In 1986, Michael Soule and Daniel Simberloff proposed that the SLOSS debate was irrelevant and that a three step process was the ideal way to determine reserve size. The proposed steps were to firstly decide the species who's presence was most important to the reserves biodiversity, secondly, decide how many of the species were required for the species to survive, and lastly, based on other metapopulation densities, estimate how much space is needed to sustain the required number of individuals.

Urban Areas
The SLOSS debate has come in to play in urban planning concerning green spaces, with considerations extending beyond biodiversity to human well being

Current Status of Debate
The general consensus of the SLOSS debate is that neither option fit every situation, and that they must all be evaluated on a case to case basis to decide the best course of action.