Identification of ecological networks for land-use planning with spatial conservation prioritization
Tóm tắt
Spatial conservation prioritization (SCP) has most often been applied to the design of reserve network expansion. In addition to occurrences of species and habitats inside protected area candidate sites, one may also be interested about network-level connectivity considerations. We applied SCP to the identification of ecological networks to inform the development of a new regional plan for the region of Uusimaa (South-Finland, including the Finnish capital district). Input data were 59 high-quality layers of biotope and species distribution data. We identified ecological networks based on a combination of a Zonation balanced priority ranking map and a weighted range size rarity map, to account for both relative and absolute conservation values in the process. We also identified ecological corridors between protected areas and other ecologically high-priority areas using the corridor retention method of Zonation. Furthermore, we identified candidate sites for habitat restoration. We found seven large ecological networks (132–1201 km2) which stand out from their surrounding landscape in terms of ecological value and have clear connectivity bottlenecks between them. Highest restoration needs were found between large high-priority sites that are connected via remnant habitat fragments in comparatively highly modified areas. Land conversion should be avoided in areas of highest ecological priorities and network-level connectivity. Restoration should be considered for connectivity bottlenecks. Methods described here can be applied in any location where relevant spatial data are available. The present results are actively used by the regional council and municipalities in the region of Uusimaa.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Albert CH, Rayfield B, Dumitry M, Gonzalez A (2017) Applying network theory to prioritize multispecies habitat networks that are robust to climate and land-use change. Conserv Biol 31:1383–1396.
Álvarez-Romero JG, Munguía-Vega A, Beger M, del Mar Mancha-Cisneros M, Suárez-Castillo AN, Gurney GG, Pressey RL, Gerber LR, Morzaria-Luna HN, Reyes-Bonilla H, Adams VM, Kolb M, Graham EM, VanDerWal J, Castillo-López A, Hinojosa-Arango G, Petatán-Ramírez D, Moreno-Baez M, Godínez-Reyes CR, Torre J (2018) Designing connected marine reserves in the face of global warming. Glob Change Biol 24:e671–e691
Boitani L, Falcucci A, Maiorano L, Rondinini C (2007) Ecological networks as conceptual frameworks or operational tools in conservation. Conserv Biol 21:1414–1422.
CBD (2010) Decision UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/2 adopted by the conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity at its tenth meeting. https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=12268. Accessed 29 Apr 2019
Chetkiewicz C-LB, St. Clair CC, Boyce MS (2006) Corridors for conservation: integrating pattern and process. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 37:317–342.
Commission E (2011) Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. European Commission, Brussels
Correa Ayram CA, Mendoza ME, Etter A, Salicrup DRP (2016) Habitat connectivity in biodiversity conservation: a review of recent studies and applications. Prog Phys Geogr 40:7–37.
Fahrig L (2013) Rethinking patch size and isolation effects: the habitat amount hypothesis. J Biogeogr 40:1649–1663.
Finnish Biodiversity Action Plan (2012) Government resolution on the strategy for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in Finland for the years 2012–2020. The Government of Finland, Helsinki, p 26
Fischer J, National TA (2006) Beyond fragmentation: the continuum model for fauna research and conservation in human-modified landscapes. Oikos 2:473–480
Foltête JC (2019) How ecological networks could benefit from landscape graphs: a response to the paper by Spartaco Gippoliti and Corrado Battisti. Land Use Policy 80:391–394.
Gilbert-Norton L, Wilson R, Stevens JR, Beard KH (2010) A meta-analytic review of corridor effectiveness. Conserv Biol 24:660–668.
Gippoliti S, Battisti C (2017) More cool than tool: Equivoques, conceptual traps and weaknesses of ecological networks in environmental planning and conservation. Land Use Policy 68:686–691.
Hodgson JA, Moilanen A, Wintle BA, Thomas CD (2011) Habitat area, quality and connectivity: striking the balance for efficient conservation. J Appl Ecol 48:148–152.
Hodgson JA, Thomas CD, Wintle BA, Moilanen A (2009) Climate change, connectivity and conservation decision making: back to basics. J Appl Ecol 46:964–969.
Jalkanen J, Moilanen A, Toivonen T (2018a) Uudenmaan ekologiset verkostot Zonation-analyysien perusteella. Uudenmaan liiton julkaisuja E 194, Helsinki, p 132
Jalkanen J, Moilanen A, Toivonen T (2018b) Uusimaa-kaavan 2050 luontovaikutusten arviointi Zonation-analyyseihin perustuen. Uudenmaan liiton julkaisuja E 205, Helsinki, p 44
Kareksela S, Moilanen A, Tuominen S, Kotiaho JS (2013) Use of inverse spatial conservation prioritization to avoid biological diversity loss outside protected areas. Conserv Biol 27:1294–1303.
Kujala H, Lahoz-Monfort JJ, Elith J, Moilanen A (2018) Not all data are equal: influence of data type and amount in spatial conservation prioritisation. Methods Ecol Evol 9:2249–2261.
Kullberg P, Moilanen A (2014) How do recent spatial biodiversity analyses support the convention on biological diversity in the expansion of the global conservation area network? Nat Conserv 12:3–10.
Kuusterä J, Aalto S, Moilanen A, Toivonen T, Lehtomäki J (2015) Uudenmaan viherrakenteen analysointi Zonation-menetelmällä. Uudenmaan liiton julkaisuja E 145—2015, Helsinki, p 77
Lehtomäki J, Moilanen A (2013) Methods and workflow for spatial conservation prioritization using Zonation. Environ Model Softw 47:128–137.
Margules DR, Pressey RL (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243–253
Maron M, Hobbs RJ, Moilanen A, Matthews JW, Christie K, Gardner TA, Keith DA, Lindenmayer DB, McAlpine CA (2012) Faustian bargains? Restoration realities in the context of biodiversity offset policies. Biol Conserv 155:141–148
Martin CA (2018) An early synthesis of the habitat amount hypothesis. Landsc Ecol 33:1831–1835.
Meurant M, Gonzalez A, Doxa A, Albert CH (2018) Selecting surrogate species for connectivity conservation. Biol Conserv 227:326–334.
Mikkonen N, Moilanen A (2013) Identification of top priority areas and management landscapes from a national Natura 2000 network. Environ Sci Policy 27:11–20.
Miller-Rushing AJ, Primack RB, Devictor V, Corlett RT, Cumming GS, Loyola R, Maas B, Pejchar L (2019) How does habitat fragmentation affect biodiversity? A controversial question at the core of conservation biology. Biol Conserv. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIOCON.2018.12.029
Moilanen A (2011) On the limitations of graph-theoretic connectivity in spatial ecology and conservation. J Appl Ecol 48:1543–1547.
Moilanen A, Franco AMA, Early RI, Fox R, Wintle B, Thomas CD (2005) Prioritizing multiple-use landscapes for conservation: methods for large multi-species planning problems. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 272:1885–1891
Moilanen A, Possingam H, Polasky S (2009) A Mathematical classification of conservation prioritization problem. In: Moilanen A, Wilson K, Possingham H (eds) Spatial conservation prioritization: quantitative methods and computational tools. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 28–42
Moilanen A, Pouzols FM, Meller L, Veach V, Arponen A, Leppänen J, Kujala H (2014) Zonation Version 4 user manual. C-BIG, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, p 288
Mutanen M, Mönkkönen M (2003) Occurrence of moths in boreal forest corridors. Conserv Biol 17:468–475
Newbold T, Hudson LN, Arnell AP, Contu S, De Palma A, Ferrier S, Hill SLL, Hoskins AJ, Lysenko I, Phillips HRP, Burton VJ, Chng CWT, Emerson S, Gao D, Pask-Hale G, Hutton J, Jung M, Sanchez-Ortiz K, Simmons BI, Whitmee S, Zhang H, Scharlemann JPW, Purvis A (2015) Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 520:45–50
Opdam P, Steingröver E, Van RS (2006) Ecological networks: a spatial concept for multi-actor planning of sustainable landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 75:322–332.
Pérez-Hernández CG, Vergara PM, Saura S, Hernández J (2014) Do corridors promote connectivity for bird-dispersed trees? The case of Persea lingue in Chilean fragmented landscapes. Landsc Ecol 30:77–90.
Pouzols FM, Moilanen A (2014) A method for building corridors in spatial conservation prioritization. Landsc Ecol 29:789–801.
Prugh LR, Hodges KE, Sinclair ARE, Brashares JS (2008) Effect of habitat area and isolation on fragmented animal populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci 155:20770–20775.
Puth LM, Wilson KA (2001) Boundaries and corridors as a continuum of ecological flow control: lessons from rivers and streams. Conserv Biol 15:21–30.
Rayfield B, Fortin MJ, Fall A (2011) Connectivity for conservation: a framework to classify network measures. Ecology 92:847–858.
Regional Council of Uusimaa (2017) Uudenmaan neljäs vaihemaakuntakaava: Selostus. Uudenmaan liitto, Helsinki, p 174
Regional Council of Uusimaa (2018) Uusimaa-kaava 2050: Helsingin seudun. Länsi-Uudenmaan ja Itä-Uudenmaan vaihemaakuntakaavojen ehdotukset, Helsinki, p 236
Reider IJ, Donnelly MA, Watling JI (2018) The influence of matrix quality on species richness in remnant forest. Landsc Ecol 33:1147–1157.
Rouget M, Cowling RM, Lombard AT, Knight AT, Kerley GIH (2006) Designing large-scale conservation corridors for pattern and process. Conserv Biol 20:549–561
Salomaa A, Paloniemi R, Kotiaho JS, Kettunen M, Apostolopoulou E, Cent J (2017) Can green infrastructure help to conserve biodiversity? Environ Plan C Gov Policy 35:265–288
Spake R, Ezard THG, Martin PA, Newton AC, Doncaster CP (2015) A meta-analysis of functional group responses to forest recovery outside of the tropics. Conserv Biol 29:1695–1703
United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld. Accessed 29 Apr 2019
Veach V, Di Minin E, Pouzols FM, Moilanen A (2017) Species richness as criterion for global conservation area placement leads to large losses in coverage of biodiversity. Divers Distrib 23:715–726.
Virtanen EA, Viitasalo M, Lappalainen J, Moilanen A (2018) Evaluation, gap analysis, and potential expansion of the finnish marine protected area network. Front Mar Sci 5:1–19.
Volk XK, Gattringer JP, Otte A, Harvolk-Schöning S (2018) Connectivity analysis as a tool for assessing restoration success. Landsc Ecol 33:371–387.
Williams PH (2000) Some properties of rarity scores used in site quality assessment. Br J Entomol Nat Hist 13:73–86
Wintle BA, Kujala H, Whitehead A, Cameron A, Veloz S, Kukkala A, Moilanen A, Gordon A, Lentini PE, Cadenhead NCR, Bekessy SA (2018) Global synthesis of conservation studies reveals the importance of small habitat patches for biodiversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1813051115