Date post: | 27-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | scott-elliott |
View: | 218 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Inventories, Focal Species, & Crayons: Evaluating Conservation Planning Tools
George R. HessMatthew J. RubinoFrank H. KochKatherine A. EschelbachC. Ashton DrewJorie M. Favreau
North Carolina State UniversityRaleigh, North Carolina 27695-8002 USA
The Challenge
People transform landscapes faster than research data can be collected
Planners need to act with incomplete data
Can we create shortcuts that correctly identify land for protection?
Some Possible Approaches
Inventory data$$$$$$
Some Possible Approaches
Inventory data$$$$$$
Surrogate species$$$$
Some Possible Approaches
Inventory data$$$$$$
Surrogate species$$$$
Crayons, maps, & conservation principles
$$
Some Possible Approaches
Inventory data$$$$$$
Surrogate species$$$$
Crayons, maps, & conservation principles
$$
Random selection$
Our Research Question
Can simple approaches identify land for protection as effectivelyas complex approaches?
Our Research Question
Can simple approaches identify land for protection as effectivelyas complex approaches?
Compared plans in the Triangle Region of North Carolina, USA
Study Area
Triangle Region — North Carolina — USA
Approach
InventoryData
HabitatMapping
Conservation Principles
RandomSelection
Inventory-Based Plan
Focal Species Plan
SimplePlans
NullModel
Approach
InventoryData
HabitatMapping
Conservation Principles
RandomSelection
Inventory-Based Plan
Focal Species Plan
SimplePlans
NullModel
Test Against Inventory Data
Effectiveness of each Plan
Effectiveness
Proportion of known species & communities of conservation concern protected by plan
Effectiveness
Natural Heritage Inventory
Point location of species & communities of conservation concern
Cataloged through the years from a variety of sources
Data used for effectiveness test AND creating inventory-based plan
Inventory-based Plan
Based on Natural Heritage Inventory
Considered species habitat needs and community extent
Created a map of core conservation lands
$$$$$$
Inventory-based Plan$$$$$$
Focal Species Plan
Created by me & graduate students
Focal species selected to represent landscapes & conservation threats
Habitat modeled & mapped for each species
Combined maps to create plan
$$$$
Focal Species Plan
animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu
www.owlpages.com
Extensive undisturbed landsBobcatEastern box turtle
Riparian & bottomlandBarred owl
UplandOvenbirdBroad-winged hawk
MaturePileated woodpecker
wildwnc.org
www.birdperch.com
$$$$
Focal Species Plan$$$$
Simple Plans
Used simple conservation principles to identify forest land for protection
$$
Simple Plans
Used simple conservation principles to identify forest land for protection
Created two of eachSame area as inventory planSame area as focal species plan
$$
Simple Plans
Used simple conservation principles to identify forest land for protection
Created two of eachSame area as inventory planSame area as focal species plan
Avoids direct comparison of plans with grossly unequal areas
$$
Simple Plans
Used simple conservation principles to identify forest land for protection
Largest patches in region
$$
Simple Plans$$
Simple Plans
Used simple conservation principles to identify forest land for protection
Largest patches in regionLargest patches in each county, then nearest
$$
Simple Plans$$
Simple Plans
Used simple conservation principles to identify forest land for protection
Largest patches in regionLargest patches in each county, then nearestDiverse forest typesClose to already protected areasClose to wetlands & riparian areas
$$
Random Selection
All forest patches patches had same selection probability
Repeated 50 times Average95% confidence interval
$
Recap – Approach
InventoryData
HabitatMapping
Conservation Principles
RandomSelection
Recap – Approach
InventoryData
HabitatMapping
Conservation Principles
RandomSelection
Inventory-Based Plan
Focal Species Plan
SimplePlans
NullModel
Recap – Approach
InventoryData
HabitatMapping
Conservation Principles
RandomSelection
Inventory-Based Plan
Focal Species Plan
SimplePlans
NullModel
Test Against Inventory Data
Recap – Effectiveness
Inventory Beats Focal Species
Plan Effectiveness Area
Inventory 94% 335 km2
(5% of forest)
Focal Species 87%2,446 km2
(37% of forest)
Inventory plan more effective & used less land … but more costly
Inventory Beats Simple
Plan Effectiveness
Inventory 94%
Random 33±1.8%
Largest Patches 35%
Large / Near 55%
Diverse Forests 33%
Close to protected 78%
Close to riparian (100m buffer) 29%
Close to riparian (whole patch) 35%
Focal Species Ties Simple
Plan Effectiveness
Focal Species 87%
Random 87±1.2%
Largest Patches 84%
Large / Near 88%
Diverse Forests 94%
Close to protected 94%
Close to riparian (100m buffer) 90%
Close to riparian (whole patch) 83%
Our Research Question
Can simple approaches identify land for protection as effectivelyas complex approaches?
It Depends …
Inventory data needed, if only small amounts of land (≈5%) protected
It Depends …
Inventory data needed, if only small amounts of land (≈5%) protected
Simple or random might work, if large amounts of land (≈35%) protected
It Depends …
Inventory data needed, if only small amounts of land (≈5%) protected
Simple or random might work, if large amounts of land (≈35%) protected
Generalization awaits further testing in other systems, BUT …
There Seems to be a Pattern
Most “effective” surrogate plans protected more than 35% of land
Looked at surrogate approach “success stories” in literature
Only considered cases in which plan tested against inventory data
Interesting New Question
Is there a threshold of land available for protectionabove which simple approaches are as effective as complex ones?
Tempting Conclusions
Inventory-based plans are best
Simple plans are the way to go, if you’re protecting lots of land
Focal species (and other surrogate) approaches have little value
Tempting, but …
We cannot support these conclusions
Tempting, but …
We cannot support these conclusions
Limited measure of effectiveness
Tempting, but …
We cannot support these conclusions
Limited measure of effectiveness
Population viability not considered
Tempting, but …
We cannot support these conclusions
Limited measure of effectiveness
Population viability not considered
Focal species plan considered reproduction
Tempting, but …
We cannot support these conclusions
Limited measure of effectiveness
Population viability not considered
Focal species plan considered reproduction
Reason to doubt random selection as effective as simple plans
Conclusions (the real ones)
Inventory data appear necessary when little land can be protected
Unclear what to do if large amounts of land can be protected
Simple plans look good, but … … what about population viability?
Might be a protection area-threshold above which simple plans work well
Going Forward
How universal are our results?
Is there a protection-area threshold above which simple plans work?
Further tests of effectivenessVariety of ecosystems & scales
Going Forward
How universal are our results?
Is there a protection-area threshold above which simple plans work?
Further tests of effectivenessVariety of ecosystems & scales
Incorporate population viability
Going Forward
How universal are our results?
Is there a protection-area threshold above which simple plans work?
Further tests of effectivenessVariety of ecosystems & scales
Incorporate population viability
Examine alternativesBiophysical / habitat surrogates
The Payoff
We might determine conditions under which inventory-, surrogate, or simple approaches can be used.
Acknowledgements
Linda Pearsall, Natural Heritage data
For stimulating discussionBill FaganPeter LandresRoger PowellTaylor Ricketts
For encouragement & supportNCSU Forestry Department
Acknowledgements
For corresponding about surrogate species approaches
Luciano BaniJames DietzErica FleischmanDavid FreudenbergerNigel Leader-WilliamsMelodie McGeochBrian Miller
Contact Information
George HessForestry DepartmentNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleigh NC 27695-8002 USA
[email protected]/~grhess/research/surrogates
USA 919.515.7437