west coast biosphere reserve
DESCRIPTION
Is the WCBR viable - assessment of species and habitat criteriaTRANSCRIPT
Predicting future land-use change as a planning
tool for biodiversity conservation in the
Cape West Coast Biosphere Reserve, South Africa
Waafeka Vardien
The Cape Floristic Region (CFR)1,2
• Exceptional botanical richness, diversity, and endemism
• Late Cenozoic climatic stability
• 1 of 5 Mediterranean global hotspots
Conservation in the CFR3
• 10 859 km2 conserved– 50% mountain landscapes
– 9% lowlands
• Identified threats: invasive alien species, agriculture, and urbanization
Conservation assessments and land use4,5
• Appropriate measures of biodiversity in conservation planning
• More attention given to species and populations, rather than habitat
• Habitat loss is however, a major biodiversity threat
• The use of a land use classification system has been useful in estimating
habitat loss and risks to biodiversity
• Land use: human modification of natural environment into built environment
• Land use and land management practices impact natural resources
The Cape West Coast Biosphere Reserve (CWCBR)6
• Situated on the southwestern part of the CFR, north of Cape Town
• Rich built environment and cultural heritage
• Includes 18 vegetation types
• Climate is described as arid
• All the rivers in the area are classified as critically endangered
• Urban expansion has been relentless
• Lowland areas are particularly poorly conserved, especially where rare and
threatened species occur
Cape Towns’ major development corridor is northwards
along the CWCBR.
It has been predicted that between 2002 and 2012, the
population of the CWCBR will double.
Due to natural lowland being at risk of destruction, pro-
active conservation planning is essential.
Research objectives
Materials and Methods
• Landsat data acquisition
1990 & 2006GLCF
• Geometric correction
Align & projectENVI 4.5
• Land use detection & classification
IDRISIISODATA algorithm
• Land change modeling
MarkovCA Markov
Land use classes
Natural vegetationAgricultural landWaterbodiesBarren landUrban/ built up land
Verification
Google EarthS.A Land cover data set
Accuracy assessment
Cross tabulationKappa analysis
• Proteaceae species data
Protea Atlas Project
• Distribution• Richness• Diversity
DIVA-GIS 5.2 • Ecological niche modeling
Worldclim data7 Bioclim model
Materials and Methods
Results
Figure 1: Land use maps of (A) 1990 and (B) 2006 of the Cape West Coast Biosphere Reserve.
A. B.
Natural vegetation
Agricultural land
Warebodies
Barren Land
Urban/ built up land
Table 1. Area of land use classes in 1990 and 2006, and percentage change in land use
classes between 1990 and 2006. Percentage change in land use classes are derived from
the difference in area between land classes in 1990 and 2006, divided by the area in 1990.
Figure 2. Net change (in hectares) by land use category, for Cape West Coast Biosphere
Reserve, based on land use maps derived from Landsat TM images of 1990 and 2006.
Natural vegetation
Agricultural land
Waterbodies
Barren land
Urban/ built up
-50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000 30000
Net change in hectares
Land
use
cat
egor
y
Figure 3. Predicted land use map of the Cape West Coast Biosphere Reserve, by 2020,
based on Cellular Automaton Markov modeling of a 1990 and 2006 land use map.
Natural vegetation
Agricultural land
Warebodies
Barren Land
Urban/ built up land
Table 2. The spatial extent of land use classes in 1990, 2006 and 2020 and the associated percentage change between 1990 and 2006, and between 2006
and 2020. Values for 2020 are predicted values based on transitional models derived from land use maps of the Cape Wes Coast Biosphere reserve.
Land use class 1990 2006 2020 % change between
1990 & 2006
% change between
2006 & 2020 area (ha) area (ha) area (ha)
Natural vegetation 174444 129843 106527 -25.57 -17.96
Agricultural land 136147 162145 165262 19.10 1.92
Waterbodies 15400 18064 18104 17.30 0.22
Barren land 16292 12200 11269 -25.12 -7.63
Urban/ built up land 6290 26321 47411 318.46 80.13
Table 3. Transitional probability matrix of land use change between 2006 and 2020, based
on a Markov analysis of a 1990 and 2006 land use map of the Cape West Coast Biosphere
Reserve.
Given:
Probability of changing to :
Natural vegetation Agricultural land Waterbodies Barren land Urban/ built up land
Natural vegetation 0.50 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.13
Agricultural land 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.20
Waterbodies 0.00 0.00 0.94 0.00 0.06
Barren land 0.09 0.50 0.00 0.30 0.11
Urban/ built up land 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Figure 4. Distribution of Proteaceae species in the zones of the Cape West Coast
Biosphere Reserve, derived from Protea Atlas data.
• Proteaceae species
• Core zone
• Core designated
• Buffer zone
• Transition zone
• Urban area
Figure 5. Number of Proteaceae species, per 10 x 10 km grid cell, in the Cape West Coast Biosphere Reserve.
• Number of species• 1 - 2
• 3 - 4• 5 - 6• 7 - 8• 9 - 11
Figure 6. Proteaceae species diversity in the Cape West Coast Biosphere Reserve.
Brillouin’s index of diversity
0.00 – 0.40.4 – 0.80.8 – 1.21.2 – 1.61.6 - 2.00
Figure 7. Present climatic suitability for Proteaceae species in the Cape West Coast Biosphere Reserve.
Climate suitability
Not suitable
Low (0 – 2.5 percentile)
Medium (2.5 – 5 percentile)
High (5 -10 percentile)
Very high (10 – 20 percentile)
Excellent (20 – 40 percentile)
Climate suitability
Not suitable
Low (0 – 2.5 percentile)
Medium (2.5 – 5 percentile)
High (5 -10 percentile)
Very high (10 – 20 percentile)
Excellent (20 – 40 percentile)
Figure 8. Future climatic suitability for Proteaceae species in the Cape West Coast Biosphere Reserve.
Conclusion
• Between 1990 and 2006: rapid growth in urban development and
destruction of lowland habitat
• Similar patterns predicted, for the future
• With respect to Proteaceae species, zoning of the CWCBR is
inadequate
• In areas with high species concentration: conservation integrity is not
maintained
• Priority conservation areas need to be determined/ improved spatially
• Future study recommendations: usage of higher resolution satellite
images, and other plant/ animal species data
Acknowledgements
I thank the Almighty for granting me my healthand knowledge in undertaking this
project.
A big thanks to my parents and Faqeer Hassem for their words of motivation,
encouragement and support.
I thank Dr. Richard Knight for his supervision with this project.
To James Magidi & Mohammed Kraush thank you for your assistance with IDRISI and
your advice.
Lastly, I wish to thank Audrey King, Linda Van Heerden, and my Honors peers for all
the little bits of favors they have for me throughout the year, and to Professor Mark
Gibbons and the NRF for the funding of my tuition fees.
References 1. Goldblatt, P., Manning, J.C. 2002. Plant diversity of the Cape Region of southern Africa. Annals of the
Missouri Botanical Garden 89, 281-302.
2. Cowling, R.M., Holmes, P.M., Rebelo, A.G. 1992. Plant diversity and endemism. In: Cowling, R.M. (Ed.).The
Ecology of Fynbos: Fire, Nutrients and diversity. Oxford University Press, Cape Town, pp. 62-112.
3. Conservation International. 2007. Cape Floristic Region. Accessed 25 Nov 2009, available from:
www.biodiversityhotspots
4. Cowling, R.M., Heijnis, C.E. 2001. The identification of broad habitat units as biodiversity entities for
systematic conservation planning in the Cape Floristic Region. South African Journal of Botany 67, 15-38.
5. Rouget, M., Richardson, D.M., Cowling, R.M. 2003. The current configuration of protected areas in the Cape
Floristic Region, South Africa—reservation bias and representation of biodiversity patterns and processes.
Biological Conservation 112, 129–145.
6. CWCBR Spatial Development Plan. Draft Status Quo Report. Report 1474/1, prepared for the Cape West
Coast Biosphere Reserve by iKapa Envioplan in association with CLES. 68 p.
7. Hijmans, R.J., Cameron, S., Parra, J.L., Jones P.G., Jarvis A. 2005. Very high resolution interpolated climate
surfaces for global land areas. International Journal of Climatology 25, 1965- 1978.