Freshwater conservation planning: the case for systematic approaches

Abstract

1. We review recent advances in systematic conservation planning in fresh waters. Most modern systematic planning approaches are based on the CARE principles: comprehensiveness, adequacy, representativeness and efficiency. Efficiency is usually provided by a complementarity-based strategy, aiming to select new conservation areas in the light of previously protected features. These strategies have to be modified to account for the connected nature of rivers. 2. Choice of surrogates for conservation features depends on the scale of the assessment, as well as the available expertise and resources. Ideally, real information about taxa or processes -extrapolated by models -ensures that target features are protected. Where this is not feasible, it is critical that the choice of environmental surrogates is informed by target biota or processes. 3. Setting adequacy targets -the most challenging aspect in planning -needs to be evaluated in a freshwater-specific context, as species-area relationships and the distribution of diversity differ in dendritic networks. Adequately designed conservation plans also need to consider upstream land use and catchment disturbances. Recent studies have largely addressed longitudinal connectivity either by setting rules to protect adjacent subcatchments (or even the entire catchment upstream), or by considering the magnitude of disturbance upstream of selected planning units. Very few studies have addressed lateral and vertical connectivity in a systematic way. 4. To implement freshwater conservation plans, we recommend adopting a recently proposed hierarchical protection strategy, from 'freshwater focal areas' that contain the actual features to be protected to mixed-use 'catchment management zones'. Stakeholder involvement is crucial, especially in the large multi-use areas upstream and in the surrounding catchment. 5. We conclude that conservation planning using CARE principles is the only efficient way forward. This special issue shows significant efforts are under way to adapt freshwaterspecific adequacy, connectivity and implementation issues in conservation planning. However, a more holistic research investment is required to link freshwater, terrestrial and marine ecosystems.

Alpine aquatic ecosystem conservation policy in a changing climate

“…Although extinction rates in freshwater environments are significantly higher than in terrestrial systems (Abell, 2002;Strayer and Dudgeon, 2010;Tockner et al, 2011), conservation research and practice for freshwater systems has lagged behind that of other ecosystems (Linke et al, 2011). Conservation planning is made more difficult by the embedded nature of the river system within the terrestrial matrix (Woodward et al, 2010).…”

“…Linke et al(2011) advocated the use of CARE principles in freshwater conservation planning (see Box 1), and highlighted the need for carefully selected biodiversity surrogates and adequacy targets during the planning stages. Active stakeholder involvement is also key when implementing conservation plans, particularly to ensure connectivity is maintained and the intervening matrix is not degraded (Linke et al, 2011;Rivers-Moore et al, 2011). However, the principles outlined above fail to provide an adequate or coherent framework to deliver conservation measures in the context of climate change.…”

“…For area based approaches to be successful, stakeholder participation is essential (Linke et al, 2011). The use of species specific action plans for flagship species within a broader area based framework has succeeded in bringing stakeholders on board in terrestrial settings (Nawaz et al 2008).…”

“…Figure 1. A conceptual approach to conservation planning based on the axes of concern (adapted from Gillson et al (2013) Linke et al (2011).…”

Reserve network planning for fishes in the middle and lower Yangtze River basin by systematic conservation approaches

“…Some scientists put forward another set of objectives backed by the same meaning, namely comprehensiveness, adequacy, and representativeness (CAR) (Linke et al, 2011;Possingham et al, 2006). Efficiency is also highlighted in SCP, which means to minimize the cost of reserve construction on the basis of achieving representativeness and persistence (Kirkpatrick, 1983;Possingham et al, 2006;Sarkar et al, 2006;Vanewright et al, 1991).…”