Optimizing Habitat Protection Using Demographic Models of Population Viability

Haight, Robert G.; Cypher, Brian L.; Kelly, Patrick A.; Phillips, Scott E.; Possingham, Hugh P.; Ralls, Katherine; Starfield, Anthony M.; White, P. J.; Williams, Daniel F.

doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.99510.x

Cited by 75 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some reserve selection methods do attempt to directly include persistence in the problem statement and objective function to attempt to optimize it directly (Haight et al, 2002;Moilanen and Cabeza, 2002;Westphal et al, 2003;Drechsler and Burgman, 2004;Nicholson et al, 2006). We believe that this is a step in the right direction; however, for computational reasons, these approaches necessarily make use of fast methods for approximating persistence and usually ignore complexities like barriers to movement such as roads and ocean currents.…”

Section: Persistencementioning

confidence: 99%

When do conservation planning methods deliver? Quantifying the consequences of uncertainty

Langford

Gordon

Bastin

2009

Ecological Informatics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rapid global loss of biodiversity has led to a proliferation of systematic conservation planning methods. In spite of their utility and mathematical sophistication, these methods only provide approximate solutions to real-world problems where there is uncertainty and temporal change. The consequences of errors in these solutions are seldom characterized or addressed. We propose a conceptual structure for exploring the consequences of input uncertainty and oversimplified approximations to real-world processes for any conservation planning tool or strategy. We then present a computational framework based on this structure to quantitatively model species representation and persistence outcomes across a range of uncertainties. These include factors such as land costs, landscape structure, species composition and distribution, and temporal changes in habitat. We demonstrate the utility of the framework using several reserve selection methods including simple rules of thumb and more sophisticated tools such as Marxan and Zonation. We present new results showing how outcomes can be strongly affected by variation in problem characteristics that are seldom compared across multiple studies. These characteristics include number of species prioritized, distribution of species richness and rarity, and uncertainties in the amount and quality of habitat patches. We also demonstrate how the framework allows comparisons between conservation planning strategies and their response to error under a range of conditions. Using the approach presented here will improve conservation outcomes and resource allocation by making it easier to predict and quantify the consequences of many different uncertainties and assumptions simultaneously. Our results show that without more rigorously generalizable results, it is very difficult to predict the amount of error in any conservation plan. These results imply the need for standard practice to include evaluating the effects of multiple real-world complications on the behavior of any conservation planning method.

show abstract

Section: Persistencementioning

confidence: 99%

When do conservation planning methods deliver? Quantifying the consequences of uncertainty

Langford

Gordon

Bastin

2009

Ecological Informatics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a second step the predictors that showed at 2002;Krauss et al 2003a). In a third step the five predictor variables, including one-way interactions and squared altitude were tested in multi-factor models.…”

Section: Statistical Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As many species persist as metapopulations in isolated, well defined habitat patches (Hanski, 1999) the protection of these habitat patches is a main focus in conservation biology (e.g. Haight et al 2002). In a metapopulation approach the patch matrix is considered as uniform and hostile and it accounts only for patch connectivity, but other spatial effects are neglected (Hanski, 1999).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

How do local habitat management and landscape structure at different spatial scales affect fritillary butterfly distribution on fragmented wetlands?

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How do local habitat management and landscape structure at different spatial scales affect fritillary butterfly distribution on fragmented wetlands? AbstractHabitat fragmentation, patch quality and landscape structure are important predictors for species richness. However, conservation strategies targeting single species mainly focus on habitat patches and neglect possible effects of the surrounding landscape. This project assesses the impact of management, habitat fragmentation and landscape structure at different spatial scales on the distribution of three endangered butterfly species, Boloria selene, Boloria titania and Brenthis ino. We selected 36 study sites in the Swiss Alps differing in (1) the proportion of suitable habitat (i.e., wetlands); (2) the proportion of potential dispersal barriers (forest) in the surrounding landscape; (3) altitude; (4) habitat area and (5) management (mowing versus grazing). Three surveys per study site were conducted during the adult flight period to estimate occurrence and density of each species. For the best disperser B. selene the probability of occurrence was positively related to increasing proportion of wetland on a large spatial scale (radius: 4,000 m), for the medium disperser B. ino on an intermediate spatial scale (2,000 m) and for the poorest disperser B. titania on a small spatial scale (1,000 m). Nearby forest did not negatively affect butterfly species distribution but instead enhanced the probability of occurrence and the population density of B. titania. The fen-specialist B. selene had a higher probability of occurrence and higher population densities on grazed compared to mown fens. The altitude of the habitat patches affected the occurrence of the three species and increasing habitat area enhanced the probability of occurrence of B. selene and B. ino. We conclude that, the surrounding landscape is of relevance for species distribution, but management and habitat fragmentation are often more important. We suggest that butterfly conservation should not focus only on a patch scale, but also on a landscape scale, taking into account species-specific dispersal abilities.Landscape and management affect butterflies and for the poorest disperser B. titania on a small spatial scale (1000 m). Nearby forest did not negatively affect butterfly species distribution but instead enhanced the probability of occurrence and the population density of B. titania. The fen-specialised B. selene had a higher probability of occurrence and higher population densities on grazed compared to mown fens.The altitude of the habitat patches affected the occurrence of the three species and increasing habitat area enhanced the probability of occurrence of B. selene and B. ino. We conclude that, apart from management and habitat fragmentation, the surrounding landscape might be important for species distribution too. We suggest that butterfly conservation should not focus only on a patch scale, but also on a landscape scale, taking into account species-specific dispersal abilities.

show abstract

“…In particular, consideration has been given to whether to make a new patch of habitat or reintroduce a species to a suitable but empty patch (Possingham 1996), whether it is better to expand existing patches, link existing patches via corridors, or create a new patch (Westphal et al 2003), and also to optimizing reserve expansion by determining which areas of habitat should be reserved (Haight et al 2002(Haight et al , 2004. These latter studies also incorporated the monetary costs of the various actions into the decision theory framework.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Metapopulation Persistence in a Dynamic Landscape: More Habitat or Better Stewardship

Ross

Sirl

Pollett

et al. 2008

Ecological Applications

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Habitat loss and fragmentation has created metapopulations where there were once continuous populations. Ecologists and conservation biologists have become interested in the optimal way to manage and conserve such metapopulations. Several authors have considered the effect of patch disturbance and recovery on metapopulation persistence, but almost all such studies assume that every patch is equally susceptible to disturbance. We investigated the influence of protecting patches from disturbance on metapopulation persistence, and used a stochastic metapopulation model to answer the question: How can we optimally trade off returns from protection of patches vs. creation of patches? We considered the problem of finding, under budgetary constraints, the optimal combination of increasing the number of patches in the metapopulation network vs. increasing the number of protected patches in the network. We discovered that the optimal trade-off is dependent upon all of the properties of the system: the species dynamics, the dynamics of the landscape, and the relative costs of each action. A stochastic model and accompanying methodology are provided allowing a manager to determine the optimal policy for small metapopulations. We also provide two approximations, including a rule of thumb, for determining the optimal policy for larger metapopulations. The method is illustrated with an example inspired by information for the greater bilby, Macrotis lagotis, inhabiting southwestern Queensland, Australia. We found that given realistic costs for each action, protection of patches should be prioritized over patch creation for improving the persistence of the greater bilby during the next 20 years.

show abstract

Optimizing Habitat Protection Using Demographic Models of Population Viability

Abstract: Expanding habitat protection is a common tactic for species conservation. When unprotected habitat is privately owned, decisions must be made about which areas to protect by

Cited by 75 publications

References 40 publications

When do conservation planning methods deliver? Quantifying the consequences of uncertainty

When do conservation planning methods deliver? Quantifying the consequences of uncertainty

How do local habitat management and landscape structure at different spatial scales affect fritillary butterfly distribution on fragmented wetlands?

Metapopulation Persistence in a Dynamic Landscape: More Habitat or Better Stewardship

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About