26
|
Robinson BE, Masuda YJ, Kelly A, Holland MB, Bedford C, Childress M, Fletschner D, Game ET, Ginsburg C, Hilhorst T, Lawry S, Miteva DA, Musengezi J, Naughton-Treves L, Nolte C, Sunderlin WD, Veit P. Incorporating Land Tenure Security into Conservation. Conserv Lett 2017. [DOI: 10.1111/conl.12383] [Citation(s) in RCA: 72] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
|
27
|
Annis GM, Pearsall DR, Kahl KJ, Washburn EL, May CA, Franks Taylor R, Cole JB, Ewert DN, Game ET, Doran PJ. Designing coastal conservation to deliver ecosystem and human well-being benefits. PLoS One 2017; 12:e0172458. [PMID: 28241018 PMCID: PMC5328270 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172458] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/29/2016] [Accepted: 02/05/2017] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Conservation scientists increasingly recognize that incorporating human values into conservation planning increases the chances for success by garnering broader project acceptance. However, methods for defining quantitative targets for the spatial representation of human well-being priorities are less developed. In this study we employ an approach for identifying regionally important human values and establishing specific spatial targets for their representation based on stakeholder outreach. Our primary objective was to develop a spatially-explicit conservation plan that identifies the most efficient locations for conservation actions to meet ecological goals while sustaining or enhancing human well-being values within the coastal and nearshore areas of the western Lake Erie basin (WLEB). We conducted an optimization analysis using 26 features representing ecological and human well-being priorities (13 of each), and included seven cost layers. The influence that including human well-being had on project results was tested by running five scenarios and setting targets for human well-being at different levels in each scenario. The most important areas for conservation to achieve multiple goals are clustered along the coast, reflecting a concentration of existing or potentially restorable coastal wetlands, coastal landbird stopover habitat and terrestrial biodiversity, as well as important recreational activities. Inland important areas tended to cluster around trails and high quality inland landbird stopover habitat. Most concentrated areas of importance also are centered on lands that are already conserved, reflecting the lower costs and higher benefits of enlarging these conserved areas rather than conserving isolated, dispersed areas. Including human well-being features in the analysis only influenced the solution at the highest target levels.
Collapse
|
28
|
Game ET, Bremer LL, Calvache A, Moreno PH, Vargas A, Rivera B, Rodriguez LM. Fuzzy Models to Inform Social and Environmental Indicator Selection for Conservation Impact Monitoring. Conserv Lett 2017. [DOI: 10.1111/conl.12338] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
|
29
|
McDonald-Madden E, Sabbadin R, Game ET, Baxter PWJ, Chadès I, Possingham HP. Using food-web theory to conserve ecosystems. Nat Commun 2016; 7:10245. [PMID: 26776253 PMCID: PMC4735605 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms10245] [Citation(s) in RCA: 53] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/21/2015] [Accepted: 11/23/2015] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Abstract
Food-web theory can be a powerful guide to the management of complex ecosystems. However, we show that indices of species importance common in food-web and network theory can be a poor guide to ecosystem management, resulting in significantly more extinctions than necessary. We use Bayesian Networks and Constrained Combinatorial Optimization to find optimal management strategies for a wide range of real and hypothetical food webs. This Artificial Intelligence approach provides the ability to test the performance of any index for prioritizing species management in a network. While no single network theory index provides an appropriate guide to management for all food webs, a modified version of the Google PageRank algorithm reliably minimizes the chance and severity of negative outcomes. Our analysis shows that by prioritizing ecosystem management based on the network-wide impact of species protection rather than species loss, we can substantially improve conservation outcomes. The influence of species conservation on food webs is less well understood than the effects of species loss. Here, the authors test several indices against optimal food web management and find no current metrics are reliably effective at identifying species conservation priorities.
Collapse
|
30
|
|
31
|
Anthony KRN, Marshall PA, Abdulla A, Beeden R, Bergh C, Black R, Eakin CM, Game ET, Gooch M, Graham NAJ, Green A, Heron SF, van Hooidonk R, Knowland C, Mangubhai S, Marshall N, Maynard JA, McGinnity P, McLeod E, Mumby PJ, Nyström M, Obura D, Oliver J, Possingham HP, Pressey RL, Rowlands GP, Tamelander J, Wachenfeld D, Wear S. Operationalizing resilience for adaptive coral reef management under global environmental change. GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY 2015; 21:48-61. [PMID: 25196132 PMCID: PMC4310291 DOI: 10.1111/gcb.12700] [Citation(s) in RCA: 95] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/22/2014] [Revised: 07/23/2014] [Accepted: 07/23/2014] [Indexed: 05/18/2023]
Abstract
Cumulative pressures from global climate and ocean change combined with multiple regional and local-scale stressors pose fundamental challenges to coral reef managers worldwide. Understanding how cumulative stressors affect coral reef vulnerability is critical for successful reef conservation now and in the future. In this review, we present the case that strategically managing for increased ecological resilience (capacity for stress resistance and recovery) can reduce coral reef vulnerability (risk of net decline) up to a point. Specifically, we propose an operational framework for identifying effective management levers to enhance resilience and support management decisions that reduce reef vulnerability. Building on a system understanding of biological and ecological processes that drive resilience of coral reefs in different environmental and socio-economic settings, we present an Adaptive Resilience-Based management (ARBM) framework and suggest a set of guidelines for how and where resilience can be enhanced via management interventions. We argue that press-type stressors (pollution, sedimentation, overfishing, ocean warming and acidification) are key threats to coral reef resilience by affecting processes underpinning resistance and recovery, while pulse-type (acute) stressors (e.g. storms, bleaching events, crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks) increase the demand for resilience. We apply the framework to a set of example problems for Caribbean and Indo-Pacific reefs. A combined strategy of active risk reduction and resilience support is needed, informed by key management objectives, knowledge of reef ecosystem processes and consideration of environmental and social drivers. As climate change and ocean acidification erode the resilience and increase the vulnerability of coral reefs globally, successful adaptive management of coral reefs will become increasingly difficult. Given limited resources, on-the-ground solutions are likely to focus increasingly on actions that support resilience at finer spatial scales, and that are tightly linked to ecosystem goods and services.
Collapse
|
32
|
Moon K, Adams VM, Januchowski-Hartley SR, Polyakov M, Mills M, Biggs D, Knight AT, Game ET, Raymond CM. A multidisciplinary conceptualization of conservation opportunity. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY : THE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 2014; 28:1484-1496. [PMID: 25381959 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12408] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/29/2014] [Accepted: 08/20/2014] [Indexed: 06/04/2023]
Abstract
An opportunity represents an advantageous combination of circumstances that allows goals to be achieved. We reviewed the nature of opportunity and how it manifests in different subsystems (e.g., biophysical, social, political, economic) as conceptualized in other bodies of literature, including behavior, adoption, entrepreneur, public policy, and resilience literature. We then developed a multidisciplinary conceptualization of conservation opportunity. We identified 3 types of conservation opportunity: potential, actors remove barriers to problem solving by identifying the capabilities within the system that can be manipulated to create support for conservation action; traction, actors identify windows of opportunity that arise from exogenous shocks, events, or changes that remove barriers to solving problems; and existing, everything is in place for conservation action (i.e., no barriers exist) and an actor takes advantage of the existing circumstances to solve problems. Different leverage points characterize each type of opportunity. Thus, unique stages of opportunity identification or creation and exploitation exist: characterizing the system and defining problems; identifying potential solutions; assessing the feasibility of solutions; identifying or creating opportunities; and taking advantage of opportunities. These stages can be undertaken independently or as part of a situational analysis and typically comprise the first stage, but they can also be conducted iteratively throughout a conservation planning process. Four types of entrepreneur can be identified (business, policy, social, and conservation), each possessing attributes that enable them to identify or create opportunities and take advantage of them. We examined how different types of conservation opportunity manifest in a social-ecological system (the Great Barrier Reef) and how they can be taken advantage of. Our multidisciplinary conceptualization of conservation opportunity strengthens and legitimizes the concept.
Collapse
|
33
|
Game ET, Meijaard E, Sheil D, McDonald-Madden E. Conservation in a Wicked Complex World; Challenges and Solutions. Conserv Lett 2013. [DOI: 10.1111/conl.12050] [Citation(s) in RCA: 152] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
|
34
|
Game ET, Kareiva P, Possingham HP. Six common mistakes in conservation priority setting. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY : THE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 2013; 27:480-5. [PMID: 23565990 PMCID: PMC3732384 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12051] [Citation(s) in RCA: 104] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/15/2012] [Accepted: 11/19/2012] [Indexed: 05/22/2023]
Abstract
A vast number of prioritization schemes have been developed to help conservation navigate tough decisions about the allocation of finite resources. However, the application of quantitative approaches to setting priorities in conservation frequently includes mistakes that can undermine their authors' intention to be more rigorous and scientific in the way priorities are established and resources allocated. Drawing on well-established principles of decision science, we highlight 6 mistakes commonly associated with setting priorities for conservation: not acknowledging conservation plans are prioritizations; trying to solve an ill-defined problem; not prioritizing actions; arbitrariness; hidden value judgments; and not acknowledging risk of failure. We explain these mistakes and offer a path to help conservation planners avoid making the same mistakes in future prioritizations.
Collapse
|
35
|
Caley MJ, Cripps E, Game ET. Phenotypic covariance at species' borders. BMC Evol Biol 2013; 13:105. [PMID: 23714580 PMCID: PMC3681583 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2148-13-105] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/26/2012] [Accepted: 05/24/2013] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Understanding the evolution of species limits is important in ecology, evolution, and conservation biology. Despite its likely importance in the evolution of these limits, little is known about phenotypic covariance in geographically marginal populations, and the degree to which it constrains, or facilitates, responses to selection. We investigated phenotypic covariance in morphological traits at species’ borders by comparing phenotypic covariance matrices (P), including the degree of shared structure, the distribution of strengths of pair-wise correlations between traits, the degree of morphological integration of traits, and the ranks of matricies, between central and marginal populations of three species-pairs of coral reef fishes. Results Greater structural differences in P were observed between populations close to range margins and conspecific populations toward range centres, than between pairs of conspecific populations that were both more centrally located within their ranges. Approximately 80% of all pair-wise trait correlations within populations were greater in the north, but these differences were unrelated to the position of the sampled population with respect to the geographic range of the species. Conclusions Neither the degree of morphological integration, nor ranks of P, indicated greater evolutionary constraint at range edges. Characteristics of P observed here provide no support for constraint contributing to the formation of these species’ borders, but may instead reflect structural change in P caused by selection or drift, and their potential to evolve in the future.
Collapse
|
36
|
Ban NC, Bax NJ, Gjerde KM, Devillers R, Dunn DC, Dunstan PK, Hobday AJ, Maxwell SM, Kaplan DM, Pressey RL, Ardron JA, Game ET, Halpin PN. Systematic Conservation Planning: A Better Recipe for Managing the High Seas for Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use. Conserv Lett 2013. [DOI: 10.1111/conl.12010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 92] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
|
37
|
Bottrill MC, Mills M, Pressey RL, Game ET, Groves C. Evaluating perceived benefits of ecoregional assessments. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY : THE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 2012; 26:851-61. [PMID: 22827171 DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01898.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/06/2023]
Abstract
The outcomes of systematic conservation planning (process of assessing, implementing, and managing conservation areas) are rarely reported or measured formally. A lack of consistent or rigorous evaluation in conservation planning has fueled debate about the extent to which conservation assessment (identification, design, and prioritization of potential conservation areas) ultimately influences actions on the ground. We interviewed staff members of a nongovernmental organization, who were involved in 5 ecoregional assessments across North and South America and the Asia-Pacific region. We conducted 17 semistructured interviews with open and closed questions about the perceived purpose, outputs, and outcomes of the ecoregional assessments in which respondents were involved. Using qualitative data collected from those interviews, we investigated the types and frequency of benefits perceived to have emerged from the ecoregional assessments and explored factors that might facilitate or constrain the flow of benefits. Some benefits reflected the intended purpose of ecoregional assessments. Other benefits included improvements in social interactions, attitudes, and institutional knowledge. Our results suggest the latter types of benefits enable ultimate benefits of assessments, such as guiding investments by institutional partners. Our results also showed a clear divergence between the respondents' expectations and perceived outcomes of implementation of conservation actions arising from ecoregional assessments. Our findings suggest the need for both a broader perspective on the contribution of assessments to planning goals and further evaluation of conservation assessments.
Collapse
|
38
|
McDonald-Madden E, Baxter PW, Fuller RA, Martin TG, Game ET, Montambault J, Possingham HP. Should we implement monitoring or research for conservation? Trends Ecol Evol 2011. [DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2010.12.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
|
39
|
Grantham HS, Game ET, Lombard AT, Hobday AJ, Richardson AJ, Beckley LE, Pressey RL, Huggett JA, Coetzee JC, van der Lingen CD, Petersen SL, Merkle D, Possingham HP. Accommodating dynamic oceanographic processes and pelagic biodiversity in marine conservation planning. PLoS One 2011; 6:e16552. [PMID: 21311757 PMCID: PMC3032775 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0016552] [Citation(s) in RCA: 52] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/15/2010] [Accepted: 12/30/2010] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Pelagic ecosystems support a significant and vital component of the ocean's productivity and biodiversity. They are also heavily exploited and, as a result, are the focus of numerous spatial planning initiatives. Over the past decade, there has been increasing enthusiasm for protected areas as a tool for pelagic conservation, however, few have been implemented. Here we demonstrate an approach to plan protected areas that address the physical and biological dynamics typical of the pelagic realm. Specifically, we provide an example of an approach to planning protected areas that integrates pelagic and benthic conservation in the southern Benguela and Agulhas Bank ecosystems off South Africa. Our aim was to represent species of importance to fisheries and species of conservation concern within protected areas. In addition to representation, we ensured that protected areas were designed to consider pelagic dynamics, characterized from time-series data on key oceanographic processes, together with data on the abundance of small pelagic fishes. We found that, to have the highest likelihood of reaching conservation targets, protected area selection should be based on time-specific data rather than data averaged across time. More generally, we argue that innovative methods are needed to conserve ephemeral and dynamic pelagic biodiversity.
Collapse
|
40
|
Lourival R, Drechsler M, Watts ME, Game ET, Possingham HP. Planning for reserve adequacy in dynamic landscapes; maximizing future representation of vegetation communities under flood disturbance in the Pantanal wetland. DIVERS DISTRIB 2011. [DOI: 10.1111/j.1472-4642.2010.00722.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 33] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
|
41
|
McDonald-Madden E, Baxter PW, Fuller RA, Martin TG, Game ET, Montambault J, Possingham HP. Monitoring does not always count. Trends Ecol Evol 2010; 25:547-50. [DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2010.07.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 163] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/10/2010] [Revised: 07/21/2010] [Accepted: 07/21/2010] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
|
42
|
Game ET, Lipsett-Moore G, Hamilton R, Peterson N, Kereseka J, Atu W, Watts M, Possingham H. Informed opportunism for conservation planning in the Solomon Islands. Conserv Lett 2010. [DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-263x.2010.00140.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 71] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
|
43
|
Klein CJ, Ban NC, Halpern BS, Beger M, Game ET, Grantham HS, Green A, Klein TJ, Kininmonth S, Treml E, Wilson K, Possingham HP. Prioritizing land and sea conservation investments to protect coral reefs. PLoS One 2010; 5:e12431. [PMID: 20814570 PMCID: PMC2930002 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0012431] [Citation(s) in RCA: 67] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/17/2010] [Accepted: 07/17/2010] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Coral reefs have exceptional biodiversity, support the livelihoods of millions of people, and are threatened by multiple human activities on land (e.g. farming) and in the sea (e.g. overfishing). Most conservation efforts occur at local scales and, when effective, can increase the resilience of coral reefs to global threats such as climate change (e.g. warming water and ocean acidification). Limited resources for conservation require that we efficiently prioritize where and how to best sustain coral reef ecosystems. Methodology/Principal Findings Here we develop the first prioritization approach that can guide regional-scale conservation investments in land- and sea-based conservation actions that cost-effectively mitigate threats to coral reefs, and apply it to the Coral Triangle, an area of significant global attention and funding. Using information on threats to marine ecosystems, effectiveness of management actions at abating threats, and the management and opportunity costs of actions, we calculate the rate of return on investment in two conservation actions in sixteen ecoregions. We discover that marine conservation almost always trumps terrestrial conservation within any ecoregion, but terrestrial conservation in one ecoregion can be a better investment than marine conservation in another. We show how these results could be used to allocate a limited budget for conservation and compare them to priorities based on individual criteria. Conclusions/Significance Previous prioritization approaches do not consider both land and sea-based threats or the socioeconomic costs of conserving coral reefs. A simple and transparent approach like ours is essential to support effective coral reef conservation decisions in a large and diverse region like the Coral Triangle, but can be applied at any scale and to other marine ecosystems.
Collapse
|
44
|
Game ET, Grantham HS, Hobday AJ, Pressey RL, Lombard AT, Beckley LE, Gjerde K, Bustamante R, Possingham HP, Richardson AJ. Pelagic MPAs: The devil you know. Trends Ecol Evol 2010. [DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2009.09.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
|
45
|
Game ET, Bode M, McDonald-Madden E, Grantham HS, Possingham HP. Dynamic marine protected areas can improve the resilience of coral reef systems. Ecol Lett 2009; 12:1336-46. [DOI: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01384.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 60] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
|
46
|
Game ET, Grantham HS, Hobday AJ, Pressey RL, Lombard AT, Beckley LE, Gjerde K, Bustamante R, Possingham HP, Richardson AJ. Pelagic protected areas: the missing dimension in ocean conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 2009; 24:360-9. [PMID: 19324450 DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2009.01.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 310] [Impact Index Per Article: 20.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/12/2008] [Revised: 01/23/2009] [Accepted: 01/27/2009] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
Fewer protected areas exist in the pelagic ocean than any other ecosystem on Earth. Although there is increasing support for marine protected areas (MPAs) as a tool for pelagic conservation, there have also been numerous criticisms of the ecological, logistical and economic feasibility of place-based management in the dynamic pelagic environment. Here we argue that recent advances across conservation, oceanography and fisheries science provide the evidence, tools and information to address these criticisms and confirm MPAs as defensible and feasible instruments for pelagic conservation. Debate over the efficacy of protected areas relative to other conservation measures cannot be resolved without further implementation of MPAs in the pelagic ocean.
Collapse
|
47
|
Game ET, McDonald-Madden E, Puotinen ML, Possingham HP. Should we protect the strong or the weak? Risk, resilience, and the selection of marine protected areas. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY : THE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 2008; 22:1619-1629. [PMID: 18759769 DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01037.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 41] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/26/2023]
Abstract
It is thought that recovery of marine habitats from uncontrollable disturbance may be faster in marine reserves than in unprotected habitats. But which marine habitats should be protected, those areas at greatest risk or those at least risk? We first defined this problem mathematically for 2 alternate conservation objectives. We then analytically solved this problem for both objectives and determined under which conditions each of the different protection strategies was optimal. If the conservation objective was to maximize the chance of having at least 1 healthy site, then the best strategy was protection of the site at lowest risk. On the other hand, if the goal was to maximize the expected number of healthy sites, the optimal strategy was more complex. If protected sites were likely to spend a significant amount of time in a degraded state, then it was best to protect low-risk sites. Alternatively, if most areas were generally healthy then, counterintuitively, it was best to protect sites at higher risk. We applied these strategies to a situation of cyclone disturbance of coral reefs on Australia's Great Barrier Reef. With regard to the risk of cyclone disturbance, the optimal reef to protect differed dramatically, depending on the expected speed of reef recovery of both protected and unprotected reefs. An adequate consideration of risk is fundamental to all conservation actions and can indicate surprising routes to conservation success.
Collapse
|
48
|
Bottrill MC, Joseph LN, Carwardine J, Bode M, Cook C, Game ET, Grantham H, Kark S, Linke S, McDonald-Madden E, Pressey RL, Walker S, Wilson KA, Possingham HP. Is conservation triage just smart decision making? Trends Ecol Evol 2008; 23:649-54. [PMID: 18848367 DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2008.07.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 436] [Impact Index Per Article: 27.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/12/2008] [Revised: 06/18/2008] [Accepted: 07/09/2008] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
|
49
|
McDonald-Madden E, Bode M, Game ET, Grantham H, Possingham HP. The need for speed: informed land acquisitions for conservation in a dynamic property market. Ecol Lett 2008; 11:1169-1177. [PMID: 18713271 DOI: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01226.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 69] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Abstract
Land acquisition is a common approach to biodiversity conservation but is typically subject to property availability on the public market. Consequently, conservation plans are often unable to be implemented as intended. When properties come on the market, conservation agencies must make a choice: purchase immediately, often without a detailed knowledge of its biodiversity value; survey the parcel and accept the risk that it may be removed from the market during this process; or not purchase and hope a better parcel comes on the market at a later date. We describe both an optimal method, using stochastic dynamic programming, and a simple rule of thumb for making such decisions. The solutions to this problem illustrate how optimal conservation is necessarily dynamic and requires explicit consideration of both the time period allowed for implementation and the availability of properties.
Collapse
|
50
|
Game ET, Watts ME, Wooldridge S, Possingham HP. Planning for persistence in marine reserves: a question of catastrophic importance. ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS : A PUBLICATION OF THE ECOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA 2008; 18:670-680. [PMID: 18488626 DOI: 10.1890/07-1027.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 53] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/26/2023]
Abstract
Large-scale catastrophic events, although rare, lie generally beyond the control of local management and can prevent marine reserves from achieving biodiversity outcomes. We formulate a new conservation planning problem that aims to minimize the probability of missing conservation targets as a result of catastrophic events. To illustrate this approach we formulate and solve the problem of minimizing the impact of large-scale coral bleaching events on a reserve system for the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. We show that by considering the threat of catastrophic events as part of the reserve design problem it is possible to substantially improve the likely persistence of conservation features within reserve networks for a negligible increase in cost. In the case of the Great Barrier Reef, a 2% increase in overall reserve cost was enough to improve the long-run performance of our reserve network by >60%. Our results also demonstrate that simply aiming to protect the reefs at lowest risk of catastrophic bleaching does not necessarily lead to the best conservation outcomes, and enormous gains in overall persistence can be made by removing the requirement to represent all bioregions in the reserve network. We provide an explicit and well-defined method that allows the probability of catastrophic disturbances to be included in the site selection problem without creating additional conservation targets or imposing arbitrary presence/absence thresholds on existing data. This research has implications for reserve design in a changing climate.
Collapse
|