Deciding where we should carry out connectivity conservation Pia - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Deciding where we should carry out connectivity conservation Pia Lentini , Research Fellow, QAECO group, School of Botany qaeco.com @pelentini @qaecology pia.lentini@unimelb.edu.au

“ The Long Paddock ” “ disposal through sale may be an appropriate outcome for a restricted number and area of TSRs”

Biodiversity conservation Not cultivated • No inputs • No set-stocking • Large remnants • Old remnants • Hollows • Support threatened veg. • Provide habitat for threatened • spp Cultural heritage Indig. Song lines, trading paths • Significant sites and objects • European heritage • Other values for Australian society Support for rural communities Recreation • Fire and flood refuge • Scientific research • Droving • Carbon sinks • Tourism • Seed source • Apiaries/pollination •

Cereal crop Exotic pastures Native pastures Canola crop Lucerne/clover pasture

Results ~6,000 birds, 81 species, 45 woodland • specialists Image: Dejan Stojanovic Lentini, P. E., Fischer, J., Gibbons, P., Hanspach, J. and Martin, T. G. (2011) Value of large-scale linear networks for bird conservation: a case study from Travelling Stock Routes, Australia. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 141 , 302-309.

Results: Woodland birds Stock route richness TSR Condition index Logs Litter Native ground cover Shrubs Peeling bark Hollows

Results: Woodland birds PAD Shrubs

Results: Woodland birds Shrubs

What this meant for management Structural complexity was more • important for woodland bird communities than stock route size Narrow stock routes may act as a source • of avian visitors to farmland Native pastures and low-input systems provide supplementary habitat for • woodland birds, so incentives to maintain these areas should be considered Low-input systems also allow for trees regeneration, and scattered • paddock trees

That’s all very nice. Where has that gotten you? Aren’t you supposed to be talking to us about connectivity?

Aust. DSEWPAC (2012). National Wildlife Corridors Plan .

Taylor et al. (1993) defined landscape connectivity as: ‘‘the degree to which the landscape facilitates or impedes movement among resource patches’’

Connectivity – Why does it matter? 1) Recolonisation Metapopulations persist because local extinctions are offset by recolonisation 10 100 30

Connectivity – Why does it matter? aA aa BB BB Cc cc f ↑ f ↓ 2) Gene flow Between distinct populations prevents inbreeding depression Aa AA Bb bb cC CC f ↓ f ↑

Connectivity – Why does it matter? 100 100 100 Altitude 3) Climate change Species may need to shift their distributions as the climate warms

People have really been Connectivity paying attention Biophysical Species’ environment mobility Species’ habitat requirements

Text book principles Cain et al (eds 2008) Ecology. Sinauer Associates.

Conservation planning How we decide where to put conservation reserves, or where to carry out certain conservation actions Principles of conservation planning: C : Comprehensive – need to have good examples of each species/ • community/ecosystem A : Adequate – need to protect enough of each species/community/ • ecosystem so they’re viable (connectivity part of this) R : Representative – need to capture natural variability of • species/communities/ecosystems across their distributions C : Complementarity – sites need to complement each other: if it’s • adequately protected elsewhere already, protect something underrepresented instead E : Efficient – resources are limited, so we need to do this in the cheapest • way possible

A quick exercise – which patches would you conserve? a) Each species once 9 1 2 3 6 4 4 5 6 1 7 8 9 3 3

A quick exercise – which patches would you conserve? b) Each species once – account for cost 1 - $5 2 - $10 3 - $2 4 - $34 5 - $50 6 - $12 7 - $28 8 - $19 9 - $45

A quick exercise – which patches would you conserve? c) Each species once – habitat quality 1 - $5 2 - $10 2 - $10 3 - $2 ($500) 4 - $34 5 - $50 6 - $12 7 - $28 8 - $19 9 - $45

A quick exercise – which patches would you conserve? d) Each species once - connectivity  Want to minimise the edge (boundary) 1 - $5 2 - $10 3 - $2 4 - $34 5 - $50 6 - $12 = 720m = 520m 7 - $28 8 - $19 9 - $45 80m 100m

A quick exercise – which patches would you conserve? d) Each species once - connectivity  IF connectivity is REALLY important 1 - $5 2 - $510 2 - $10 3 - $2 4 - $34 5 - $50 6 - $12 = 1080m = 720m ($83) ($565) 7 - $28 8 - $19 9 - $45

A quick exercise – which patches would you conserve? d) Each species – minimum area 6ha 6ha  Landscapes aren’t neat squares! 4ha 4ha 1 - $5 1 - $5 1 - $5 2 - $10 2 - $10 2 - $10 3 - $2 3 - $2 1ha 1.75ha 3.25ha 10ha 10ha 4 - $34 4 - $34 4 - $34 5 - $50 5 - $50 5 - $50 6 - $12 6 - $12 0.75ha 1.5ha 3ha 10ha 10ha 7 - $28 7 - $28 7 - $28 8 - $19 8 - $19 9 - $45 9 - $45 1.75ha 2ha 5ha 7ha 7ha 3ha 3ha

What a headache! • Many/all of these factors need to be considered in planning • Planning problems often involve thousands of potential ‘planning units’ • Just because you have a ‘solution’, that doesn’t mean that stakeholders are going to cooperate • Thankfully, a wide range of conservation planning tools have been developed to help us!

Two ways to approach conservation planning Address the ‘ minimum set ’ problem: if I want to protect • x amount of something, what is the cheapest way to do it? (Marxan) ‘ Maximum coverage ’ problem is the opposite: I have x • dollars, what can you get me for it? (Zonation)

Connecting Country “Habitat for Bush Birds” case study Private land conservation programs for 20 species of woodland bird Four actions being considered: Revegetation, weeding, fencing and grazing management INFFER process had identified eleven priority zones for action Where to invest to maximise habitat quality and connectivity over the next 50 years?

Step 1: Build a habitat suitability model for each species Probability of brown treecreeper = Temperature range + Precipitation of the driest month + Woody vegetation in 500m buffer + Vegetation condition in 500m buffer + Soil pH+ Vegetation “greeness” + Land use + Topographic wetness

Step 2: Decide how we think each species is going to respond to each action in each land use type Action Grazing management Fencing Revegetation: Direct seeding Weeding Pasture Pasture Pasture Pasture Modified Modified Modified Modified Site type with Crop with Crop with Crop with Crop Pasture Pasture Pasture Pasture vegetation vegetation vegetation vegetation AON 0 0 1.207 0.604 3.021 1.52 0 3.021 1.52 1.482 1.49 1.488 BCH 0 0 1.378 7.853 20.65 19.648 7.853 20.65 19.648 1.454 1.477 1.476 BT 0 0 1.907 0.439 1.677 0.902 0 1.677 0.902 1.42 1.472 1.456 5.427 10.138 8.72 5.427 10.138 9.886 1.427 1.456 1.455 BRT 0 0 1.235 CB 0 0 0 3.854 2.916 1.387 4.581 6.648 6.527 1.428 1.454 1.447 CST 1.97 0 1.105 6.695 7.412 8.74 6.695 7.412 8.74 1.447 1.451 1.457 DF 1.709 0 1.83 13.607 19.719 16.226 13.607 26.57 29.89 1.465 1.478 1.479 EYR 1.97 0 1.105 6.032 11.204 5.541 6.032 15.097 10.207 1.433 1.468 1.456 3.123 5.539 5.742 3.222 6.116 6.774 1.388 1.436 1.44 FH 0 0 1.378 HR 0 0 1.207 34.58 59.433 43.816 34.58 86.924 79.061 1.481 1.487 1.487 JW 8.184 9.248 11.744 8.187 9.324 11.896 1.455 1.459 1.466 0 0 1.207 LL 0 0 1.907 1.094 1.37 1.691 1.094 1.37 1.691 1.462 1.468 1.472 PBQ 0 0 2.9 21.984 0 0 21.984 37.719 42.747 1.475 1.484 1.483 6.449 1.579 2.09 6.554 3.272 5.588 1.478 1.471 1.476 SK 0 0 1.907 SR 0 0 1.207 7.305 13.296 15.07 7.305 13.296 15.07 1.443 1.464 1.468 SW 4.94 2.1 1.083 4.94 12.025 8.648 1.421 1.47 1.45 0 0 1.235 SP 0 0 1.378 0.861 2.766 1.784 0 2.766 1.784 1.466 1.484 1.479 WBB 1.97 0 1.105 11.444 24.408 15.017 11.444 36.308 27.67 1.46 1.481 1.478 5.058 6.262 6.41 5.058 6.262 6.41 1.477 1.48 1.48 WBC 0 0 1.378 YTH 0 0 1.378 4.064 8.157 4.758 4.064 10.992 8.765 1.407 1.459 1.451

Step 3: Decide on what the best action in each place is ? × 2 0.4 ROI = 0.2/321 = 0.00062 0.2 $321 × 4 0.0012 0.8 0.2 $406 0.6/406 = 0.00148 × 1.5 0.6 0.4 $321 0.6/406 = 0.00062 0.0025 × 2 0.8 0.4 $406 0.6/406 = 0.00098

Pretend you’ve already done the best action everywhere

And you know what that cost…

Step 5: Model connectivity

Then, determined priority areas in the landscape for taxonomic groups using Uses maps as inputs, employs an algorithm which iteratively removes cells from the landscape Does so in an order which minimises the loss of habitat for the worst-off species at each time step In this way, the least valuable habitat for all species is removed first, and the most valuable removed last

Voila!

What we perceive as being the most important bits of the landscape are going to shift depending on what we’re trying to represent in our conservation plans