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

• utcome for a restricted number and area of TSRs”

Support for rural communities

• Fire and flood refuge
• Droving
• Tourism
• Apiaries/pollination

Other values for Australian society

• Recreation
• Scientific research
• Carbon sinks
• Seed source

Cultural heritage

• Indig. Song lines, trading paths
• Significant sites and objects
• European heritage

Biodiversity conservation

• Not cultivated
• No inputs
• No set-stocking
• Large remnants
• Old remnants
• Hollows
• Support threatened veg.
• Provide habitat for threatened

spp

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

Results

• ~6,000 birds, 81 species, 45 woodland

specialists

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.

Image: Dejan Stojanovic

Native ground cover

TSR

Stock route richness Condition index

Results: Woodland birds

Shrubs Peeling bark Logs Litter 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
• f 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 100 30 10

Connectivity – Why does it matter?

2) Gene flow Between distinct populations prevents inbreeding depression AA bb CC aa BB cc f↑ f↑ Aa Bb cC aA BB Cc f↓ f↓

Connectivity – Why does it matter?

3) Climate change Species may need to shift their distributions as the climate warms 100 100 Altitude 100

Biophysical environment Species’ mobility Species’ habitat requirements

Connectivity People have really been paying attention

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?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

a) Each species once

9 6 4 1 3 3

A quick exercise – which patches would you conserve?

1 - $5 2 - $10 3 - $2 4 - $34 5 - $50 6 - $12 7 - $28 8 - $19 9 - $45

b) Each species once – account for cost

A quick exercise – which patches would you conserve?

1 - $5 2 - $10 3 - $2 4 - $34 5 - $50 6 - $12 7 - $28 8 - $19 9 - $45 2 - $10

c) Each species once – habitat quality

($500)

A quick exercise – which patches would you conserve? d) Each species once - connectivity

1 - $5 2 - $10 3 - $2 4 - $34 5 - $50 6 - $12 7 - $28 8 - $19 9 - $45  Want to minimise the edge (boundary) 100m 80m = 720m = 520m

A quick exercise – which patches would you conserve? d) Each species once - connectivity

1 - $5 2 - $10 3 - $2 4 - $34 5 - $50 6 - $12 7 - $28 8 - $19 9 - $45  IF connectivity is REALLY important 2 - $510 = 1080m ($83) = 720m ($565)

A quick exercise – which patches would you conserve?

1 - $5 2 - $10 3 - $2 4 - $34 5 - $50 6 - $12 7 - $28 8 - $19 9 - $45  Landscapes aren’t neat squares!

d) Each species – minimum area

1 - $5 2 - $10 3 - $2 4 - $34 5 - $50 6 - $12 7 - $28 8 - $19 9 - $45 1 - $5 1ha 2 - $10 1.75ha 3.25ha 4 - $34 0.75ha 5 - $50 1.5ha 3ha 7 - $28 1.75ha 2ha 5ha 6ha 4ha 10ha 10ha 7ha 3ha 6ha 4ha 10ha 10ha 7ha 3ha

What a headache!

• Many/all of these factors need to be considered in planning
• Planning problems often involve thousands of potential

‘planning units’

• Thankfully, a wide range of conservation planning tools have

been developed to help us!

• Just because you have a ‘solution’, that doesn’t mean that

stakeholders are going to cooperate

• 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) Two ways to approach conservation planning

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

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

× 2 0.2 0.4 × 4 0.2 0.8 $321 $406 × 1.5 0.4 0.6 × 2 0.4 0.8 $321 $406

?

ROI = 0.2/321 = 0.00062 0.6/406 = 0.00148 0.6/406 = 0.00062 0.6/406 = 0.00098 0.0012 0.0025

Step 3: Decide on what the best action in each place is

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

Some take-home messages

• Big old trees are important for a lot of

farmland fauna

• What constitutes “connectivity” is

different for each species

• It’s not only the quality of a patch is

that matters, but also its “landscape context” – what is close by and what it connects

• Stock routes are awesome
• Habitat complexity is key – logs, shrubs, leaf litter:

‘mess’ in general

Property owners: The Boland, East, Forde, Francis, Fuge, Gibb, Harper, Herbert, Kavanagh, Kelly, Kite, Knight, Knight, Markwort, Maslin, Matchett, McLachlan, Mitton, Naughton, Porritt, Robinson, Ryan, Sanderson, Smith, Sweeney, Sykes, Taylor, Thomas, Whyte, Worner, and Yerbury families, and the Darley global breeding

• peration.

Field assistants: Corey Bunnell, Madelaine Castles, Lesley Hook, Lulu Lentini, Mary Long, Anna McConville, Alex Munro, Beth Noel, Gabbie Openshaw, Thomas O’Reilly, Mark Quinnell, Katherine Russell, Marcus Salton, Karen Stagoll, Jarom Stanaway, Caragh Threlfall Supervisors and collaborators: Joern Fischer, Brendan Wintle, Phil Gibbons, Tara Martin, Brad Law, Saul Cunningham, Jan Hanspach, David Lindenmayer, Michael Drielsma

Thanks!