The Experts below are selected from a list of 25719 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Hugh P. Possingham - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • operationalizing ecological connectivity in spatial Conservation Planning with marxan connect
    Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 2020
    Co-Authors: Remi M Daigle, Anna Metaxas, Arieanna C Balbar, Jennifer Mcgowan, Eric A Treml, Caitlin D Kuempel, Hugh P. Possingham
    Abstract:

    Globally, protected areas are being established to protect biodiversity and to promote ecosystem resilience. The typical spatial Conservation Planning process leading to the creation of these protected areas focuses on representation and replication of ecological features, often using decision support tools such as Marxan. Yet, despite the important role ecological connectivity has in metapopulation persistence and resilience, Marxan currently requires manual input or specialized scripts to explicitly consider connectivity. ‘Marxan Connect’ is a new open source, open access Graphical User Interface (GUI) tool designed to assist Conservation planners with the appropriate use of data on ecological connectivity in protected area network Planning. Marxan Connect can facilitate the use of estimates of demographic connectivity (e.g. derived from animal tracking data, dispersal models, or genetic tools) or structural landscape connectivity (e.g. isolation by resistance). This is accomplished by calculating metapopulation-relevant connectivity metrics (e.g. eigenvector centrality) and treating those as Conservation features or by including the connectivity data as a spatial dependency amongst sites in the prioritization process. Marxan Connect allows a wide group of users to incorporate directional ecological connectivity into Conservation Planning with Marxan. The solutions provided by Marxan Connect, combined with ecologically relevant post-hoc testing, are more likely to support persistent and resilient metapopulations (e.g. fish stocks) and provide better protection for biodiversity.

  • Systematic Conservation Planning with Marxan
    Learning Landscape Ecology, 2017
    Co-Authors: Matthew E. Watts, Romola R. Stewart, Tara G. Martin, Carissa J. Klein, Josie Carwardine, Hugh P. Possingham
    Abstract:

    Conservation Planning is the science of choosing which actions to take where for the purpose of conserving biodiversity. Creating a system of protected areas is the most common form of systematic Conservation Planning. Hence, we will focus on the process of protected area selection in this chapter. Marxan is the most widely used software in the world for creating marine and terrestrial protected area systems. Because Conservation Planning is an important job skill for Conservation and resource managers, you should understand the principles involved even if you don’t use this software in your job and even if you use software other than Marxan for systematic Conservation Planning. From this chapter, we would like you to.

  • solving Conservation Planning problems with integer linear programming
    Ecological Modelling, 2016
    Co-Authors: Hawthorne L Beyer, Matthew E. Watts, Yann Dujardin, Hugh P. Possingham
    Abstract:

    Deciding where to implement Conservation actions in order to meet Conservation targets efficiently is an important component of systematic Conservation Planning. Mathematical optimisation is a quantitative and transparent framework for solving these problems. Despite several advantages of exact methods such as integer linear programming (ILP), most Conservation Planning problems to date have been solved using heuristic approaches such as simulated annealing (SA). We explain how to implement common Conservation Planning problems (e.g. Marxan and Marxan With Zones) in an ILP framework and how these formulations can be extended to account for spatial dependencies among Planning units, such as those arising from environmental flows (e.g. rivers). Using simulated datasets, we demonstrate that ILP outperforms SA with respect to both solution quality (how close it is to optimality) and processing time over a range of problem sizes. For modestly sized quadratic problems (100,000 spatial units and 10 species), for example, a processing time of approximately 14h was required for SA to achieve a solution within 19% of optimality, while ILP achieved solutions within 0.5% of optimality within 30s. For the largest quadratic problems we evaluated processing time exceeding one day was required for SA to achieve a solution within 49% of optimality, while ILP achieved solutions within 0.5% of optimality in approximately one hour. Heuristics are conceptually simple and can be applied to large and non-linear objective functions but unlike ILP, produce solutions of unknown quality. We also discuss how ILP approaches also facilitate quantification of trade-off curves and sensitivity analysis. When solving linear or quadratic Conservation Planning problems we recommend using ILP over heuristic approaches whenever possible.

  • A reusable scientific workflow for Conservation Planning
    2015
    Co-Authors: Siddeswara Mayura Guru, Matthew E. Watts, Ross G. Dwyer, Minh Ngoc Dinh, David Abramson, Hoang Anh Nguyen, Hamish A. Campbell, Craig E. Franklin, T. Clancy, Hugh P. Possingham
    Abstract:

    In order to perform complex scientific data analysis, multiple software and skillsets are generally required. These analyses can involve collaborations between scientific and technical communities, with expertise in problem formulation and the use of tools and programming languages. While such collaborations are useful for solving a given problem, transferability and productivity of the approach is low and requires considerable assistance from the original tool developers. Any complex scientific data analysis involves accessing and refining large volumes of data, running simulations and algorithms, and visualising results. These steps can incorporate a variety of tools and programming languages, and can be constructed as a series of activities to achieve a desired outcome. This is where scientific workflows are very useful. Scientific workflows abstract complex analyses into a series of inter-dependent computational steps that lead to a solution for a scientific problem. Once constructed, the workflow can be executed repeatedly and the results reproduced with minimal assistance from the original tool developers. This improves transferability, repeatability and productivity, and reduces costs by reusing workflow components for similar problems but using different datasets. Kepler is a popular open-source scientific workflow tool for designing, executing, archiving and sharing workflows. It has the ability to couple disparate execution environments on a single platform. For example, users can run analysis steps written in Python, R and Matlab on a single platform as part of a single analysis and synthesis experiment. Kepler provides a wide variety of reusable components that perform various tasks, including data access from databases, remote system, file system and web services, and data servers, and executes these processes in a local or distributed environment. Together these functionalities provide greater flexibility for researchers to undertake complex scientific analyses compared with traditional homogeneous environments. In this paper, we will describe a new scientific workflow based on Kepler that automates data analysis tasks for Marxan, a widely used Conservation Planning software. Marxan is used by over 4,200 active users in more than 180 countries to identify gaps in biodiversity protection, identify cost effective areas for Conservation investment and inform multiple-use zoning. Its use is expanding rapidly and this new functionality will improve the application of Marxan to various Conservation Planning problems. A Kepler workbench has been extended to provide functionality to invoke Marxan and execute it within a distributed environment using Nimrod/K. Our aim was to develop a reproducible, reusable workflow to generate Conservation Planning scenarios on the Kepler platform. The workflow components include data acquisition and pre-processing, construction of Planning scenarios, generation of efficient solutions to the complex problem formulations and visualization of outputs. The workflow components are shared for reuse and re- configured to design and simulate other Conservation Planning applications. We also present a use case to demonstrate a Kepler Marxan workflow to design and implement Conservation Planning computational simulation experiments.

  • Advancing marine Conservation Planning in the Mediterranean Sea
    Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 2012
    Co-Authors: Sylvaine Giakoumi, Tessa Mazor, Simonetta Fraschetti, Salit Kark, Michelle E. Portman, Marta Coll, Jeroen Steenbeek, Hugh P. Possingham
    Abstract:

    Twenty leading scientists in the field of marine Conservation Planning attended the first international workshop on Conservation Planning in the Mediterranean Sea. This globally significant biodiversity hotspot has been subjected to human exploitation and degradation for 1,000s of years. Recently, several initiatives have tried to identify priority areas for Conservation across the Mediterranean Sea. However, none of these efforts have led to large-scale actions yet. The aim of the workshop was to establish a network of scientists who are involved in large-scale Conservation Planning initiatives throughout the Mediterranean basin to promote collaboration and reduce redundancy in Conservation initiatives. The three focus groups of the workshop build on existing efforts and intend to deliver: (1) a roadmap for setting Conservation priorities, (2) a methodological framework for linking threats, actions and costs to improve the prioritization process, and (3) a systematic Conservation Planning process tailored to complex environments such as the Mediterranean Sea. Joining forces and involving more scientists (especially from the South-eastern part of the region) in following meetings, the participants endeavour to provide guidelines on how to bridge the science-policy gap and hence aid decision-makers to take efficient Conservation actions.

Robert L. Pressey - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • implementation strategies for systematic Conservation Planning
    AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 2019
    Co-Authors: Morena Mills, Robert L. Pressey, Vanessa M Adams, Rebecca Weeks, Daniel B Segan, Georgina G Gurney, Craig Groves, Frank W Davis
    Abstract:

    The field of systematic Conservation Planning has grown substantially, with hundreds of publications in the peer-reviewed literature and numerous applications to regional Conservation Planning globally. However, the extent to which systematic Conservation plans have influenced management is unclear. This paper analyses factors that facilitate the transition from assessment to implementation in Conservation Planning, in order to help integrate assessment and implementation into a seamless process. We propose a framework for designing implementation strategies, taking into account three critical Planning aspects: processes, inputs, and context. Our review identified sixteen processes, which we broadly grouped into four themes and eight inputs. We illustrate how the framework can be used to inform context-dependent implementation strategies, using the process of ‘engagement’ as an example. The example application includes both lessons learned from successfully implemented plans across the engagement spectrum, and highlights key barriers that can hinder attempts to bridge the assessment-implementation gap.

  • Incorporating historical perspectives into systematic marine Conservation Planning
    2014
    Co-Authors: John N. Kittinger, Robert L. Pressey, John M. Pandolfi, Ruth H. Thurstan, Matthew Lybolt, Simon P. Hart
    Abstract:

    Historical perspectives are highly relevant to marine Conservation, yet rarely integrated into ocean Planning efforts. By its nature, marine Conservation Planning is forward looking-concerned with measures that should be taken in the future. It usually focuses on mitigating anticipated adverse changes caused by current and future human activities, with the implicit assumption that present or recent conditions should be maintained. In this chapter, we show that without incorporating historical data and analysis, such approaches will, in the best case, cause us to aim too low; and in the worst case, they can result in inappropriate targets for Planning and management. We review the role that historical perspectives can provide in marine Conservation Planning, highlight Planning exercises in which this has occurred or has been discussed, and provide recommendations for researchers and Planning practitioners. Using the systematic Conservation Planning framework, we show that each Planning stage can greatly benefit from a historical perspective and illustrate that failure to consider historical information reduces the effectiveness of marine Conservation Planning. We posit that historical perspectives may shift the Conservation focus from restoring previous ecosystem states to recovering critical ecosystem functions and processes that maintain resilience. Historical perspectives can fundamentally change the Conservation vision for a region, providing a window into possibilities for the future.

  • Ten things to get right for marine Conservation Planning in the Coral Triangle
    F1000Research, 2014
    Co-Authors: Rebecca Weeks, Robert L. Pressey, Joanne R. Wilson, Maurice Knight, Vera Horigue, Rene A. Abesamis, Renerio Acosta, Jamaluddin Jompa
    Abstract:

    Systematic Conservation Planning increasingly underpins the Conservation and management of marine and coastal ecosystems worldwide. Amongst other benefits, Conservation Planning provides transparency in decision-making, efficiency in the use of limited resources, the ability to minimise conflict between diverse objectives, and to guide strategic expansion of local actions to maximise their cumulative impact. The Coral Triangle has long been recognised as a global marine Conservation priority, and has been the subject of huge investment in Conservation during the last five years through the Coral Triangle Initiative on Coral Reefs, Fisheries and Food Security. Yet Conservation Planning has had relatively little influence in this region. To explore why this is the case, we identify and discuss 10 challenges that must be resolved if Conservation Planning is to effectively inform management actions in the Coral Triangle. These are: making Conservation Planning accessible; integrating with other Planning processes; building local capacity for Conservation Planning; institutionalising Conservation Planning within governments; integrating plans across governance levels; Planning across governance boundaries; Planning for multiple tools and objectives; understanding limitations of data; developing better measures of progress and effectiveness; and making a long term commitment. Most important is a conceptual shift from Conservation Planning undertaken as a project, to Planning undertaken as a process, with dedicated financial and human resources committed to long-term engagement.

  • integrating connectivity and climate change into marine Conservation Planning
    Biological Conservation, 2014
    Co-Authors: Rafael A Magris, Robert L. Pressey, Rebecca Weeks
    Abstract:

    Most applications of systematic Conservation Planning have not effectively incorporated biological processes or dynamic threats. We investigated the extent to which connectivity and climate change have been considered in an ecologically meaningful way in marine Conservation Planning, as an attempt to help formulate Conservation objectives for population persistence, over and above representation. Our review of the literature identified 115 marine Planning studies that addressed connectivity and 47 that addressed the effects of climate change. Of the statements identified that related to goals and objectives, few were quantitative and justified by ecological evidence for either connectivity (13%) or climate change (8.9%). Most studies addressing connectivity focused on spatial design (e.g. size and spacing) of marine protected areas (MPAs) or clustering of Planning units. Climate change recommendations were primarily based on features related to MPA placement (e.g. preferences for areas relatively resilient and resistant to climate change impacts). Quantitative methods to identify spatial or temporal dynamics of features related to connectivity and/or climate change (e.g. functionally well-connected or thermal refugia areas) were rare, and these accounted for the majority of ecologically justified statements. Given these shortcomings in the literature, we outline a framework for setting marine Conservation Planning objectives that describes six key approaches to more effectively integrate connectivity and climate change into Conservation plans, aligning opportunities and minimizing trade-offs between both issues.

  • linking regional Planning and local action towards using social network analysis in systematic Conservation Planning
    Biological Conservation, 2014
    Co-Authors: Morena Mills, Robert L. Pressey, Ken Vanceborland, Jorge G Alvarezromero, Philippa J Cohen, Angela M Guerrero, Henrik Ernstson
    Abstract:

    Social networks play an important role in facilitating effective and sustained connections between people responsible for regional Conservation plans and those responsible for local Conservation actions. Yet, few studies have utilized social network analysis in systematic Conservation Planning initiatives; this, in spite of social network analysis being developed as a structural and relational approach to describe and analyze the characteristics of patterns of relationships that make collaborative efforts more or less effective at solving natural resource management problems. Systematic Conservation Planning provides a framework for allocating actions in time and space to promote the Conservation of biodiversity. Our study discusses three potential contributions of social network analysis to systematic Conservation Planning: identifying stakeholders and their roles in social networks, and characterizing relationships between them; designing and facilitating strategic networking to strengthen linkages between local and regional Conservation initiatives; and prioritizing Conservation actions using measures of social connectivity alongside ecological data. We propose that social network analysis has the potential to be a valuable tool to support decision making in Conservation Planning. We identify challenges and future research questions to be addressed to allow the integration of social network analysis into Conservation Planning processes.

Kerrie A Wilson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Key Topics in Conservation Biology 2 - Designing effective solutions to Conservation Planning problems
    Key Topics in Conservation Biology 2, 2013
    Co-Authors: Andrew T. Knight, Ana S L Rodrigues, Niels Strange, Kerrie A Wilson
    Abstract:

    This chapter outlines an approach for ensuring the effectiveness of regional or local-scale Conservation Planning initiatives. The authors define 'Conservation Planning' as a collaborative, social learning-driven activity whose goal is to implement actions that ensure the persistence of nature by integrating the processes of spatial prioritisation and implementation strategy development to achieve effective Conservation management. Many studies in the literature use 'Conservation Planning' to describe an activity termed as 'spatial Conservation prioritisation' but do not include implementation strategies or stakeholder collaboration. Conservation Planning comprises three broad activities: assessment, Planning and management. Specifically defining the scope and differences between assessment, Planning and management is essential for ensuring effective Conservation action because some activities directly conserve nature whereas others do not. The chapter provides an operational model for Conservation Planning, highlighting the importance and context of problem orientation and problem formulation.

  • scale mismatches Conservation Planning and the value of social network analyses
    Conservation Biology, 2013
    Co-Authors: Ryan R J Mcallister, Angela M Guerrero, Jonathan Corcoran, Kerrie A Wilson
    Abstract:

    Many of the challenges Conservation professionals face can be framed as scale mismatches. The problem of scale mismatch occurs when the Planning for and implementation of Conservation actions is at a scale that does not reflect the scale of the Conservation problem. The challenges in Conservation Planning related to scale mismatch include ecosystem or ecological process transcendence of governance boundaries; limited availability of fine-resolution data; lack of operational capacity for implementation; lack of understanding of social-ecological system components; threats to ecological diversity that operate at diverse spatial and temporal scales; mismatch between funding and the long-term nature of ecological processes; rate of action implementation that does not reflect the rate of change of the ecological system; lack of appropriate indicators for monitoring activities; and occurrence of ecological change at scales smaller or larger than the scale of implementation or monitoring. Not recognizing and accounting for these challenges when Planning for Conservation can result in actions that do not address the multiscale nature of Conservation problems and that do not achieve Conservation objectives. Social networks link organizations and individuals across space and time and determine the scale of Conservation actions; thus, an understanding of the social networks associated with Conservation Planning will help determine the potential for implementing Conservation actions at the required scales. Social-network analyses can be used to explore whether these networks constrain or enable key social processes and how multiple scales of action are linked. Results of network analyses can be used to mitigate scale mismatches in assessing, Planning, implementing, and monitoring Conservation projects.

  • Expanding the Conservation toolbox: Conservation Planning of multifunctional landscapes
    Landscape Ecology, 2012
    Co-Authors: Belinda Reyers, Patrick J. O’farrell, Kerrie A Wilson
    Abstract:

    An area of convergence appears to be emerging between the approaches of Conservation Planning and the concepts of multifunctional landscapes, which if exploited correctly may assist in overcoming the resource and other constraints faced by biodiversity Conservation, while at the same time furthering the aims of multifunctional landscapes to improve production abilities and overall sustainability. Using a multi-zone Conservation Planning approach, we explore the Conservation costs, benefits to biodiversity Conservation and possible ecosystem service payments associated with various land-use configurations, in the Little Karoo of South Africa, in order to develop and showcase a multifunctional landscape Planning approach and its data requirements, as well as the possible cost savings to Conservation agencies. The study uses four Conservation Planning scenarios, five land-use types, their Conservation costs and biodiversity benefits, as well as possible payments from carbon sequestration and tourism. We find that the costs and biodiversity benefits associated with different land-uses varies substantially between land-uses, and also spatially within a land-use type. By incorporating this variation into a multi-zone Conservation Planning approach land-uses can be allocated in a way that achieves biodiversity targets while at the same time reducing costs by up to 50 % when compared with traditional binary approaches to Conservation. Despite some challenges presented by cost and ecosystem service value data and the determination of land-use impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services, the ability of Conservation Planning approaches to reflect differential contributions of particular land-uses to biodiversity targets and ecosystem services holds much potential for Conservation Planning, for multifunctional landscape objectives and for growing the resources and partnerships available to the establishment of sustainable and resilient landscapes.

  • Conservation Biogeography - Systematic Conservation Planning: Past, Present and Future
    Conservation Biogeography, 2011
    Co-Authors: James E. M. Watson, Kerrie A Wilson, Hedley S. Grantham, Hugh P. Possingham
    Abstract:

    This chapter contains sections titled: Introduction What is systematic Conservation Planning and why use it? Concepts and principles Developing a systematic Conservation plan Decision support tools to identify and prioritize new protected areas Consultation and implementation of systematic Conservation plans What does the future of systematic Conservation Planning hold? For discussion Suggested reading

  • Dealing with data uncertainty in Conservation Planning
    Natureza & Conservacao, 2010
    Co-Authors: Kerrie A Wilson
    Abstract:

    Conservation Planning analyses often employ data on biodiversity and sometimes vulnerability and these data are generally assumed to be accurate and correct. Here, different ways of exploring uncertainty associated with typical input data used for Conservation Planning are illustrated. First the uncertainty associated with predicted species distribution data is measured, summarised, and visualised. Second the uncertainty associated with the choice of vulnerability model is evaluated using Bayesian Model Averaging and the implication of this uncertainty on inference about key relationships associated with native forest conversion is assessed. The approaches used to assess uncertainty are applicable to any Conservation Planning exercise and such assessments will increase confidence in the products developed and reduce the risk that Conservation effort is misdirected. Copyright© 2010 ABECO

Carissa J. Klein - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Systematic Conservation Planning with Marxan
    Learning Landscape Ecology, 2017
    Co-Authors: Matthew E. Watts, Romola R. Stewart, Tara G. Martin, Carissa J. Klein, Josie Carwardine, Hugh P. Possingham
    Abstract:

    Conservation Planning is the science of choosing which actions to take where for the purpose of conserving biodiversity. Creating a system of protected areas is the most common form of systematic Conservation Planning. Hence, we will focus on the process of protected area selection in this chapter. Marxan is the most widely used software in the world for creating marine and terrestrial protected area systems. Because Conservation Planning is an important job skill for Conservation and resource managers, you should understand the principles involved even if you don’t use this software in your job and even if you use software other than Marxan for systematic Conservation Planning. From this chapter, we would like you to.

  • integrated land sea Conservation Planning the missing links
    Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics, 2011
    Co-Authors: G Jorge, Robert L. Pressey, Carissa J. Klein, Ken Vanceborland, Chuck Willer, Steven D Gaines
    Abstract:

    Spatial management, including setting aside Conservation areas, is central to curbing the global decline of biodiversity, but many threats originate from beyond the boundaries of Conservation areas. This is a particular problem in marine systems, which are influenced by many activities on land. In addition, connections between land and sea support many species and ecological processes valued for Conservation. Integrated land and sea Conservation Planning is therefore of utmost importance. We review the literature describing connections between land and sea and how they have been incorporated into Conservation Planning. Land-sea connections include land-sea processes, the natural flows occurring between realms; cross-system threats, which originate in one realm and affect another; and socioeconomic interactions associated with management decisions to maintain or restore land-sea processes and to prevent or mitigate cross-system threats. We highlight the need to explicitly incorporate land-sea connections in Conservation Planning and suggest ways of doing this through the use of a novel operational framework for integrated land-sea Planning. On the basis of expert surveys and a literature review, we also identify those aspects of Conservation Planning for which improved integration between land and sea is most needed.

  • spatial socioeconomic data as a cost in systematic marine Conservation Planning
    Conservation Letters, 2009
    Co-Authors: Carissa J. Klein
    Abstract:

    A common objective in identifying Conservation areas is to minimize Conservation costs while achieving a set of Conservation targets. Recent literature highlights the importance of incorporating socioeconomic costs into Conservation Planning. Here, we review how costs have been used in systematic marine Conservation Planning. Four approaches emerged from the literature: (1) uniform cost or area as a proxy for human use, (2) opportunity costs, (3) multiple socioeconomic costs, and (4) measures of naturalness or ecological impact of human activities. Most marine systematic Conservation Planning projects that used a spatially explicit socioeconomic cost focused on fisheries as the opportunity cost. No study has incorporated transaction or management costs into the design of marine protected areas using systematic Conservation Planning software. Combining multiple costs into one cost is one of the primary challenges of incorporating socioeconomic costs into Conservation Planning decision support tools. Combining many costs is feasible when each cost is measured in the same unit (e.g., dollars), but this information is rarely available in marine Planning. Where the objective of the Planning exercise is to minimize impacts on multiple stakeholder groups, the use of separate scenarios or multi-zone software may be a viable option.

  • hitting the target and missing the point target based Conservation Planning in context
    Conservation Letters, 2009
    Co-Authors: Robert L. Pressey, Carissa J. Klein, Josie Carwardine, Kerrie A Wilson, Hugh P. Possingham
    Abstract:

    Conservation Planning is often informed by quantitative targets: these are minimum amounts of the distribution of a species, vegetation type, or other biodiversity feature intended for protection. Targets are set for the global reserve system, and are also used at national and local levels to plan for both on- and off-reserve Conservation. Understandably, the Conservation community holds a range of opinions about target-based approaches to Conservation Planning. One school of thought is that the approach is inadequate, inflexible, and even counterproductive in many socioecological systems. We investigate the perceived limitations of target-based Conservation Planning, and find that most have resulted from poor communication and misuse of targets, leading to misconceptions and misunderstandings. Here we put target-based Conservation Planning in context by: (1) summarizing reported limitations of the approach and differentiating between those that are real and those that are misconceived; (2) identifying ways that some of the real limitations have, and can, be overcome, and (3) comparing target-based Conservation Planning to alternative Conservation prioritization approaches. We hope to stimulate further discussion that will guide and improve target-based Conservation Planning.

  • incorporating ecological and evolutionary processes into continental scale Conservation Planning
    Ecological Applications, 2009
    Co-Authors: Carissa J. Klein, Matthew E. Watts, Josie Carwardine, Kerrie A Wilson, Janet Stein, Sandra L Berry, Mark Stafford Smith, Brendan Mackey, Hugh P. Possingham
    Abstract:

    Systematic Conservation Planning research has focused on designing systems of Conservation areas that efficiently protect a comprehensive and representative set of species and habitats. Recently, there has been an emphasis on improving the adequacy of Conservation area design to promote the persistence and future generation of biodiversity. Few studies have explored incorporating ecological and evolutionary processes into Conservation Planning assessments. Biodiversity in Australia is maintained and generated by numerous ecological and evolutionary processes at various spatial and temporal scales. We accommodated ecological and evolutionary processes in four ways: (1) using sub-catchments as Planning units to facilitate the protection of the integrity and function of ecosystem processes occurring on a sub-catchment scale; (2) targeting one type of ecological refugia, drought refugia, which are critical for the persistence of many species during widespread drought; (3) targeting one type of evolutionary refugia which are important for maintaining and generating unique biota during long-term climatic changes; and (4) preferentially grouping priority areas along vegetated waterways to account for the importance of connected waterways and associated riparian areas in maintaining processes. We identified drought refugia, areas of relatively high and regular herbage production in arid and semiarid Australia, from estimates of gross primary productivity derived from satellite data. In this paper, we combined the novel incorporation of these processes with a more traditional framework of efficiently representing a comprehensive sample of biodiversity to identify spatial priorities across Australia. We explored the trade-offs between economic costs, representation targets, and connectivity. Priority areas that considered ecological and evolutionary processes were more connected along vegetated waterways and were identified for a small increase in economic cost. Priority areas for Conservation investment are more likely to have long-term benefits to biodiversity if ecological and evolutionary processes are considered in their identification.

Simon Linke - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Assessing the risks and opportunities of presence‐only data for Conservation Planning
    Journal of Biogeography, 2014
    Co-Authors: Virgilio Hermoso, Mark J. Kennard, Simon Linke
    Abstract:

    Aim Presence-only data represent a significant source of information for quantifying biodiversity distributions and provide opportunities for use in Conservation Planning. The large databases of presence-only records that are available and the lower cost of acquisition could help overcome the traditional problem of lack of data for Conservation. However, there are risks associated with the use of presence-only data inherent with the lack of true absences that might cause omission errors (species are erroneously thought to be absent) and loss of efficiency (more areas are thought to be necessary than needed). These errors could constrain the economic viability of Conservation plans and thus the success of Conservation practice. We therefore evaluated the opportunities and risks of using presence-only data for Conservation Planning. Location Northern Australia. Methods The effects of using two different types (presence-only and presence–absence) and different quantities of data were simulated by building predictive models on different subsets of data with increasing numbers of presence–absence or presence-only records or a combination of both, for 80 freshwater fish species. We then compared the performance of Conservation Planning outcomes with the best information attainable (a true model built on the complete set of presence–absence data). We measured omission and commission errors in Conservation Planning outcomes, and the efficiency of and return on the investment in data acquisition. Results Including presence-only data helped reduce commission and omission errors in Conservation Planning outcomes, but only when used in combination with at least some presence–absence data. The use of just a large quantity of presence-only data resulted in significant reductions in the efficiency of Conservation Planning outcomes, as more areas than actually needed were required to achieve Conservation targets. This reduction in efficiency was mainly related to inflated omission errors. Main conclusions We recommend using presence-only data cautiously if this is the only source of data available; whenever possible, presence-only data should be complemented with presence–absence data.

  • Freshwater biodiversity and Conservation Planning: introduction to the virtual supplement
    Freshwater Biology, 2011
    Co-Authors: Simon Linke, Eren Turak
    Abstract:

    The January 2011 Special Issue is the first major compilation of studies on systematic Conservation Planning in fresh waters (Turak & Linke, 2011). The papers in this Special Issue consolidate freshwater Conservation Planning as a field within both Conservation science and freshwater ecology. This progress is largely a result of key advances in both disciplines (Linke, Turak & Nel, 2011). Many of the previous studies representing the advances in the discipline of freshwater ecology were published in Freshwater Biology as were three previous important papers on freshwater Conservation Planning. It was our aim to compile this virtual supplement containing all freshwater Conservation Planning papers published in this journal together with a selection of papers dealing with key concepts and techniques in freshwater ecology that made recent advances in freshwater Conservation Planning possible.

  • freshwater Conservation Planning the case for systematic approaches
    Freshwater Biology, 2011
    Co-Authors: Simon Linke, Eren Turak
    Abstract:

    We review recent advances in systematic Conservation Planning in fresh waters. Most modern systematic Planning approaches are based on the CARE principles: comprehensiveness, adequacy, representativeness and efficiency. Efficiency is usually provided by a complementarity-based strategy, aiming to select new Conservation areas in the light of previously protected features. These strategies have to be modified to account for the connected nature of rivers. 2. Choice of surrogates for Conservation features depends on the scale of the assessment, as well as the available expertise and resources. Ideally, real information about taxa or processes - extrapolated by models - ensures that target features are protected. Where this is not feasible, it is critical that the choice of environmental surrogates is informed by target biota or processes. 3. Setting adequacy targets - the most challenging aspect in Planning - needs to be evaluated in a freshwater- specific context, as species-area relationships and the distribution of diversity differ in dendritic networks. Adequately designed Conservation plans also need to consider upstream land use and catchment disturbances. Recent studies have largely addressed longitudinal connectivity either by setting rules to protect adjacent subcatchments (or even the entire catchment upstream), or by considering the magnitude of disturbance upstream of selected Planning units. Very few studies have addressed lateral and vertical connectivity in a systematic way. 4. To implement freshwater Conservation plans, we recommend adopting a recently proposed hierarchical protection strategy, from 'freshwater focal areas' that contain the actual features to be protected to mixed- use 'catchment management zones'. Stakeholder involvement is crucial, especially in the large multi-use areas upstream and in the surrounding catchment. 5. We conclude that Conservation Planning using CARE principles is the only efficient way forward. This special issue shows significant efforts are under way to adapt freshwaterspecific adequacy, connectivity and implementation issues in Conservation Planning. However, a more holistic research investment is required to link freshwater, terrestrial and marine ecosystems.

  • addressing longitudinal connectivity in the systematic Conservation Planning of fresh waters
    Freshwater Biology, 2011
    Co-Authors: Virgilio Hermoso, Simon Linke, Jose Prenda, Hugh P. Possingham
    Abstract:

    SUMMARY 1. Freshwater Conservation has received less attention than its terrestrial or marine counterparts. Given the accelerated rate of change and intensive human use that freshwater ecosystems are submitted to, it is urgent to focus more attention on fresh waters. Existing Conservation Planning tools – such as Marxan – need to be modified to account for the special nature of these systems. Connectivity plays a key role in freshwater ecosystems. Threats are mediated along river corridors, and the condition of the entire catchment influences river biodiversity downstream. This needs to be considered in Conservation Planning. 2. The probabilities of occurrence of nine native freshwater fish species in a Mediterranean river basin, obtained from Multivariate Adaptive Regression SplinesGeneralized Linear Model (MARS-GLM) models, were used as features to develop spatial Conservation priorities. The priorities accounted for complementarity and spatial design issues. 3. To deal with the connected nature of rivers, we modified Marxan’s boundary length penalty, avoiding the selection of isolated Planning units and forcing the inclusion of closer upstream areas. We introduced ‘virtual boundaries’ between nonheadwater stream segments and added distance-weighted penalties to the overall connectivity cost (CP) when stream segments upstream of the selected Planning units are not selected. 4. This approach to prioritising connectivity is concordant with ecological theory, as it considers the natural and roughly exponential decay of upstream influences with distance. It accounts for the natural capacity of rivers to mitigate impacts when designing reserves. When connectivity was not emphasised, Marxan prioritised natural corridors for longitudinal movements. In contrast, whole sub-basins were prioritised when connectivity was emphasised. Changing the relative emphasis on connectivity substantially changed the spatial prioritisation; our Conservation investment could move from one basin to another. 5. Our novel approach to dealing with directional connectivity enables managers of freshwater systems to set ecologically meaningful spatial Conservation priorities.

  • Freshwater Conservation Planning: an introduction
    Freshwater Biology, 2010
    Co-Authors: Eren Turak, Simon Linke
    Abstract:

    Summary 1. Global freshwater biodiversity is facing rapid decline. Freshwater Conservation Planning aims to reduce this decline by efficiently prioritising Conservation actions. 2. This Special Issue presents nine papers from five continents demonstrating a wide range of approaches to spatial prioritisation for freshwater Conservation and two papers that explore directions for research and implementation in Conservation Planning. 3. Despite an emphasis on running waters and data-rich regions, these papers collectively offer a wide range of perspectives for advancing the science and practice of systematic Conservation Planning across freshwater realms, including data-poor regions and standing-water ecosystems.