Download Landscape Ecology and Reserve Design: Principles and Applications for Conservation - Prof. and more Study notes Biology in PDF only on Docsity!
Landscape Ecology Applications: reserve design Terms/people: Reserve design and placement network Umbrella concept William Newmark Diamond’s “design principles” GAP analysis (Scott et al. 1993) Reserve selection algorithms (greedy, rarity, annealing) Why landscape ecology is important to conservation: Consider this: only about 11.5% of the Earth’s land surface is protected (with the world’s largest protected area being in Greenland), but most (65% of that 11.5%) is in areas where resource extraction is allowed. In the U.S., there are 91 million acres that are designated “wilderness”; 59% of these are smaller than Disney World. A landscape ecology approach is necessary to alleviate the pressures put upon these wildland remnants by the ever-burgeoning population. Conservation biology has a natural affinity for landscape ecology. Conservation biology’s raison d’etre is the conservation of diversity (usually species diversity, esp. species richness). However, there is much to recommend taking a landscape approach to conservation. We shall discuss 3 such reasons.
1. The "umbrella" concept "umbrella" species keystone species (for more info on keystone species, check out my Community Ecology [BIOL 4310/5310] lecture on them by clicking here) This concept has been extended to consider landscapes as umbrellas for all species contained therein (see e.g. Franklin 1993, Noss 1996). Because it is necessarily less narrowly focused that traditional single-species conservation, this approach is also less precise or specific. This "fuzziness" is forgiving to some imprecision in our knowledge and predictions, and it can accommodate changing wants and needs in the future; however, it also hides a multitude of sins (such as ill-defined goals, inappropriately applied models, etc.). 2. A regional perspective Reserve (or habitat) network dissertation work of **William Newmark
- The importance of the matrix** The influence of the matrix (or the mosaic, if you will) has already been discussed in this course (re: context). To recap, a patch’s (or a reserve’s) context within the matrix has profound implications on the patterns observed within the patch/reserve (see e.g. Ricketts 2001). William
Newmark’s Ph.D. work (above) also makes some strong suggestions about the importance of park context. Although Newmark did not examine outside effects explicitly himself, this is work that needs doing (another great Ph.D. project idea!). Intersections between landscape ecology and conservation biology Landscape ecology focuses on two issues that are central to conservation biology: metapopulation dynamics and factors affecting communities in spatially heterogeneous landscapes (McCullough 1996); and the role of disturbance in creating landscape dynamics, especially habitat dynamics (Pickett and Thompson 1978, Pickett et al. 1997). These two foci come together in the design of nature reserves or systems (networks) of nature reserves (e.g. Murphy and Noon 1992). Principles from landscape ecology that are applicable to conservation biology:
will to The World Wildlife Federation or The Nature Conservancy for the express purpose of creating a nature reserve, for example. That is a gift horse that shouldn’t be looked in the mouth. Other reserves occur where they do because the habitat or organism they preserve are very restricted in distribution (e.g. TNC’s Forty Acre Rock Heritage Preserve in South Carolina). Sometimes, however, we do have a more active choice in where to concentrate our conservation efforts. In these circumstances, we must take a systematic approach to make prudent decisions (from Margules and Pressey 2000):
1. Compile data on the biodiversity of the planning region Review existing data and decide on which data sets are sufficiently consistent to serve as surrogates for biodiversity across the planning region. If time allows, collect new data to augment or replace some existing data sets. Collect information on the localities of species considered to be rare and/or threatened in the region (these are likely to be missed or under-represented in conservation areas selected only on the basis of land classes such as vegetation types). 2. Identify conservation goals for the planning region Set quantitative conservation targets for species, vegetation types or other features (for example, at least three occurrences of each species, 1500 ha of each vegetation type, or specific targets tailored to the conservation needs of individual features). Despite inevitable subjectivity in their formulation, the value of such goals is their explicitness. Set quantitative targets for minimum size, connectivity or other design aspects. Identify qualitative targets or preferences (for example, as far as possible, new conservation areas should have minimal previous disturbance from grazing or logging). 3. Review existing conservation areas Measure the extent to which quantitative targets for representation and design have been achieved by existing conservation areas. Identify the imminence of threat to under-represented features such as species or vegetation types, and the threats posed to areas that will be important in securing satisfactory design targets. 4. Select additional conservation areas Regard established conservation areas as focal points for an expanded design of an existing system. Identify preliminary sets of new conservation areas for consideration as additions to established areas. Options for doing this include reserve-selection algorithms or decision-support software to allow stakeholders to design expanded systems that achieve regional conservation goals subject to constraints such as existing reserves, acquisition budgets, or limits on feasible opportunity costs for other land uses.
5. Implement conservation actions Decide on the most appropriate or feasible form of management to be applied to individual areas. If one or more selected areas prove to be degraded or difficult to protect, return to stage 4 and look for alternatives. Decide on the relative timing of conservation management when resources are insufficient to implement the whole system in the short term (the usual case). 6. Maintain the required values of conservation areas Set conservation goals at the level of individual conservation areas. Ideally, these goals will acknowledge the particular values of the area in the context of the whole system. Implement management actions and zonings in and around each area to achieve the goals. Monitor key indicators that will reflect the success of management actions or zonings in achieving goals. Modify management activities as required. Reserve selection algorithms: greedy algorithms - rarity algorithms - annealing algorithms - There is much debate about how to select a design and location for a reserve: see Prendergast et al. (1999) and Pressey and Cowling (2001). There are several ways of implementing these steps to prioritize areas for potential reserve placement. We will discuss one of the main ones used in the U.S.: GAP analysis. GAP analysis (Scott et al. 1993): Used in determining location of nature reserves. Is especially useful in the hierarchical "triage" process that modern conservation efforts usually entail. Gap analysis was designed to be a proactive approach to conservation that identifies important habitat areas or species before they become threatened by habitat degradation or loss. GAP is not really an acronym, although it is sometimes used to refer to "Gap Analysis Projects"; the term "gap" is actually much more mundane and refers to actual gaps (holes) in existing protection for a given species of concern. Process: Step 1: Obtain data (e.g. GIS coverages, maps, aerial photographs). Since most GAP analyses now use GIS, digitize non-GIS data.
-a large reserve is preferable to a small one -a cluster of reserves is preferable to isolated ones -connected reserves are preferable to separated ones -round preserves are preferable to linear ones The future of landscape ecology's involvement in conservation biology will likely lie in addressing the following questions: To what extent can careful landscape planning compensate for habitat loss? In other words, can we use high habitat quality to compensate for low habitat area? “No patch is an island,” meaning that reserves are affected by things going on outside of the reserves themselves (i.e., landscape context matters). This calls for integrative management of both the reserves and the surroundings in which they are embedded (Christensen et al. 1996). How can the logistical difficulties of sampling and monitoring landscapes be reconciled with the pressing urgency of most conservation efforts? Given the urgent need for information on most species and landscapes, yet faced with the logistical difficulties of conducting experiments on landscapes, how can landscape ecologists provide data that are obtainable and yet useful? References: Ahern, J. 1999. Spatial concepts, planning strategies, and future scenarios: A framework method for integrating landscape ecology and landscape planning. Pp. 175-201 in: Landscape Ecological Analysis: Issues and Applications (J.M. Klopatek and R.H. Gardner, eds.). Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. Arnold, G.W. 1995. Incorporating landscape pattern into conservation programs. Pp. 309-337 in: Mosaic Landscapes and Ecological Processes (L. Hansson, L. Fahrig, and G. Merriam, eds.). Chapman and Hall, London, UK. Bissonette, J.A. 1997. Wildlife and Landscape Ecology: Effects of Pattern and Scale. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. Brussard, P.F. 1991. The role of ecology in biological conservation. Ecol. Appl. 1:6-12. Cabeza, M., and A. Moilanen. 2001. Design of reserve networks and the persistence of biodiversity. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16:242-248.
Christensen, N.L., A.N. Bartuska, J.H. Brown, S. Carpenter, C. D'Antonio, R. Francis, J.F. Franklin, J.A. MacMahon, R.F. Noss, D.J. Parsons, C.H. Peterson, M.G. Turner, and R.G. Woodmansee. 1996. The report of the Ecological Society of America Committee on the scientific basis for ecosystem management. Ecol. Appl. 6:665-691. Conroy, M.J., and B.R. Noon. 1996. Mapping of species richness for conservation of biological diversity: conceptual and methodological issues. Ecol. Appl. 6:763-775. Csuti, B., S. Polasky, P.H. Williams, R.L. Pressey, J.D. Camm, M. Kershaw, A.R. Keister, B. Downs, R. Hamilton, M. Huso, and K. Sahr. 1997. A comparison of reserve selection algorithms using data on terrestrial vertebrates in Oregon. Biol. Conserv. 80:83-
Diamond, J.M. 1975. The island dilemma: lessons of modern biogeographic studies for the design of nature reserves. Biol. Conserv. 7:129-146. Edwards, T.C. 1996. Data defensibility and GAP analysis. BioScience 46:75-77. Edwards, T.C., E.T. Dechler, D. Foster, and G.G. Moisen. 1996. Adequacy of wildlife habitat relation models for estimating spatial distributions of terrestrial vertebrates. Conserv. Biol. 10:263-270. Levins, R. 1969. Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental heterogeneity for biological control. Bull. Entomol. Soc. Am. 15:237-240. Margules, C.R., I.D. Cresswell, and A.O. Nichols. 1994. A scientific basis for establishing networks of protected areas. Pp. 327-350 in: Systematics and Conservation Evaluation (P.L. Forey, C.J. Humphries, and R.I. Vane-Wright, eds.). Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. Margules, C.R., and R.L. Pressey. 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243-253. McCullough, D.R., ed. 1996. Metapopulations and Wildlife Conservation. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Meffe, G.K., and C.R. Carroll. 1994. Principles of Conservation Biology. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA.
Short, H.L., and J.B. Hestbeck. 1995. National biotic resource inventories and GAP analysis. BioScience 45:535-539.
