simon linke robert. l. pressey robert c. bailey richard h. norris the ecology centre university of queensland australia Identifying conservation priorities of catchments using irreplaceability, vulnerability and condition
three key questions in river conservation planning Conservation value Biodiversity Pressure Condition Vulnerability State
Condition Vulnerability three key questions in river conservation planning
irreplaceability (conservation value ) What is special about a catchment?
condition What is the status of the catchment? dr. bob says: don’t eat the yellow stream
vulnerability how is the condition likely to change ?
consider all three axes for planning irreplaceability vulnerability high low high condition good priority: protection priority: restoration
irreplaceability (conservation value ) What is special about a catchment?
victoria (australia): invertebrate taxa as targets data study
data limitations we have data for 12%. how to cover the rest?
modeled occurrences: probabilities! assign a probability of occurrence for every taxon in every subcatchment
predictors: GIS bailey & linke (in prep.) GIS variables predict macro-invertebrate assemblages as well as local habitat query out for all subbasins: catchment descriptors climate geomorphology/ hypsology vegetation geology
generalized additive models Environmental factors 30% chance of being at test site Predicted Biota 70% chance of being at test site
modeling results 400 taxa at genus/species could be predicted successfully at ROC>0.6
irreplaceability run heuristic 1000 times with randomly half of the sites taken out see which catchments end up selected most often measures: f(frequency of selection), c(contribution to targets)
irreplaceability run heuristic 1000 times with randomly half of the sites taken out see which catchments end up selected most often measures: f(frequency of selection), c(contribution to targets)
irreplaceability run heuristic 1000 times with randomly half of the sites taken out see which catchments end up selected most often measures: f(frequency of selection), c(contribution to targets)
83% 42% 13% 53% irreplaceability run heuristic 1000 times with randomly half of the sites taken out see which catchments end up selected most often measures: f(frequency of selection), c(contribution to targets)
map of summed irreplaceability
condition What is the status of the catchment? dr. bob says: don’t eat the yellow stream
agriculture weeds road density nutrient load grazing forestry sediment load urbanization condition -> stressor gradients
principal components analysis (PCA) condition -> stressor gradients agriculture weeds road density nutrient load grazing forestry sediment load urbanization PC 1 agriculture PC 3 forestry PC 2 urban
PC 1: agriculture (51% explained) sediment load (0.36) intensive agriculture (0.41) native vegetation (-.42) acidification (0.37) grazing (0.40) forestry (- 0.40)
vulnerability how is the condition likely to change ?
2 components If land capability slope soils allows more intensive use than current landuse vulnerable
capability classification (based on Emery (1985)) category 1 – highest capability: low slopes, low erosion and low salinity risk suitable for cultivation, pasture, forestry category 3 – low capability: steep slopes, high erosion and potentially high salinity suitable for national parks category 2 – medium capability: medium slopes, moderate erosion. suitable for pasture, forestry
impact classification (after Norris et al. (2001)) cultivation has a higher impact than sown pasture has a higher impact than native pasture has a higher/equal impact than forestry has a higher impact than conservation
vulnerability by catchment already protected -> not vulnerable already in the highest impact class -> not vulnerable
Management integration irreplaceability vulnerability high low high condition good
focus on restoration high irreplaceability, degraded condition
candidates for river reserves high irreplaceability, still good condition, but high vulnerability
ad-break: eWater river conservation software (ready in 6-12 months)
challenge: integrated catchment planning consider condition and vulnerability as variables that require cost/effort priority of action is linked to effort needed targets can be met in multiple ways -> choose the cheapest/easiest one
proposed framework present condition vulnerability attributes of each catchment target 1 target 2 target n subject to condition and vulnerability
aim: to optimize investments in condition and vulnerability so all targets can be met reservation/’fighting threats’ restoration/improvement possible types of action Condition goodbad
the connected nature of rivers (re-visited) improvement or degradation ‘travels’ downstream makes optimisation difficult (yet fun) investment: restoration
what have I done so far? adapted the simulated annealing algorithm to include different levels of investment ran a trial with 3 (ficticious) species, 13 subcatchments, optimized for condition simulated annealing gives you the optimal investment
next steps how can vulnerability be included both, condition and vulnerability have to be optimised dynamic problem? Condition is necessary, but for longer how to put real costs on restoration/protection activities merge with population models