A review of selection‐based tests of abiotic surrogates for species representation

Because conservation planners typically lack data on where species occur, environmental surrogates—including geophysical settings and climate types—have been used to prioritize sites within a planning area. We reviewed 622 evaluations of the effectiveness of abiotic surrogates in representing species in 19 study areas. Sites selected using abiotic surrogates represented more species than an equal number of randomly selected sites in 43% of tests (55% for plants) and on average improved on random selection of sites by about 8% (21% for plants). Environmental diversity (ED) (42% median improvement on random selection) and biotically informed clusters showed promising results and merit additional testing. We suggest 4 ways to improve performance of abiotic surrogates. First, analysts should consider a broad spectrum of candidate variables to define surrogates, including rarely used variables related to geographic separation, distance from coast, hydrology, and within‐site abiotic diversity. Second, abiotic surrogates should be defined at fine thematic resolution. Third, sites (the landscape units prioritized within a planning area) should be small enough to ensure that surrogates reflect species’ environments and to produce prioritizations that match the spatial resolution of conservation decisions. Fourth, if species inventories are available for some planning units, planners should define surrogates based on the abiotic variables that most influence species turnover in the planning area. Although species inventories increase the cost of using abiotic surrogates, a modest number of inventories could provide the data needed to select variables and evaluate surrogates. Additional tests of nonclimate abiotic surrogates are needed to evaluate the utility of conserving nature's stage as a strategy for conservation planning in the face of climate change.     

Adaptive management of marine mega-fauna in a changing climate

Management of marine mega-fauna in a changing climate is constrained by a series of uncertainties, often related to climate change projections, ecological responses, and the effectiveness of strategies in alleviating climate change impacts. Uncertainties can be reduced over time through adaptive management. Adaptive management is a framework for resource conservation that promotes iterative learning-based decision making. To successfully implement the adaptive management cycle, different steps (planning, designing, learning and adjusting) need to be systematically implemented to inform earlier steps in an iterative way. Despite the critical role that adaptive management is likely to play in addressing the impacts of climate change on marine mega-fauna few managers have successfully implemented an adaptive management approach. We discuss the approaches necessary to implement each step of an adaptive management cycle to manage marine mega-fauna in a changing climate, highlighting the steps that require further attention to fully implement the process. Examples of sharks and rays (Selachimorpha and Batoidea) on the Great Barrier Reef and little penguins, Eudyptula minor, in south-eastern Australia are used as case studies. We found that successful implementation of the full adaptive management cycle to marine mega-fauna needs managers and researchers to: (1) obtain a better understanding of the capacity of species to adapt to climate change to inform the planning step; (2) identify strategies to directly address impacts in the marine environment to inform the designing step; and (3) develop systematic evaluation and monitoring programs to inform the learning step. Further, legislation needs to flexible to allow for management to respond.     

Factors influencing incidental representation of previously unknown conservation features in marine protected areas

Spatially explicit information on species distributions for conservation planning is invariably incomplete; therefore, the use of surrogates is required to represent broad‐scale patterns of biodiversity. Despite significant interest in the effectiveness of surrogates for predicting spatial distributions of biodiversity, few researchers have explored questions involving the ability of surrogates to incidentally represent unknown features of conservation interest. We used the Great Barrier Reef marine reserve network to examine factors affecting incidental representation of conservation features that were unknown at the time the reserve network was established. We used spatially explicit information on the distribution of 39 seabed habitats and biological assemblages and the conservation planning software Marxan to examine how incidental representation was affected by the spatial characteristics of the features; the conservation objectives (the minimum proportion of each feature included in no‐take areas); the spatial configuration of no‐take areas; and the opportunity cost of conservation. Cost was closely and inversely correlated to incidental representation. However, incidental representation was achieved, even in a region with only coarse‐scale environmental data, by adopting a precautionary approach that explicitly considered the potential for unknown features. Our results indicate that incidental representation is enhanced by partitioning selection units along biophysical gradients to account for unknown within‐feature variability and ensuring that no‐take areas are well distributed throughout the region; by setting high conservation objectives that (in this case >33%) maximize the chances of capturing unknown features incidentally; and by carefully considering the designation of cost to planning units when using decision‐support tools for reserve design. The lessons learned from incidental representation in the Great Barrier Reef have implications for conservation planning in other regions, particularly those that lack detailed environmental and ecological data.     

Efficient and equitable design of marine protected areas in Fiji through inclusion of stakeholder‐specific objectives in conservation planning

The efficacy of protected areas varies, partly because socioeconomic factors are not sufficiently considered in planning and management. Although integrating socioeconomic factors into systematic conservation planning is increasingly advocated, research is needed to progress from recognition of these factors to incorporating them effectively in spatial prioritization of protected areas. We evaluated 2 key aspects of incorporating socioeconomic factors into spatial prioritization: treatment of socioeconomic factors as costs or objectives and treatment of stakeholders as a single group or multiple groups. Using as a case study the design of a system of no‐take marine protected areas (MPAs) in Kubulau, Fiji, we assessed how these aspects affected the configuration of no‐take MPAs in terms of trade‐offs between biodiversity objectives, fisheries objectives, and equity in catch losses among fisher stakeholder groups. The achievement of fisheries objectives and equity tended to trade‐off concavely with increasing biodiversity objectives, indicating that it is possible to achieve low to mid‐range biodiversity objectives with relatively small losses to fisheries and equity. Importantly, the extent of trade‐offs depended on the method used to incorporate socioeconomic data and was least severe when objectives were set for each fisher stakeholder group explicitly. We found that using different methods to incorporate socioeconomic factors that require similar data and expertise can result in plans with very different impacts on local stakeholders.     

The theory behind,and the challenges of,conserving nature's stage in a time of rapid change

Most conservation planning to date has focused on protecting today's biodiversity with the assumption that it will be tomorrow's biodiversity. However, modern climate change has already resulted in distributional shifts of some species and is projected to result in many more shifts in the coming decades. As species redistribute and biotic communities reorganize, conservation plans based on current patterns of biodiversity may fail to adequately protect species in the future. One approach for addressing this issue is to focus on conserving a range of abiotic conditions in the conservation‐planning process. By doing so, it may be possible to conserve an abiotically diverse “stage” upon which evolution will play out and support many actors (biodiversity). We reviewed the fundamental underpinnings of the concept of conserving the abiotic stage, starting with the early observations of von Humboldt, who mapped the concordance of abiotic conditions and vegetation, and progressing to the concept of the ecological niche. We discuss challenges posed by issues of spatial and temporal scale, the role of biotic drivers of species distributions, and latitudinal and topographic variation in relationships between climate and landform. For example, abiotic conditions are not static, but change through time—albeit at different and often relatively slow rates. In some places, biotic interactions play a substantial role in structuring patterns of biodiversity, meaning that patterns of biodiversity may be less tightly linked to the abiotic stage. Furthermore, abiotic drivers of biodiversity can change with latitude and topographic position, meaning that the abiotic stage may need to be defined differently in different places. We conclude that protecting a diversity of abiotic conditions will likely best conserve biodiversity into the future in places where abiotic drivers of species distributions are strong relative to biotic drivers, where the diversity of abiotic settings will be conserved through time, and where connectivity allows for movement among areas providing different abiotic conditions.     

Incorporating effectiveness of community-based management in a national marine gap analysis for Fiji

Every action in a conservation plan has a different level of effect and consequently contributes differentially to conservation. We examined how several community-based, marine, management actions differed in their contribution to national-level conservation goals in Fiji. We held a workshop with experts on local fauna and flora and local marine management actions to translate conservation goals developed by the national government into ecosystem-specific quantitative objectives and to estimate the relative effectiveness of Fiji's community-based management actions in achieving these objectives. The national conservation objectives were to effectively manage 30% of the nation's fringing reefs, nonfringing reefs, mangroves, and intertidal ecosystems (30% objective) and 10% of other benthic ecosystems (10% objective). The experts evaluated the contribution of the various management actions toward national objectives. Scores ranged from 0 (ineffective) to 1 (maximum effectiveness) and included the following management actions: permanent closures (i.e., all extractive use of resources prohibited indefinitely) (score of 1); conditional closures harvested once per year or less as dictated by a management plan (0.50-0.95); conditional closures harvested without predetermined frequency or duration (0.10-0.85); other management actions, such as regulations on gear and species harvested (0.15-0.50). Through 3 gap analyses, we assessed whether the conservation objectives in Fiji had been achieved. Each analysis was based on a different assumption: (1) all parts of locally managed marine areas (including closures and other management) conserve species and ecosystems effectively; (2) closures conserve species and ecosystems, whereas areas outside closures, open to varying levels of resource extraction, do not; and (3) actions that allow different levels of resource extraction vary in their ability to conserve species and ecosystems. Under assumption 1, Fiji's national conservation objectives were exceeded in all marine ecosystems; under assumption 2, none of Fiji's conservation objectives were met; and under assumption 3, on the basis of the scores assigned by experts, Fiji achieved the 10% but not the 30% objectives for ecosystems. Understanding the relative contribution of management actions to achieving conservation objectives is critical in the assessment of conservation achievements at the national level, where multiple management actions will be needed to achieve national conservation objectives.     

Novel operations research methods for efficiently determining irreplaceable sites for conservation

We examine the irreplaceability of sites in the context of the species set covering problem and the maximal covering species problem. We show that a succession of 0-1 programming problems can be solved to quickly determine the set of irreplaceable sites. For the widely available Oregon data set, we find a general lack of trend in the number of irreplaceable sites with the number of sites available for selection used. Moreover, we observe that irreplaceability at one level of resource may not be a predictor of irreplaceability at a higher or a lower level of resource. Finally, we investigate the economic value of irreplaceable sites by trial removals of those sites. This paper is dedicated to the memory of Dr. Charles S. ReVelle.     

Measuring and Incorporating Vulnerability into Conservation Planning

Conservation planning is the process of locating and designing conservation areas to promote the persistence of biodiversity in situ. To do this, conservation areas must be able to mitigate at least some of the proximate threats to biodiversity. Information on threatening processes and the relative vulnerability of areas and natural features to these processes is therefore crucial for effective conservation planning. However, measuring and incorporating vulnerability into conservation planning have been problematic. We develop a conceptual framework of the role of vulnerability assessments in conservation planning and propose a definition of vulnerability that incorporates three dimensions: exposure, intensity, and impact. We review and categorize methods for assessing the vulnerability of areas and the features they contain and identify the relative strengths and weaknesses of each broad approach. Our review highlights the need for further development and evaluation of approaches to assess vulnerability and for comparisons of their relative effectiveness.