simon linke & eren turak

in collaboration with

richard norrisbob baileybob presseyhugh possinghamrobin abell

the ecology centreuniversity of queensland

australiawww.uq.edu.au/spatialecology

s.linke@uq.edu.au

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 rich

A 5

B 5

C 3

D 3

E 4

aim: protect all native fish taxa using least effort

why not use richness/scoring systems?

unit rich

A x x x x x 5

B x x x x x 5

C x x x 3

D x x x 3

E 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 planning

best 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

we have enough data! there is no excuse not

to embark on a meaningful exercise