Prioritizing sites for conservation based on similarity to historical baselines and feasibility of protection

The concept of shifting baselines in conservation science implies advocacy for the use of historical knowledge to inform these baselines but does not address the feasibility of restoring sites to those baselines. In many regions, conservation feasibility varies among sites due to differences in resource availability, statutory power, and land‐owner participation. We used zooarchaeological records to identify a historical baseline of the freshwater mussel community's composition before Euro‐American influence at a river‐reach scale (i.e., a kilometer stretch of river that is abiotically similar) in the Leon River of central Texas (U.S.A.). We evaluated how the community reference position and the feasibility of conservation might enable identification of sites where conservation actions would preserve historically representative communities and be likely to succeed. We devised a conceptual model that incorporated community information and landscape factors to link the best conservation areas to potential cost and conservation benefits. Using fuzzy ordination, we identified modern mussel beds that were most like the historical baseline. We then quantified housing density and land use near each river reach identified to estimate feasibility of habitat restoration. Using our conceptual framework, we identified reaches of high conservation value (i.e., contain the best mussel beds) and where restoration actions would be most likely to succeed. Reaches above Lake Belton were most similar in species composition and relative abundance to zooarchaeological sites. A subset of these mussel beds occurred in locations where conservation actions appeared most feasible. Our results show how to use zooarchaeological data (biodiversity data often readily available) and estimates of conservation feasibility to inform conservation priorities at a local spatial scale.     

The "cultural filter", human transport of mussel shell, and the applied potential of zooarchaeological data

Large assemblages of animal bones and/or shells from archaeological sites can provide data valuable for modern conservation efforts, e.g., by providing accurate historical baselines for species reintroductions or habitat restoration. Such data are underused by natural scientists, partly due to assumptions that archaeological materials are too biased by prehistoric human actions (the so-called "cultural filter") to accurately reflect past biotic communities. In order to address many paleobiological, archaeological, or applied research questions, data on past species, communities, and populations must first be demonstrated to be representative at the appropriate level. We discuss different ways in which one kind of cultural bias, human transport of specimens, can be tested at different scales, using freshwater mussel shells from prehistoric sites in the Tombigbee River basin of Mississippi and Alabama to show how representativeness of samples can be assessed.