Inventories, Focal Species, & Crayons: Evaluating Conservation Planning Tools George R. Hess Matthew J. Rubino Frank H. Koch Katherine A. Eschelbach C. Ashton Drew Jorie M. Favreau North Carolina State University Raleigh, North Carolina USA

The Challenge People transform landscapes faster than research data can be collected Planners need to act with incomplete data Can we create shortcuts that correctly identify land for protection?

Some Possible Approaches Inventory data  $$$$$$

Some Possible Approaches Inventory data  $$$$$$ Surrogate species  $$$$

Some Possible Approaches Inventory data  $$$$$$ Surrogate species  $$$$ Crayons, maps, & conservation principles  $$

Some Possible Approaches Inventory data  $$$$$$ Surrogate species  $$$$ Crayons, maps, & conservation principles  $$ Random selection $$

Our Research Question Can simple approaches identify land for protection as effectively as complex approaches?

Our Research Question Can simple approaches identify land for protection as effectively as complex approaches? Compared plans in the Triangle Region of North Carolina, USA

Study Area Triangle Region — North Carolina — USA

Approach Inventory Data Habitat Mapping Conservation Principles Random Selection Inventory- Based Plan Focal Species Plan Simple Plans Null Model

Approach Inventory Data Habitat Mapping Conservation Principles Random Selection Inventory- Based Plan Focal Species Plan Simple Plans Null Model Test Against Inventory Data Effectiveness of each Plan

Effectiveness Proportion of known species & communities of conservation concern protected by plan

Effectiveness

Natural Heritage Inventory Point location of species & communities of conservation concern Cataloged through the years from a variety of sources Data used for effectiveness test AND creating inventory-based plan

Inventory-based Plan Based on Natural Heritage Inventory Considered species habitat needs and community extent Created a map of core conservation lands  $$$$$$

Inventory-based Plan  $$$$$$

Focal Species Plan Created by me & graduate students Focal species selected to represent landscapes & conservation threats Habitat modeled & mapped for each species Combined maps to create plan  $$$$

Focal Species Plan animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu Extensive undisturbed lands Bobcat Eastern box turtle Riparian & bottomland Barred owl Upland Ovenbird Broad-winged hawk Mature Pileated woodpecker wildwnc.org  $$$$

Focal Species Plan  $$$$

Simple Plans Used simple conservation principles to identify forest land for protection  $$

Simple Plans Used simple conservation principles to identify forest land for protection Created two of each Same area as inventory plan Same area as focal species plan  $$

Simple Plans Used simple conservation principles to identify forest land for protection Created two of each Same area as inventory plan Same area as focal species plan Avoids direct comparison of plans with grossly unequal areas  $$

Simple Plans Used simple conservation principles to identify forest land for protection Largest patches in region  $$

Simple Plans  $$

Simple Plans Used simple conservation principles to identify forest land for protection Largest patches in region Largest patches in each county, then nearest  $$

Simple Plans  $$

Simple Plans Used simple conservation principles to identify forest land for protection Largest patches in region Largest patches in each county, then nearest Diverse forest types Close to already protected areas Close to wetlands & riparian areas  $$

Random Selection All forest patches patches had same selection probability Repeated 50 times Average 95% confidence interval $$

Recap – Approach Inventory Data Habitat Mapping Conservation Principles Random Selection

Recap – Approach Inventory Data Habitat Mapping Conservation Principles Random Selection Inventory- Based Plan Focal Species Plan Simple Plans Null Model

Recap – Approach Inventory Data Habitat Mapping Conservation Principles Random Selection Inventory- Based Plan Focal Species Plan Simple Plans Null Model Test Against Inventory Data

Recap – Effectiveness

Inventory Beats Focal Species PlanEffectivenessArea Inventory94% 335 km 2 (5% of forest) Focal Species87% 2,446 km 2 (37% of forest) Inventory plan more effective & used less land … but more costly

Inventory Beats Simple PlanEffectiveness Inventory94% Random33±1.8% Largest Patches35% Large / Near55% Diverse Forests33% Close to protected78% Close to riparian (100m buffer)29% Close to riparian (whole patch)35%

Focal Species Ties Simple PlanEffectiveness Focal Species87% Random87±1.2% Largest Patches84% Large / Near88% Diverse Forests94% Close to protected94% Close to riparian (100m buffer)90% Close to riparian (whole patch)83%

Our Research Question Can simple approaches identify land for protection as effectively as complex approaches?

It Depends … Inventory data needed, if only small amounts of land (≈5%) protected

It Depends … Inventory data needed, if only small amounts of land (≈5%) protected Simple or random might work, if large amounts of land (≈35%) protected

It Depends … Inventory data needed, if only small amounts of land (≈5%) protected Simple or random might work, if large amounts of land (≈35%) protected Generalization awaits further testing in other systems, BUT …

There Seems to be a Pattern Most “effective” surrogate plans protected more than 35% of land Looked at surrogate approach “success stories” in literature Only considered cases in which plan tested against inventory data

Interesting New Question Is there a threshold of land available for protection above which simple approaches are as effective as complex ones?

Tempting Conclusions Inventory-based plans are best Simple plans are the way to go, if you’re protecting lots of land Focal species (and other surrogate) approaches have little value

Tempting, but … We cannot support these conclusions

Tempting, but … We cannot support these conclusions Limited measure of effectiveness

Tempting, but … We cannot support these conclusions Limited measure of effectiveness Population viability not considered

Tempting, but … We cannot support these conclusions Limited measure of effectiveness Population viability not considered Focal species plan considered reproduction

Tempting, but … We cannot support these conclusions Limited measure of effectiveness Population viability not considered Focal species plan considered reproduction Reason to doubt random selection as effective as simple plans

Conclusions (the real ones) Inventory data appear necessary when little land can be protected Unclear what to do if large amounts of land can be protected Simple plans look good, but … … what about population viability? Might be a protection area-threshold above which simple plans work well

Going Forward How universal are our results? Is there a protection-area threshold above which simple plans work? Further tests of effectiveness Variety of ecosystems & scales

Going Forward How universal are our results? Is there a protection-area threshold above which simple plans work? Further tests of effectiveness Variety of ecosystems & scales Incorporate population viability

Going Forward How universal are our results? Is there a protection-area threshold above which simple plans work? Further tests of effectiveness Variety of ecosystems & scales Incorporate population viability Examine alternatives Biophysical / habitat surrogates

The Payoff We might determine conditions under which inventory-, surrogate, or simple approaches can be used.

Acknowledgements Linda Pearsall, Natural Heritage data For stimulating discussion Bill Fagan Peter Landres Roger Powell Taylor Ricketts For encouragement & support NCSU Forestry Department

Acknowledgements For corresponding about surrogate species approaches Luciano Bani James Dietz Erica Fleischman David Freudenberger Nigel Leader-Williams Melodie McGeoch Brian Miller

Contact Information George Hess Forestry Department North Carolina State University Raleigh NC USA www4.ncsu.edu/~grhess /research/surrogates USA