Systematic conservation planning has become a standard approach globally, but prioritization of conservation efforts hardly considers species traits in decision making. This can be important for species persistence and thus adequacy of the conservation plan. Here, we developed and validated a novel approach of incorporating trophic information into a systematic conservation planning framework. We demonstrate the benefits of this approach using fish data from Europe's second largest river, the Danube. Our results show that adding trophic information leads to a different spatial configuration of priority areas at no additional cost. This can enhance identification of priority refugia for species in the lower position of the trophic web while simultaneously identifying areas that represent a more diverse species pool. Our methodological approach to incorporating species traits into systematic conservation planning is generally applicable, irrespective of realm, geographical area, and species composition and can potentially lead to more adequate conservation plans. ; SL was supported by ARC DECRA fellowship, project number DE130100565. VH was supported by a Ramon y Cajal contract (RYC‐2013‐13979) funded by the Spanish Government.
1. Integrating ecosystem services (ESs) in landscape planning can help to identify conservation opportunities by finding co‐benefits between biodiversity conservation and the maintenance of regulating and cultural ecosystem services. The adequate integration of ESs needs careful consideration of potential trade‐offs, however, especially between provisioning services and biodiversity conservation (e.g. the potentially negative consequences of agricultural water extraction within areas important for the maintenance of biodiversity). These trade‐offs have been overlooked in systematic spatial planning to date, especially in freshwater systems. 2. MARXAN WITH ZONES was used to identify priority areas for the conservation of freshwater biodiversity (139 species of freshwater fish, turtles, and waterbirds) and the provision of freshwater ESs in the Daly River, northern Australia. Four different surrogates for ESs were mapped, including those potentially incompatible with conservation goals (i.e. groundwater provision for agriculture and recreational fisheries) and those that are more compatible with conservation (i.e. flood regulation by riparian forests; provision of perennial water). The spatial allocation of multiple management zones was prioritized: (i) three conservation zones, aiming to represent freshwater biodiversity and compatible ESs to enhance co‐benefits; and (ii) two production zones, where access to provisioning ESs could be granted. The representation of ESs obtained when using the multi‐zoning approach was compared with that achieved with a single management zone approach. The comparison was performed across different representation targets. 3. Different results were found with low and high targets for ESs. With low targets (25% of all ESs), the trade‐offs avoided were more evident, with up to 56% less representation of incompatible ESs within conservation zones. 4. Multi‐zone planning could help decision makers respond better to the increasingly complex catchment management context, caused by an increasing demand for provisioning services and a diminishing availability of resources, as well as manage and plan for challenges in other realms facing similar problems. ; Funding support was provided by: the Ramon y Cajal Program, funded by the Spanish Government (RYC‐2013‐13979 to VH); the Australian Research Council (Discovery Grant DP120103353 to SL and MK; DECRA DE130100565 to SL); the Australian Government Department of Environment through the National Environmental Science Program Northern Australia Environmental Resources Hub; and the Australian Rivers Institute, Griffith University.
1. Recent advances in freshwater conservation planning allow addressing some of the specific needs of these systems. These include spatial connectivity or propagation of threats along stream networks, essential to ensure the maintenance of ecosystem processes and the biodiversity they sustain. However, these peculiarities make conservation recommendations difficult to implement as they often require considering large areas that cannot be managed under conventional conservation schemes (e.g. strict protection). 2. To facilitate the implementation of conservation in freshwater systems, a multizoning approach with different management zones subject to different management regimes was proposed. So far, this approach has only been used in post hoc exercises where zones were allocated using expert criteria. This might undermine the cost‐effectiveness of conservation recommendations, because both the allocation and extent of these zones have never been optimized using the principles of systematic planning. 3. Here, we demonstrate how to create a catchment multizone plan by using a commonly applied tool in marine and terrestrial realms. We first test the capability of Marxan with Zones to address problems in rivers by using a simulated example and then apply the findings to a real case in the Daly River catchment, northern Australia. We also demonstrate how to address common conservation planning issues, such as accounting for threats or species‐specific connectivity needs in this multizone framework, and evaluate their effects on the spatial distribution and extent of different zones. 4. We found that by prioritizing the allocation of zones subject to different management regimes, we could minimize the total area in need of strict conservation by a twofold factor. This reduction can be further reduced (threefold) when considering species' connectivity needs. The integration of threats helped reduce the average threats of areas selected by a twofold factor. 5. Synthesis and applications . Catchment zoning can help refine conservation recommendations and enhance cost‐effectiveness by prescribing different management regimes informed by ecological needs or distribution of threats. Reliable information on these factors is a key to ensure soundness of planning. Freely available software can be used to implement the approach we demonstrate here. ; We acknowledge funding support provided by the Australian Research Council (Discovery Grant DP120103353 to SL and MK; DECRA DE130100565 to SL), the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, the Tropical Rivers and Coastal Knowledge (TRaCK) Research Hub, the National Environmental Research Program Northern Australia Hub and the Australian Rivers Institute, Griffith University.
1. In managing various threats to biodiversity, it is important to prioritize multiple management actions and the levels of effort to apply. However, a spatial conservation prioritization framework that integrates these key aspects, and can be generalized, is still missing. Moreover, assessing the robustness of prioritization frameworks to uncertainty in species responses to management is critical to avoid misallocation of limited resources. Yet, the impact of information uncertainty on prioritization of management effort remains unknown. 2. We present an approach for prioritizing alternative levels of conservation management effort to multiple actions, based on the ecological responses of species to management. We estimated species responses through a structured email‐based expert elicitation process, where we also captured the uncertainty in individual experts' assessments. We identified priority locations and associated level of management of effort of four actions to abate threats to freshwater‐dependent fauna, using a northern Australia case study, and quantified sensitivity of the proposed solution to uncertainty in the answers of each individual expert. 3. Achievement of conservation targets for freshwater‐dependent fauna in the Daly River catchment would require 9.4 million AU$ per year, for a total of approximately 189 million AU$ investment over 20 years. We suggest that this could be best achieved through a mix of aerial shooting of buffalos and pigs, riparian fencing and chemical spraying of weeds, applied at varying levels of management effort in key areas of the catchment. 4. Uncertainty in experts' estimation of species responses to threats causes 60% of the species to achieve 80% of their conservation targets, which was consistent across target levels. 5. Synthesis and applications . Our prioritization approach facilitates the planning of conservation management at fine spatial scales and is applicable to terrestrial, freshwater and marine realms. Plan implementation may require policy instruments ranging from landowner stewardship agreements, market‐based mechanisms and low‐intensity land use management schemes, to regulation of commercial activities within portions of marine protected areas. However, assessing plan sensitivity to uncertainty in species response to management and finding ways of dealing with it in the prioritization rather than ignoring it, as often done, remains vital for effective achievement of conservation objectives. ; This study was conducted with the support of funding from the Australian Research Council (discovery grant no. DP120103353 to S.L., M.J.K. and J.C. and DECRA grant no. DE130100565 to S.L.), the Australian Government's National Environmental Research Program (M.J.K., V.H. and S. L.) and support by Griffith University and the Spanish Government (Ramon y Cajal contract RYC‐2013‐13979 to V.H.).
Limited resources available for conservation require prioritizing location and level of conservation management efforts to abate threats to species. Ideally, the optimal level of management effort to allocate to an action should be informed by the species' responses to actions. This would enhance cost-effectiveness of conservation recommendations. How continuous species' responses to varying levels of management effort ('species response curves') affect the cost of abating threats to species is poorly understood, but critical for cost-effective threat management. We developed an optimization approach to prioritize management efforts based on varying species' response curves. We tested our framework in the Mitchell River catchment, northern Australia, to find the optimal level of effort to allocate to restoration of river connectivity and riparian revegetation to improve persistence of freshwater fish species. We compared the results of our analysis against a traditional approach, which assumes that (1) an action is either fully implemented or not; and (2) when the action is fully implemented the species persists; when the action is not implemented, the species goes locally extinct. We showed that by using species response curves we can abate threats to species at budgets up to 20% lower than when applying the traditional approach. Our approach can aid identifying how much effort (i.e., area managed, timeframe of management or budget invested) to allocate to multiple actions, and where, to cost-effectively abate threats to species. This has the potential to significantly improve biodiversity outcomes when resources are limited, by improving precision of on-ground conservation decisions. ; This study was conducted with the support of funding from the Australian Research Council (Discovery Grant No. DP120103353 to SL, MJK and JC and DECRA Grant No. DE130100565 to SL and Future Fellowship to KAW), the Australian Government's National Environmental Research Program (NERP) (MJK, VH and SL) and Griffith University (VH).
1. The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity (2011–2020), adopted at the 10th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, sets 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets to be met by 2020 to address biodiversity loss and ensure its sustainable and equitable use. Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 describes what an improved conservation network would look like for marine, terrestrial and inland water areas, including freshwater ecosystems. 2. To date, there is no comprehensive assessment of what needs to be achieved to meet Target 11 for freshwater biodiversity. Reports on implementation often fail to consider explicitly freshwater ecosystem processes and habitats, the pressures upon them, and therefore the full range of requirements and actions needed to sustain them. 3. Here the current progress and key gaps for meeting Aichi Target 11 are assessed by exploring the implications of each of its clauses for freshwater biodiversity. 4. Concerted action on Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 for freshwater biodiversity by 2020 is required in a number of areas: a robust baseline is needed for each of the clauses described here at national and global scales; designation of new protected areas or expansion of existing protected areas to cover known areas of importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, and a representative sample of biodiversity; use of Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures (OECMs) in places where designating a protected area is not appropriate; and promoting and implementing better management strategies for fresh water in protected areas that consider its inherent connectivity, contextual vulnerability, and required human and technical capacity. 5. Considering the specific requirements of freshwater systems through Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 has longterm value to the Sustainable Development Goals discussions and global conservation policy agenda into the coming decades. ; VH was funded by a Ramon y Cajal contract (RYC-2013-13979) funded by the Spanish government. IH is grateful to Conservation International for funding his contributions to the 2014 World Parks Congress; the Department of Ichthyology, American Museum of Natural History, New York for granting Research Associate status; and Columbia University, New York for granting Adjunct Research Scientist Status, and allowing access to their library facilities. SL was funded by an ARC DECRA grant DE130100565.
