simon linkerobert. l. presseyrobert c. baileyrichard h. norris

the ecology centreuniversity of queensland

australiawww.uq.edu.au/spatialecology

s.linke@uq.edu.au

Identifying conservation priorities of catchments using irreplaceability, vulnerability and condition

three key questions in river conservation planning

Conservation valueConservation value

BiodiversityBiodiversity PressurePressure

ConditionConditionVulnerabilityVulnerability

StateState

Conservation valueConservation value

ConditionConditionVulnerabilityVulnerability

three key questions in river conservation planning

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

conditionWhat is the status of the catchment?

dr. bob says: don’t eat the yellow stream

vulnerabilityhow is the condition likely to change ?

consider all three axes for planning

irreplaceability

vulnerability

highlow

high

condition

good

priority: protectionpriority: protection

priority: restorationpriority: 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

0

20

40

60

80

100

50 250

450

650

8501050

1250

1450

1650

1850

Number of predicted occurences

Fre

qu

ency

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%83%

42%42%

13%13%

53%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

conditionWhat is the status of the catchment?

dr. bob says: don’t eat the yellow stream

agriculture

weedsroad density

nutrient load

grazing

forestry

sediment load

urbanization

condition -> stressor gradients

principal components principal components analysis (PCA)analysis (PCA)

condition -> stressor gradients

agriculture

weedsroad density

nutrient load

grazing

forestry

sediment load

urbanization

PC 1PC 1agricultureagriculture

PC 3PC 3forestryforestry

PC 2PC 2urbanurban

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)

vulnerabilityhow is the condition likely to change ?

2 components

If land capability

slope

soils

allows more intensive use than current landuse

vulnerablevulnerable

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))

cultivationhas a higher impact than

sown pasturehas a higher impact than

native pasturehas a higher/equal impact than

forestryhas a higher impact than

conservation

vulnerability by catchment

already protected -> not vulnerablealready in the highest impact class -> not vulnerable

Management integration

irreplaceability

vulnerability

highlow

high

condition

good

focus on restoration

high irreplaceability, degraded conditionhigh irreplaceability, degraded condition

candidates for river reserves

high irreplaceability, still good condition, high irreplaceability, still good condition, but high vulnerabilitybut 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 catchmentattributes 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

Conditiongood bad

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