Ecosystem services and connectivity in spatial conservation prioritization

Peer reviewe

Where and how to manage: Optimal selection of conservation actions for multiple species.

Multiple alternative options are frequently available for the protection, maintenance or restoration of conservation areas. The choice of a particular management action can have large effects on the species occurring in the area, because different actions have different effects on different species. Together with the fact that conservation funds are limited and particular management actions are costly, it would be desirable to be able to identify where, and what kind of management should be applied to maximize conservation benefits. Currently available site-selection algorithms can identify the optimal set of sites for a reserve network. However, these algorithms have not been designed to answer what kind of action would be most beneficial at these sites when multiple alternative actions are available. We describe an algorithm capable of solving multi-species planning problems with multiple management options per site. The algorithm is based on benefit functions, which translate the effect of a management action on species representation levels into a value, in order to identify the most beneficial option. We test the performance of this algorithm with simulated data for different types of benefit functions and show that the algorithm’s solutions are optimal, or very near globally optimal, partially depending on the type of benefit function used. The good performance of the proposed algorithm suggests that it could be profitably used for large multi-action multi-species conservation planning problems

FORUM : Indirect leakage leads to a failure of avoided loss biodiversity offsetting

Biodiversity offsetting has quickly gained political support all around the world. Avoided loss (averted risk) offsetting means compensation for ecological damage via averted loss of anticipated impacts through the removal of threatening processes in compensation areas. Leakage means the phenomenon of environmentally damaging activity relocating elsewhere after being stopped locally by avoided loss offsetting. Indirect leakage means that locally avoided losses displace to other administrative areas or spread around diffusely via market effects. Synthesis and applications. Indirect leakage can lead to high net biodiversity loss. It is difficult to measure or prevent, raising doubts about the value of avoided loss offsetting. Market demand for commodities is on the rise, following increasing human population size and per capita consumption, implying that indirect leakage will be a rule rather than an exception. Leakage should be accounted for when determining offset multipliers (ratios) even if multipliers become extremely high.Peer reviewe

A method for calculating minimum biodiversity offset multipliers accounting for time discounting, additionality and permanence

Peer reviewe

Elinympäristöjen tilan edistämisen priorisoinnin periaatteet ja menetelmä

Tieteen tori: Metsien kestävä käyttö biotalouden aikan

Threats from urban expansion, agricultural transformation and forest loss on global conservation priority areas

Including threats in spatial conservation prioritization helps identify areas for conservation actions where biodiversity is at imminent risk of extinction. At the global level, an important limitation when identifying spatial priorities for conservation actions is the lack of information on the spatial distribution of threats. Here, we identify spatial conservation priorities under three prominent threats to biodiversity (residential and commercial development, agricultural expansion, and forest loss), which are primary drivers of habitat loss and threaten the persistence of the highest number of species in the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List, and for which spatial data is available. We first explore how global priority areas for the conservation of vertebrate (mammals, birds, and amphibians) species coded in the Red List as vulnerable to each threat differ spatially. We then identify spatial conservation priorities for all species vulnerable to all threats. Finally, we identify the potentially most threatened areas by overlapping the identified priority areas for conservation with maps for each threat. We repeat the same with four other well-known global conservation priority area schemes, namely Key Biodiversity Areas, Biodiversity Hotspots, the global Protected Area Network, and Wilderness Areas. We find that residential and commercial development directly threatens only about 4% of the global top 17% priority areas for species vulnerable under this threat. However, 50% of the high priority areas for species vulnerable to forest loss overlap with areas that have already experienced some forest loss. Agricultural expansion overlapped with similar to 20% of high priority areas. Biodiversity Hotspots had the greatest proportion of their total area under direct threat from all threats, while expansion of low intensity agriculture was found to pose an imminent threat to Wilderness Areas under future agricultural expansion. Our results identify areas where limited resources should be allocated to mitigate risks to vertebrate species from habitat loss.Peer reviewe

Examining current or future trade-offs for biodiversity conservation in north-eastern Australia

With the high rate of ecosystem change already occurring and predicted to occur in the coming decades, long-term conservation has to account not only for current biodiversity but also for the biodiversity patterns anticipated for the future. The trade-offs between prioritising future biodiversity at the expense of current priorities must be understood to guide current conservation planning, but have been largely unexplored. To fill this gap, we compared the performance of four conservation planning solutions involving 662 vertebrate species in the Wet Tropics Natural Resource Management Cluster Region in north-eastern Australia. Input species data for the four planning solutions were: 1) current distributions; 2) projected distributions for 2055; 3) projected distributions for 2085; and 4) current, 2055 and 2085 projected distributions, and the connectivity between each of the three time periods for each species. The four planning solutions were remarkably similar (up to 85% overlap), suggesting that modelling for either current or future scenarios is sufficient for conversation planning for this region, with little obvious trade-off. Our analyses also revealed that overall, species with small ranges occurring across steep elevation gradients and at higher elevations were more likely to be better represented in all solutions. Given that species with these characteristics are of high conservation significance, our results provide confidence that conservation planning focused on either current, near-or distant-future biodiversity will account for these species.Peer reviewe

New performance guarantees for the greedy maximization of submodular set functions

We present new tight performance guarantees for the greedy maximization of monotone submodular set functions. Our main result first provides a performance guarantee in terms of the overlap of the optimal and greedy solutions. As a consequence we improve performance guarantees of Nemhauser et al. (Math Program 14: 265-294, 1978) and Conforti and Cornuejols (Discr Appl Math 7: 251-274, 1984) for maximization over subsets, which are at least half the size of the problem domain. As a further application, we obtain a new tight approximation guarantee in terms of the cardinality of the problem domain.Peer reviewe

Mapping the global potential exposure of soaring birds to terrestrial wind energy expansion

The wind energy sector is steadily growing, and the number of wind turbines is expected to expand across large areas of the globe in the near future. While the development of wind energy can contribute to mitigating climate change, it also poses challenges to wildlife, particularly birds, due to increased collision risk with wind turbines. Here we quantify and map potential conflicts between the potential for wind energy development and the distribution of terrestrial soaring birds. We explore the relationship between species traits (including body mass, migration ecology and extinction risk) and exposure to potential wind energy development, and identified areas of potential conflict between wind power production and soaring bird conservation. We considered the full range of each species, as well as separately analyzing the breeding, non-breeding and passage ranges for migratory species. We show that exposure to potential wind energy development is similar for soaring and non-soaring bird species. Within different parts of the range of soaring bird species, passage distributions have significantly higher potential for wind energy development than the full, breeding or non-breeding ranges. Moreover, exposure to potential wind energy development was higher within the ranges of heavier soaring bird species and those that are migratory. We show that areas of conflict between soaring bird conservation and potential wind energy development could be very large, particularly when the passage ranges of soaring bird species are considered. Such areas of potential conflict are largely unprotected. This highlights a risk for soaring birds from potential wind energy development wherever it is not carefully sited in order to minimise environmental impacts.Peer reviewe