1. simon linke robert. l. pressey robert c. bailey richard h. norris the ecology centre university of queensland australia www.uq.edu.au/spatialecology s.linke@uq.edu.au Identifying conservation priorities of catchments using irreplaceability, vulnerability and condition

2. three key questions in river conservation planning Conservation value Biodiversity Pressure Condition Vulnerability State

3. Condition Vulnerability three key questions in river conservation planning

4. irreplaceability (conservation value ) What is special about a catchment?

5. condition What is the status of the catchment? dr. bob says: don’t eat the yellow stream

6. vulnerability how is the condition likely to change ?

7. consider all three axes for planning irreplaceability vulnerability high low high condition good priority: protection priority: restoration

8. irreplaceability (conservation value ) What is special about a catchment?

9. victoria (australia): invertebrate taxa as targets data study

10. data limitations  we have data for 12%. how to cover the rest?

11. modeled occurrences: probabilities!  assign a probability of occurrence for every taxon in every subcatchment

12. 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

13. generalized additive models Environmental factors 30% chance of being at test site Predicted Biota 70% chance of being at test site

14. modeling results  400 taxa at genus/species could be predicted successfully at ROC>0.6

15. 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)

16. 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)

17. 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)

18. 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)

19. map of summed irreplaceability

20. condition What is the status of the catchment? dr. bob says: don’t eat the yellow stream

21. agriculture weeds road density nutrient load grazing forestry sediment load urbanization condition -> stressor gradients

22. 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

23. 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)

24. vulnerability how is the condition likely to change ?

25. 2 components If land capability slope soils allows more intensive use than current landuse  vulnerable

26. 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

27. 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

29. vulnerability by catchment already protected -> not vulnerable already in the highest impact class -> not vulnerable

30. Management integration irreplaceability vulnerability high low high condition good

31. focus on restoration high irreplaceability, degraded condition

32. candidates for river reserves high irreplaceability, still good condition, but high vulnerability

33. ad-break: eWater river conservation software (ready in 6-12 months)

34. 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

35. proposed framework present condition vulnerability attributes of each catchment target 1 target 2 target n subject to condition and vulnerability

36. 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

37. the connected nature of rivers (re-visited)  improvement or degradation ‘travels’ downstream  makes optimisation difficult (yet fun) investment: restoration

38. 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

39. 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