1. simon linke & eren turak in collaboration with richard norris bob bailey bob pressey hugh possingham robin abell the ecology centre university of queensland australia www.uq.edu.au/spatialecology s.linke@uq.edu.au systematic approaches to conservation planning in freshwater systems matt watts josie carwardine jon nevill carissa klein leon metzeling and many others

2. the aim of conservation planning  across a landscape, given limited budget: where to allocate conservation and restoration effort?  maximum efficiency -> healthy environment and minimum impact on stakeholders  completeness, adecuacy, representativeness, efficiency: the CARE principles

3. traditional methods: naturalness  are undisturbed rivers the only ones with high conservation value?

4. traditional methods: naturalness  macquarie marshes (ramsar listed)

5. traditional methods: naturalness  narran lakes (ramsar listed)

6. traditional methods: naturalness  naturalness based methods introduce spatial bias and will not deliver complete coverage of biodiversity

7. ‘advanced’ traditional methods: scoring

8. 3 + 5 - 2 =? ‘advanced’ traditional methods: scoring

9. why not use richness/scoring systems? unitrich A5 B5 C3 D3 E4  aim: protect all native fish taxa using least effort

10. why not use richness/scoring systems? unitrich Axxxxx5 Bxxxxx5 Cxxx3 Dxxx3 Exxxx4  A + B  miss 2 taxa  only way: D + E complementarity  aim: protect all native fish taxa using least effort

11. why don’t metrics work?  the cricket team analogy: what happens when we use the highest ranked players?  team a: 11 batsmen (scores many runs)  team b: 11 bowlers (prevents opposition from scoring) both teams will lose

12. lessons from cricket  the whole is larger than the sum of its parts  whatever you do, always state a purpose (set targets)  need a team that can score high, while minimising the opposition score

13. set conservation targets (species, habitats, ecoregions) optimisation algorithm (complementarity-based) minimum set (the best plan fulfilling all targets) irreplaceability map (how important is the unit for alternative plans) systematic conservation planning see Margules & Pressey, Nature, 2000

14. systematic conservation planning best bang for your buck

15. why is it systematic conservation planning still not frequently used in aquatic systems? we need too much data spatial configuration is it going really to protect stuff (adequacy)? we can’t lock everything up

16. a) we need too much data  systematic approaches need exactly as much data as richness/scoring approaches  possible surrogates:  surrogates based on biological survey data  biologically informed physical surrogates  ‘tempered’ physical surrogates  physical surrogates

17. b) spatial problems with rivers P N Sediment effluent

18. min:  cost+  species penalties+  boundary Hermoso, V., Linke, S., Prenda, J. & Possingham, H. P, Freshwater Biology, in press

19. increasing BLM in victoria (target=2 occurrences) Linke, S., Hermoso V. & Possingham, H. P, Ecological Applications, in prep

20. decreasing BLM in victoria (target=2 occurrences) Linke, S., Hermoso V. & Possingham, H. P, Ecological Applications, in prep

21. other approaches (turak, in press, esselman, in press)  risk surfaces  avoid subcatchments with a high risk/disturbance

22. c) adequacy  no ideal solution in any realm (but a lot of work in progress)  target setting and connectivity  mixed landuse/protection schemes

23. d) we can’t lock everything up  mixed zones (abell 2007)

25. d) we can’t lock everything up  mixed zones (abell 2007)  flexible catchment rules (hermoso et al., in press)  cost surfaces

26. publications  Freshwater Biology special issue: Systematic planning in freshwater environments  edited by E. Turak & S. Linke  Studies from: China,Nth & Sth America, Europe, Sth Africa, Australia  Linke S., Norris, R.H., Pressey, R.L. (2008) Irreplaceability of river networks: Towards catchment-based conservation planning, Journal of Applied Ecology (in press)  Turak, E. & Koop, K. (2008) Multi-attribute ecological river typology for assessing ecological condition and conservation planning. Hydrobiologia, 603, 83-104.  Moilanen, A., Leathwick, J. & Elith, J. (2008) A method for spatial freshwater conservation prioritization. Freshwater Biology, 53, 577-592.  Linke S., Pressey, R.L, Bailey, R.C., Norris R.H. (2007). Management options for river conservation planning: Condition and conservation re-visited, Freshwater Biology, 52, 918-938  Bailey, R.C., Reynoldson, T.B., Yates, A.G., Bailey, J.L., Linke S. (2007) Integrating stream bioassessment and landscape ecology as a tool for landuse planning, Freshwater Biology, 52, 908-917  Hermoso, V. Linke S., Prenda, J. (accepted) Identifying priority sites for conservation of freshwater fish biodiversity in a mediterranean basin, Hydrobiologia, accepted  Ausseil, A.-G., Dymond, J. & Shepherd, J. (2007) Rapid Mapping and Prioritisation of Wetland Sites in the Manawatu– Wanganui Region, New Zealand. Environmental Management, 39, 316-325  Fitzsimons, J. A. & Robertson, H. A. (2005) Freshwater reserves in Australia: directions and challenges for the development of a comprehensive, adequate and representative system of protected areas. Hydrobiologia, 552, 87-97  Higgins, J. V., Bryer, M. T., Khoury, M. L. & FitzHugh, T. W. (2005) A freshwater classification approach for biodiversity conservation planning. Conservation Biology, 19, 432-445  Klein, C., Wilson, K., Watts, M., Stein, J., Berry, S., Carwardine, J., Smith, M. S., Mackey, B. & Possingham`, H. (in press) Incorporating ecological and evolutionary processes into continental scale conservation planning Ecological Applications.  Kingsford, R. T., Brandis, K., Thomas, R. F., Crighton, P., Knowles, E. & Gale, E. (2004) Classifying landform at broad spatial scales: the distribution and conservation of wetlands in New South Wales, Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research, 55, 17- 31.  Nel, J. L., Roux, D. J., Maree, G., Kleynhans, C. J., Moolman, J., Reyers, B., Rouget, M. & Cowling, R. M. (2007) Rivers in peril inside and outside protected areas: a systematic approach to conservation assessment of river ecosystems. Diversity and Distributions, 13, 341-352  Thieme, M., Lehner, B., Abell, R., Hamilton, S. K., Kellndorfer, J., Powell, G. & Riveros, J. C. (2007) Freshwater conservation planning in data-poor areas: An example from a remote Amazonian basin (Madre de Dios River, Peru and Bolivia). Biological Conservation, 135, 484-501.

27. conclusions  complementarity-based planning ensures efficiency and defensibility  systematic planning minimises impact on stakeholders while maximising outcomes  we have enough data!  there is no excuse not to embark on a meaningful exercise