simon linke & eren turak in collaboration with richard norris bob bailey bob pressey hugh possingham robin abell the ecology centre university of queensland australia www.uq.edu.au/spatialecology [email protected]systematic approaches to conservation planning in freshwater systems matt watts josie carwardine jon nevill carissa klein leon metzeling and many others
27
Embed
systematic approaches to conservation planning in freshwater systems
systematic approaches to conservation planning in freshwater systems. simon linke & eren turak in collaboration with richard norris bob bailey bob pressey hugh possingham robin abell. matt watts josie carwardine jon nevill carissa klein leon metzeling and many others. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
simon linke & eren turakin collaboration withrichard norrisbob baileybob presseyhugh possinghamrobin abell
systematic approaches to conservation planning in freshwater systems
matt wattsjosie carwardinejon nevillcarissa kleinleon metzelingand many others
the aim of conservation planning across a landscape, given limited budget: where to
allocate conservation and restoration effort? maximum efficiency -> healthy environment and
minimum impact on stakeholders completeness, adecuacy , representativeness,
efficiency: the CARE principles
traditional methods: naturalness are
undisturbed rivers the only ones with high conservation value?
traditional methods: naturalness macquarie
marshes (ramsar listed)
traditional methods: naturalness narran lakes
(ramsar listed)
traditional methods: naturalness naturalness
based methods introduce spatial bias and will not deliver complete coverage of biodiversity
‘advanced’ traditional methods: scoring
richnessCARPFACTOR
tyconnectiviausrivasthreats
3
onValueConservati
3 + 5 - 2
=?
‘advanced’ traditional methods: scoring
why not use richness/scoring systems?
unit richA 5B 5C 3D 3E 4
aim: protect all native fish taxa using least effort
why not use richness/scoring systems?
unit richA x x x x x 5B x x x x x 5C x x x 3D x x x 3E x x x x 4
A + B miss 2 taxa only way: D + E
complementarity
aim: protect all native fish taxa using least effort
why don’t metrics work? the cricket team analogy: what happens
when we use the highest ranked players? team a: 11 batsmen (scores many runs)
team b: 11 bowlers (prevents opposition from scoring)
both teams will lose
lessons from cricket
the whole is larger than the sum of its parts
whatever you do, always state a purpose (set targets) need a team that can
score high, while minimising the opposition score
set conservation targets (species, habitats, ecoregions)
optimisation algorithm (complementarity-based)
sitessites
featurescost
minimum set (the best plan fulfilling all targets)
irreplaceability map (how important is the unit for alternative plans)
systematic conservation planning
see Margules & Pressey, Nature, 2000
systematic conservation planningbest bang for your buck
why is it systematic conservation planning still not frequently used in aquatic systems?
we need too much data
spatial configuration is it going really to protect
stuff (adequacy)?
we can’t lock everything up
a) we need too much data systematic approaches need exactly as much
data as richness/scoring approaches possible surrogates:
surrogates based on biological survey data biologically informed physical surrogates ‘tempered’ physical surrogates physical surrogates
b) spatial problems with rivers
PN
Sedimenteffluent
min:cost+ species penalties+ boundary
SC 4
SC 3
SC 2
SC 1
Penalty= 1
Penalty= 1/2
Penalty= 1/3
Hermoso, V., Linke, S., Prenda, J. & Possingham, H. P, Freshwater Biology, in press
increasing BLM in victoria (target=2 occurrences)
Linke, S., Hermoso V. & Possingham, H. P, Ecological Applications, in prep
decreasing BLM in victoria (target=2 occurrences)
Linke, S., Hermoso V. & Possingham, H. P, Ecological Applications, in prep
other approaches (turak, in press, esselman, in press) risk surfaces avoid subcatchments with
a high risk/disturbance
c) adequacy no ideal solution in
any realm (but a lot of work in progress)
target setting and connectivity
mixed landuse/protection schemes
d) we can’t lock everything up mixed zones (abell 2007)
d) we can’t lock everything up mixed zones (abell 2007) flexible catchment rules (hermoso et al., in
press) cost surfaces
publications Freshwater Biology special issue: Systematic planning in freshwater
environments edited by E. Turak & S. Linke Studies from: China,Nth & Sth America, Europe, Sth Africa, Australia
Linke S., Norris, R.H., Pressey, R.L. (2008) Irreplaceability of river networks: Towards catchment-based conservation planning, Journal of Applied Ecology (in press)
Turak, E. & Koop, K. (2008) Multi-attribute ecological river typology for assessing ecological condition and conservation planning. Hydrobiologia, 603, 83-104.
Moilanen, A., Leathwick, J. & Elith, J. (2008) A method for spatial freshwater conservation prioritization. Freshwater Biology, 53, 577-592.
Linke S., Pressey, R.L, Bailey, R.C., Norris R.H. (2007). Management options for river conservation planning: Condition and conservation re-visited, Freshwater Biology, 52, 918-938
Bailey, R.C., Reynoldson, T.B., Yates, A.G., Bailey, J.L., Linke S. (2007) Integrating stream bioassessment and landscape ecology as a tool for landuse planning, Freshwater Biology, 52, 908-917
Hermoso, V. Linke S., Prenda, J. (accepted) Identifying priority sites for conservation of freshwater fish biodiversity in a mediterranean basin, Hydrobiologia, accepted
Ausseil, A.-G., Dymond, J. & Shepherd, J. (2007) Rapid Mapping and Prioritisation of Wetland Sites in the Manawatu–Wanganui Region, New Zealand. Environmental Management, 39, 316-325
Fitzsimons, J. A. & Robertson, H. A. (2005) Freshwater reserves in Australia: directions and challenges for the development of a comprehensive, adequate and representative system of protected areas. Hydrobiologia, 552, 87-97
Higgins, J. V., Bryer, M. T., Khoury, M. L. & FitzHugh, T. W. (2005) A freshwater classification approach for biodiversity conservation planning. Conservation Biology, 19, 432-445
Klein, C., Wilson, K., Watts, M., Stein, J., Berry, S., Carwardine, J., Smith, M. S., Mackey, B. & Possingham`, H. (in press) Incorporating ecological and evolutionary processes into continental scale conservation planning Ecological Applications.
Kingsford, R. T., Brandis, K., Thomas, R. F., Crighton, P., Knowles, E. & Gale, E. (2004) Classifying landform at broad spatial scales: the distribution and conservation of wetlands in New South Wales, Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research, 55, 17-31.
Nel, J. L., Roux, D. J., Maree, G., Kleynhans, C. J., Moolman, J., Reyers, B., Rouget, M. & Cowling, R. M. (2007) Rivers in peril inside and outside protected areas: a systematic approach to conservation assessment of river ecosystems. Diversity and Distributions, 13, 341-352
Thieme, M., Lehner, B., Abell, R., Hamilton, S. K., Kellndorfer, J., Powell, G. & Riveros, J. C. (2007) Freshwater conservation planning in data-poor areas: An example from a remote Amazonian basin (Madre de Dios River, Peru and Bolivia). Biological Conservation, 135, 484-501.
conclusions complementarity-based
planning ensures efficiency and defensibility
systematic planning minimises impact on stakeholders while maximising outcomes