Conservation outcomes are principally achieved through the protection of intact habitat or the restoration of degraded habitat. Restoration is generally considered a lower priority action than ...protection because protection is thought to provide superior outcomes, at lower costs, without the time delay required for restoration. Yet while it is broadly accepted that protected intact habitat safeguards more biodiversity and generates greater ecosystem services per unit area than restored habitat, conservation lacks a theory that can coherently compare the relative outcomes of the two actions. We use a dynamic landscape model to integrate these two actions into a unified conservation theory of protection and restoration. Using nonlinear benefit functions, we show that both actions are crucial components of a conservation strategy that seeks to optimise either biodiversity conservation or ecosystem services provision. In contrast to conservation orthodoxy, in some circumstances, restoration should be strongly preferred to protection. The relative priority of protection and restoration depends on their costs and also on the different time lags that are inherent to both protection and restoration. We derive a simple and easy-to-interpret heuristic that integrates these factors into a single equation that applies equally to biodiversity conservation and ecosystem service objectives. We use two examples to illustrate the theory: bird conservation in tropical rainforests and coastal defence provided by mangrove forests.
Abstract
Industrial-scale harvest of species at risk of extinction is controversial and usually highly regulated on land and for charismatic marine animals (e.g. whales). In contrast, threatened ...marine fish species can be legally caught in industrial fisheries. To determine the magnitude and extent of this problem, we analyze global fisheries catch and import data and find reported catch records of 91 globally threatened species. Thirteen of the species are traded internationally and predominantly consumed in European nations. Targeted industrial fishing for 73 of the threatened species accounts for nearly all (99%) of the threatened species catch volume and value. Our results are a conservative estimate of threatened species catch and trade because we only consider species-level data, excluding group records such as ‘sharks and rays.’ Given the development of new fisheries monitoring technologies and the current push for stronger international mechanisms for biodiversity management, industrial fishing of threatened fish and invertebrates should no longer be neglected in conservation and sustainability commitments.
Triple–bottom-line outcomes from resource management and conservation, where conservation goals and equity in social outcomes are maximized while overall costs are minimized, remain a highly ...sought-after ideal. However, despite widespread recognition of the importance that equitable distribution of benefits or costs across society can play in conservation success, little formal theory exists for how to explicitly incorporate equity into conservation planning and prioritization. Here, we develop that theory and implement it for three very different case studies in California (United States), Raja Ampat (Indonesia), and the wider Coral Triangle region (Southeast Asia). We show that equity tends to trade off nonlinearly with the potential to achieve conservation objectives, such that similar conservation outcomes can be possible with greater equity, to a point. However, these case studies also produce a range of trade-off typologies between equity and conservation, depending on how one defines and measures social equity, including direct (linear) and no trade-off. Important gaps remain in our understanding, most notably how equity influences probability of conservation success, in turn affecting the actual ability to achieve conservation objectives. Results here provide an important foundation for moving the science and practice of conservation planning—and broader spatial planning in general—toward more consistently achieving efficient, equitable, and effective outcomes.
Climate Velocity Can Inform Conservation in a Warming World Brito-Morales, Isaac; García Molinos, Jorge; Schoeman, David S. ...
Trends in ecology & evolution (Amsterdam),
June 2018, 2018-06-00, 20180601, Letnik:
33, Številka:
6
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
Climate change is shifting the ranges of species. Simple predictive metrics of range shifts such as climate velocity, that do not require extensive knowledge or data on individual species, could help ...to guide conservation. We review research on climate velocity, describing the theory underpinning the concept and its assumptions. We highlight how climate velocity has already been applied in conservation-related research, including climate residence time, climate refugia, endemism, historic and projected range shifts, exposure to climate change, and climate connectivity. Finally, we discuss ways to enhance the use of climate velocity in conservation through tailoring it to be more biologically meaningful, informing design of protected areas, conserving ocean biodiversity in 3D, and informing conservation actions.
Climate velocity is a simple metric that describes the speed and direction of climate movement at any point in space.
Climate velocity is providing information about climate change that is relevant for conservation, including the study of protected areas, novel and/or disappearing climates, rates of endemism, and range shifts.
To better inform conservation, climate velocity can be tailored to be more biologically meaningful through the addition of dispersal capabilities, physiological tolerance, and potential routes of movements of species.
There is untapped potential for using climate velocity and climate-velocity trajectories in informing the design of protected areas and their networks, conserving ocean biodiversity in 3D, and in informing conservation actions.
To stimulate future research using climate velocity, we introduce the R package vocc.
Anthropogenic pressures threaten biodiversity, necessitating conservation actions founded on robust ecological models. However, prevailing models inadequately capture the spatiotemporal variation in ...environmental pressures faced by species with high mobility or complex life histories, as data are often aggregated across species’ life histories or spatial distributions. We highlight the limitations of static models for dynamic species and incorporate life history variation and spatial distributions for species and stressors into a trait-based vulnerability and impact model. We use green sea turtles in the Greater Caribbean Region to demonstrate how vulnerability and anthropogenic impact for a dynamic species change across four life stages. By incorporating life stages into a trait-based vulnerability model, we observed life stage-specific vulnerabilities that were otherwise unnoticed when using an aggregated trait value set. Early life stages were more vulnerable to some stressors, such as inorganic pollution or marine heat waves, and less vulnerable to others, such as bycatch. Incorporating spatial distributions of stressors and life stages revealed impacts differ for each life stage across spatial areas, emphasizing the importance of stage-specific conservation measures. Our approach showcases the importance of incorporating dynamic processes into ecological models and will enable better and more targeted conservation actions for species with complex life histories and high mobility.
The first international goal for establishing marine protected areas (MPAs) to conserve the ocean's biodiversity was set in 2002. Since 2006, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has driven ...MPA establishment, with 193 parties committed to protecting >10% of marine environments globally by 2020, especially 'areas of particular importance for biodiversity' (Aichi target 11). This has resulted in nearly 10 million km(2) of new MPAs, a growth of ~360% in a decade. Unlike on land, it is not known how well protected areas capture marine biodiversity, leaving a significant gap in our understanding of existing MPAs and future protection requirements. We assess the overlap of global MPAs with the ranges of 17,348 marine species (fishes, mammals, invertebrates), and find that 97.4% of species have <10% of their ranges represented in stricter conservation classes. Almost all (99.8%) of the very poorly represented species (<2% coverage) are found within exclusive economic zones, suggesting an important role for particular nations to better protect biodiversity. Our results offer strategic guidance on where MPAs should be placed to support the CBD's overall goal to avert biodiversity loss. Achieving this goal is imperative for nature and humanity, as people depend on biodiversity for important and valuable services.
As human activities increasingly threaten biodiversity 1, 2, areas devoid of intense human impacts are vital refugia 3. These wilderness areas contain high genetic diversity, unique functional ...traits, and endemic species 4–7; maintain high levels of ecological and evolutionary connectivity 8–10; and may be well placed to resist and recover from the impacts of climate change 11–13. On land, rapid declines in wilderness 3 have led to urgent calls for its protection 3, 14. In contrast, little is known about the extent and protection of marine wilderness 4, 5. Here we systematically map marine wilderness globally by identifying areas that have both very little impact (lowest 10%) from 15 anthropogenic stressors and also a very low combined cumulative impact from these stressors. We discover that ∼13% of the ocean meets this definition of global wilderness, with most being located in the high seas. Recognizing that human influence differs across ocean regions, we repeat the analysis within each of the 16 ocean realms 15. Realm-specific wilderness extent varies considerably, with >16 million km2 (8.6%) in the Warm Indo-Pacific, down to <2,000 km2 (0.5%) in Temperate Southern Africa. We also show that the marine protected area estate holds only 4.9% of global wilderness and 4.1% of realm-specific wilderness, very little of which is in biodiverse ecosystems such as coral reefs. Proactive retention of marine wilderness should now be incorporated into global strategies aimed at conserving biodiversity and ensuring that large-scale ecological and evolutionary processes continue.
Display omitted
•We classify 13.2% (∼55 million km2) of the world’s ocean as marine wilderness•Little wilderness remains in coastal areas (e.g., coral reefs)•Only 4.9% of marine wilderness is currently within marine protected areas•Targets to retain marine wilderness are needed in global conservation strategies
Jones et al. show that Earth’s marine wilderness has been eroded by humanity, with 13.2% now remaining across the oceans. Despite holding high genetic diversity, unique functional traits, and endemic species, wilderness areas are ignored in global environmental agreements, highlighting the need for urgent policy attention.
Marine coastal ecosystems, commonly referred to as blue ecosystems, provide valuable services to society but are under increasing threat worldwide due to a variety of drivers, including ...eutrophication, development, land‐use change, land reclamation, and climate change. Ecological restoration is sometimes necessary to facilitate recovery in coastal ecosystems. Blue restoration (i.e., in marine coastal systems) is a developing field, and projects to date have been small scale and expensive, leading to the perception that restoration may not be economically viable. We conducted a global cost–benefit analysis to determine the net benefits of restoring coral reef, mangrove, saltmarsh, and seagrass ecosystems, where the benefit is defined as the monetary value of ecosystem services. We estimated costs from published restoration case studies and used an adjusted‐value‐transfer method to assign benefit values to these case studies. Benefit values were estimated as the monetary value provided by ecosystem services of the restored habitats. Benefits outweighed costs (i.e., there were positive net benefits) for restoration of all blue ecosystems. Mean benefit:cost ratios for ecosystem restoration were eight to 10 times higher than prior studies of coral reef and seagrass restoration, most likely due to the more recent lower cost estimates we used. Among ecosystems, saltmarsh had the greatest net benefits followed by mangrove; coral reef and seagrass ecosystems had lower net benefits. In general, restoration in nations with middle incomes had higher (eight times higher in coral reefs and 40 times higher in mangroves) net benefits than those with high incomes. Within an ecosystem type, net benefit varied with restoration technique (coral reef and saltmarsh), ecosystem service produced (mangrove and saltmarsh), and project duration (seagrass). These results challenge the perceptions of the low economic viability of blue restoration and should encourage further targeted investment in this field.
Análisis de Rentabilidad Espacial de la Restauración Azul y de los Factores Determinantes del Beneficio Neto Mundial
Resumen
Los ecosistemas costeros marinos, llamados comúnmente ecosistemas azules, proporcionan servicios valiosos para la sociedad, pero se encuentran bajo una amenaza creciente a nivel mundial causada por una variedad de determinantes, incluyendo la eutrofización, el desarrollo, el cambio en el uso de suelo, la reclamación de tierra y el cambio climático. Algunas veces se necesita de la restauración ecológica para facilitar la recuperación en los ecosistemas costeros. La restauración azul (es decir, en los sistemas costeros marinos) es un campo en desarrollo, con proyectos que a la fecha han sido a pequeña escala y costosos, lo que resulta en la percepción de que la restauración puede no ser viable económicamente. Realizamos un análisis de rentabilidad mundial para determinar los beneficios netos de la restauración de ecosistemas de arrecife de coral, manglar, marisma y pastos marinos en donde el beneficio está definido como el valor monetario de los servicios ambientales. Estimamos los costos a partir de estudios de caso de restauración publicados y usamos un método de transferencia de valor ajustado para asignar los valores de beneficio a estos estudios de caso. Los valores de los beneficios fueron estimados como el valor monetario proporcionado por los servicios ambientales de los hábitats restaurados. Los beneficios superaron los costos (es decir, fueron beneficios netos positivos) de la restauración de todos los ecosistemas azules. El beneficio promedio consistió en que la proporción de costos para la restauración del ecosistema fue 8‐10 veces mayor que en los estudios anteriores de la restauración de los arrecifes de coral y los pastos marinos, probablemente debido a que usamos estimaciones de costo más bajas. Entre los ecosistemas, las marismas tuvieron los mayores beneficios netos seguidos por los manglares; los arrecifes de coral y los pastos marinos tuvieron los beneficios netos más bajos. En general, la restauración en los países con niveles medios de ingreso tuvo más beneficios netos (ocho veces más en los arrecifes de coral y 40 veces más en los manglares) que aquellos países con niveles altos de ingreso. En cuanto al tipo de ecosistema, el beneficio neto varió de acuerdo con la técnica de restauración (arrecife de coral y marisma), servicio ambiental producido (manglar y marisma) y duración del proyecto (pastos marinos). Estos resultados desafían las percepciones de la baja viabilidad económica que tiene la restauración azul y deberían fomentar una mayor inversión focalizada en este campo.
Article impact statement: Blue restoration produces net benefits for all ecosystems assessed. Net benefits are driven by technique, duration, and ecosystem services.
To ensure the long-term persistence of biodiversity, conservation strategies must account for the entire range of climate change impacts. A variety of spatial prioritisation techniques have been ...developed to incorporate climate change. Here, we provide the first standardised review of these approaches. Using a systematic search, we analysed peer-reviewed spatial prioritisation publications (n=46) and found that the most common approaches (n=41, 89%) utilised forecasts of species distributions and aimed to either protect future species habitats (n=24, 52%) or identify climate refugia to shelter species from climate change (n=17, 37%). Other approaches (n=17, 37%) used well-established conservation planning principles to combat climate change, aimed at broadly increasing either connectivity (n=11, 24%) or the degree of heterogeneity of abiotic factors captured in the planning process (n=8, 17%), with some approaches combining multiple goals. We also find a strong terrestrial focus (n=35, 76%), and heavy geographical bias towards North America (n=8, 17%) and Australia (n=11, 24%). While there is an increasing trend of incorporating climate change into spatial prioritisation, we found that serious gaps in current methodologies still exist. Future research must focus on developing methodologies that allow planners to incorporate human responses to climate change and recognise that discrete climate impacts (e.g. extreme events), which are increasing in frequency and severity, must be addressed within the spatial prioritisation framework. By identifying obvious gaps and highlighting future research needs this review will help practitioners better plan for conservation action in the face of multiple threats including climate change.
•We review spatial prioritisation papers incorporating climate change, finding few (46).•We assess the impacts and timeframes considered, and their strengths and weaknesses.•Approaches either forecast species distributions or use robust planning principles•Human adaptation responses are almost totally ignored in spatial prioritisation.•Discrete climate impacts (e.g. extreme events) must also be addressed.
Oceans, particularly coastal areas, are getting busier and within this increasingly human-dominated seascape, marine biodiversity continues to decline. Attempts to maintain and restore marine ...biodiversity are becoming more spatial, principally through the designation of marine protected areas (MPAs). MPAs compete for space with other uses, and the emergence of new industries, such as marine renewable energy generation, will increase competition for space. Decision makers require guidance on how to zone the ocean to conserve biodiversity, mitigate conflict and accommodate multiple uses. Here we used empirical data and freely available planning software to identified priority areas for multiple ocean zones, which incorporate goals for biodiversity conservation, two types of renewable energy, and three types of fishing. We developed an approached to evaluate trade-offs between industries and we investigated the impacts of co-locating some fishing activities within renewable energy sites. We observed non-linear trade-offs between industries. We also found that different subsectors within those industries experienced very different trade-off curves. Incorporating co-location resulted in significant reductions in cost to the fishing industry, including fisheries that were not co-located. Co-location also altered the optimal location of renewable energy zones with planning solutions. Our findings have broad implications for ocean zoning and marine spatial planning. In particular, they highlight the need to include industry subsectors when assessing trade-offs and they stress the importance of considering co-location opportunities from the outset. Our research reinforces the need for multi-industry ocean-zoning and demonstrates how it can be undertaken within the framework of strategic conservation planning.
•We assess multiple industry and biodiversity conservation trade-offs in ocean zoning.•We incorporate renewable energy development into strategic conservation planning processes.•The results highlight the need for incorporating industry subsectors when assessing trade-offs.•We demonstrate that co-locating industries can both reduce costs and change spatial priorities.•This research reinforces the need for multi-sector, holistic marine planning.
PDF
