Prioritizing sites for conservation based on similarity to historical baselines and feasibility of protection

Abstract

The concept of shifting baselines in conservation science implies advocacy for the use of historical knowledge to inform these baselines but does not address the feasibility of restoring sites to those baselines. In many regions, conservation feasibility varies among sites due to differences in resource availability, statutory power, and land-owner participation. We used zooarchaeological records to identify a historical baseline of the freshwater mussel community's composition before Euro-American influence at a river-reach scale (i.e., a kilometer stretch of river that is abiotically similar) in the Leon River of central Texas (U.S.A.). We evaluated how the community reference position and the feasibility of conservation might enable identification of sites where conservation actions would preserve historically representative communities and be likely to succeed. We devised a conceptual model that incorporated community information and landscape factors to link the best conservation areas to potential cost and conservation benefits. Using fuzzy ordination, we identified modern mussel beds that were most like the historical baseline. We then quantified housing density and land use near each river reach identified to estimate feasibility of habitat restoration. Using our conceptual framework, we identified reaches of high conservation value (i.e., contain the best mussel beds) and where restoration actions would be most likely to succeed. Reaches above Lake Belton were most similar in species composition and relative abundance to zooarchaeological sites. A subset of these mussel beds occurred in locations where conservation actions appeared most feasible. Our results show how to use zooarchaeological data (biodiversity data often readily available) and estimates of conservation feasibility to inform conservation priorities at a local spatial scale.

Research priorities for freshwater mussel conservation assessment

“…For example, in France, species distribution models were used to infer range contraction, comparing the extent of occurrence predicted by the models to the currently known extent of occurrence of seven freshwater mussel species . Popejoy et al (2018) used zooarchaeological data to characterize freshwater mussel assemblage composition before European colonization of the American continent and compare it to recent mussel assemblages. Similarly, in Australia, initial attempts have been made to compare the species composition of Aboriginal middens with current populations to understand changes in species distributions (Garvey, 2017).…”

Conservation planning in an uncertain climate: Identifying projects that remain valuable and feasible across future scenarios

“…Our work extends other two-dimensional prioritization frameworks (Guerrero & Wilson, 2017;Popejoy et al, 2018) by accounting for uncertainty in future climate conditions. By doing so, our prioritization framework allows decision-makers to identify a subset of candidate sites where biodiversity value and sociopolitical feasibility will be consistently high across future climate scenarios.…”

“…(Figure 1). Our framework extends other twodimensional planning models that consider biodiversity value and feasibility (Guerrero & Wilson, 2017;Popejoy et al, 2018) In our framework, the biodiversity value (vertical axis) of a site can be quantified using any common ecological measure (e.g. species richness, abundance, occupancy, habitat use and suitability, species' risk of endangerment and ecosystem services) or an index of biodiversity derived from these measures (Capmourteres & Anand, 2016).…”

The utility of zooarchaeological data to guide listing efforts for an imperiled mussel species (Bivalvia: Unionidae: Pleurobema riddellii)

“…This finding will likely have profound implications for legislative protection for this species. From a broader conservation perspective, this study contributes to a growing body of literature (e.g., Peacock, Randklev, Wolverton, Palmer, & Zaleski, 2012;Popejoy, Randklev, Neeson, & Vaughn, 2018;Popejoy, Randklev, Wolverton, & Nagaoka, 2018;Randklev, Wolverton, Lundeen, & Kennedy, 2010;Wolverton & Randklev, 2016) that emphasizes the need for conservationists and resource managers to utilize zooarchaeological data in their status assessments and recovery planning, particularly when trying to determine the extent and cause of faunal changes. Integrating these data will help minimize incorrect conclusions that could undermine listing decisions, and ultimately, contribute to effective conservation and recovery planning for imperiled species.…”

“…As a consequence, benchmarks become a progressively less accurate target for the intended "natural" condition (Humphries & Winemiller, 2009;Papworth, Rist, Coad, & Milner-Gulland, 2009;Pauly, 1995), leading to incorrect conclusions regarding changes in species abundances, distributions, and assemblage composition. In turn, such conclusions can result in ineffective conservation and management actions (see discussions in Dromrosky, Lyman, 1998;Peacock, Randklev, Wolverton, Palmer, & Zaleski, 2012;Popejoy, Randklev, Neeson, & Vaughn, 2018;Randklev, Wolverton, Lundeen, & Kennedy, 2010).…”