Decision Point #44 - 1

Issue 44 / November 2010 Connecting conservation policy makers, researchers and practitioners

Other stories The bush chorus 3Guiding restoration in nature reserves 5Incorporating connectivity into planning 8The slime decides 12

Page 6

Decision PointDecision Point is a monthly magazine presenting news, views and ideas on environmental decision making, biodiversity, conservation planning and monitoring. It is produced by AEDA – the Applied Environmental Decision Analysis CERF Hub. For more info on Decision Point, or AEDA, see the back page or visit our website at www.aeda.edu.au

Page 10

Decision PointSmart science for wise decisions

Investing in coral conservation How do you incorporate underwater and land-based actions in your planning? (page 10)

Restoration plantings Are they good for birds?

Pre-European woodlands A walk in the park?

Australia’s Acoustic Accounts

Page 7

Page 4

Page 6Page 2

Decision Point #44 - 2

Australia’s Acoustic (Environmental) Accounts A little black box with biodiversity bite

The Dpoint editorial

By Hugh Possingham (Director, AEDA)

Ever since the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists distributed its blueprint ‘Accounting for Nature*’, interest in developing environmental

accounts for Australia has accelerated. The reason is simple – people have realised that if we can’t find credible and transparent metrics to quantitatively predict the consequences of policy and management on environmental issues like biodiversity, then those issues will always play a back-seat to economic measures in policy development (meaning our growth in GDP, and other metrics like interest rates, will dominate our leaders attention rather than our declines in biodiversity).

This is an issue at all scales, from Natural Resource Management (NRM) bodies through to the Federal Government and internationally. Many levels of government are now taking environmental accounts

“Over the years we would be able to cost-effectively detect

changes in the abundance of hundreds of species across the entire continent. It would be the first continent-wide survey of any group of fauna in Australia with

consistent replication in space and time.”

seriously – for example the Federal Government has a new initiative heading in this direction called the National Plan for Environmental Information (http://www.environment.gov.au/npei/index.html) and the NRM bodies are enthusiastically pushing ahead with trials of regional accounts. I applaud this enthusiasm, however one of our greatest challenges is to cost-effectively gather repeatable and meaningful biodiversity data in a continent of over seven million square kilometers. Here I propose a possible solution that I stole from a variety of colleagues (including Gordon Grigg, Peter Cosier and Peter Grace).

An experimental acoustic recording station at Parry’s Creek in WA. It was set up by Dr Andrew Taylor (Computer Science, UNSW) and Professor Gordon Grigg (Biological Sciences, UQ) under a CERF project. The antenna is pointed toward the mobile phone tower at Wyndham 20 km away, the station’s connection to the world. (Photo courtesy of Gordon Grigg)

*Accounting for NatureThe lack of an environmental accounting framework is a fundamental weakness of Australian environment policy. The Wentworth Group believes this can not be fixed by simply restructuring the delivery of existing programs. It proposes building a national system that is regionally based, for the purposes of monitoring, data collection, evaluation and reporting. To discuss how this might be achieved, the Wentworth Group produced the (free) blueprint ‘Accounting for Nature: A Model for Building the National Environmental Accounts of Australia’. The proposal sets out an environmental accounting system which would measure the health and change in condition of our major environmental assets. This would underpin long-term catchment management and land use planning decisions, locally and nationally.

http://www.wentworthgroup.org/blueprints/accounting-for-nature

Decision Point #44 - 3

White elephants and black swansIn the last issue, Decision Point #43, we discussed the inefficiency of omnibus monitoring designs – monitoring programs with the broadly stated objective of ‘keeping an eye on things’ but not answering a specific management need and not connected to any trigger of management action. In many ways I realise my acoustic accounts proposal fits into this category except I believe it would still pass the test we described in the last issue of Decision Point – namely that the acoustic accounts is relatively cheap to set up and maintain and that its broad coverage gives it a good chance of picking up on black swan events (unknown unknowns). Ultimately, however, it is tied into policy and management because it would be giving us a baseline metric on which to judge our success in protection of the nation’s biodiversity.

The technology for measuring, recording and identifying sounds has been advancing rapidly. The hope is that soon we will have a cheap reliable box – let us call it the acoustic monitoring box – that will not just record and store sounds, but also identify them and create data files that indicate the number of calls of different fauna species over time.

As digital networks expand it should be possible for all of this data to be downloaded remotely – from say a computer in my office in Brisbane. Using existing sound libraries many species can be identified now. Unidentified sounds would be also be collected and stored and analysed in the future (artificial intelligence software to identify novel sounds and report them to the user is still being perfected but it’s not far off). Indeed, if such a network would be constructed it’s important to get it going as soon as possible because statistically significant change is usually only detectable after many years.

So here’s the plan. Scatter, in a clever sciencey way, 2000 of these boxes across the continent. We have 85 bioregions and most bioregions have about 10-20 structural vegetation types; so let’s say two boxes per bioregion vegetation structure combination (as a stratified random sample). In some cases it would be good to have the boxes close to an existing weather monitoring station because the Bureau of Meteorology will be looking after them (Maybe I should have warned them about this?).

Each box records an hour of sound four times a day, one day a week: the first starting at dawn, an hour before dusk, an hour after dusk and an hour in the middle of the night. All this data is then delivered to the analysts in terms of the number of calls of each species per day for each location. Over the years we would be able to cost-effectively detect changes in the abundance (based on calling rate) of hundreds of species across the entire continent. It would be the first continent wide survey of any group of fauna in Australia with consistent replication in space and time.

Why would we bother? In its simplest form it is background surveillance – like listening to the heart-beat of the continent – an early warning sign of ill-health (see the box on white elephants and black swans). Any disturbing changes would need to be investigated – like the call of a starling crossing the Nullabor.

At its best it provides a baseline against which we can start

The bush chorusAnyone who has camped in the Australian bush knows the joy of waking to a dawn chorus of bird, frog and insect calls. To get a feeling for it, try

the links below to sound (.wav) files provided to AEDA by Professor

Gordon Grigg of the chorus recorded at Parry’s Creek near Wyndham in WA (recorded by the system shown in the photograph that heads this article). To discover how Gordon Grigg and Andrew Taylor became passionate about

bioacoustic monitoring, see http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/

UQ:10211

Bat flypast: http://www.aeda.edu.au/docs/Newsletters/DPoint44_bat_flypast.wav Frog chorus: http://www.aeda.edu.au/docs/Newsletters/DPoint44_Parrys_Creek_chorus.wav

to assess the benefits of environmental interventions and test innovative management strategies. For scientists, it enables us to answer new questions, especially about the dynamics of many nomadic and/or erratic arid species.

Of course, the system is not comprehensive. Birds, bats, frogs and a few insects will dominate the data and we won’t get much else. However it is a cheap and effective start. (I figure $8 million might buy and install the boxes, with $0.4 million per year for maintenance and analysis - an endowment of $8 million would do it forever. That’s a total once off cost of $16 million or about one wing of a military airplane).

Does this mean frog, bat and bird surveyors are now redundant – I can hang up my binoculars? No. Because the method relies only on call, we would need ground-truthing surveys by real people to translate bird call frequency into species density. Either way we need a lot more data analysts.

Finally, imagine being on the BoM web site and instead of clicking on little blue triangles showing river height data, you could listen to the sounds of the bush from anywhere in Australia with or without a mellow voice-over identifying every species as it calls. We could bring the outback into people’s houses via the government’s new broadband and reconnect Australians with their natural wealth - the bush.

Using their computerised alarm clock, every Australian could wake up to a dawn chorus from a different outback location every day of the year. Instead of lunch conversations about the ailments of rugby players we find ourselves discussing the haunting call of the chiming wedgebill.

The accoustic boxes will still need ground truthing so don’t hang up your binoculars yet.

Decision Point #44 - 4

By Philip Gibbons (ANU, AEDA)

What was the structure of our forests and woodlands prior to European settlement? It’s a frequently asked question.

In 1848, Major Mitchell, Surveyor General for NSW, described “thick forests of young trees, where, formerly, a man might gallop, without impediment, and see whole miles before him.”

Mitchell’s statement, and several like it, has sparked lively debate about the structure of Australia’s forests and woodlands.

For example, Eric Rolls in A Million Wild Acres and Tim Flannery in The Future Eaters argue that Australia’s forests and woodlands were structurally simpler prior

Pre-European woodlands & forests

A walk in the park or a slog through a thicket?

“Our belief of what was around before European settlement

is a key to many decisions on how we manage these landscapes today”

(continued on page 5)

Three reasons why it mattersKnowing what the pre-European structure of forests and woodlands is important because:

1. Most of Australia’s wildlife is likely to be better adapted to the structure of Australia’s forests prior to European settlement because many of these forests and woodlands have since undergone an unprecedented rate of change. For example, scientists believe that the endangered broad-headed snake is disadvantaged in parts of its habitat because the density of trees is generally higher than occurred prior to European settlement.

2. Ecological communities are likely to be more resilient if managed within their usual range of variation. One study found that forests of river red gum managed with high stem densities are less resilient to drought-induced water stress than stands managed with lower stem densities.

3. The structure of stands prior to European settlement is used as a benchmark for assessing sites. For example, benchmarks of this type underpin assessments for incentive programs and clearing applications in several Australian States and have been used to estimate the carbon carrying capacity—and sequestration potential—of

Mulligan’s Flat, one of Canberra’s natures reserves. If you were planning restoration in a reserve like this, what would guide you? One commonly used bench-mark target is a pre-European structure, but how do you know what that structure might be. (See the box on page 5)

to European settlement. Authors of a report in 1995 by the Murrumbidgee Catchment Management Committee describe these woodlands as park-like, being dominated by scattered large trees, not unlike grazed paddocks of today.

But this is far from a universally accepted view. John Benson and Phil Redpath from the Royal Botanic Gardens in Sydney argue, in response to these park-like descriptions, that the same forests and woodlands were structurally diverse prior to European settlement.

So, where lies the truth (and why does it matter anyway)?

There are many reasons why we should be interested in the structure of Australia’s forests and woodlands prior to European settlement. It is likely that most of Australia’s wildlife is better adapted to the structure of Australia’s forests and woodlands prior to European settlement. Ecological communities are likely to be more resilient if managed within their usual range of variation.

For these reasons, the structure of stands prior to European settlement is used as a benchmark for assessing sites. It’s far from an academic point because our belief

Decision Point #44 - 5

Guiding restoration in nature reservesStudents at The Australian National University compared the current diameter distribution of a box-gum woodland in part of the Canberra Nature Reserve with our predictions of the same vegetation community under relatively little modification since European settlement (see figure 1). Interestingly, the deviation between the pre-European estimate of tree densities and current tree densities occurs for those diameter classes that originated around the time the site was settled and grazed by sheep, with some recovery appearing after the sheep were removed. These data were used to guide a tree planting program in the nature reserve.

Figure 1: Current diameter distribution of a box-gum woodland in part of the Canberra Nature Reserve with predictions of the same vegetation community under pre-European settlement.

of what was around before European settlement is a key to many decisions on how we manage these landscapes today.

Envisaging pre-European timesSeveral techniques have been developed to estimate the structure of our forests and woodlands prior to European settlement. These include descriptions published in the accounts of explorers and surveyors, dendro-ecology, stump counts, palaeontology and observations in relatively undisturbed sites.

A key limitation of these techniques is that they can only be applied in narrow set of circumstances. For example, where explorers or surveyors traversed, where logging occurred, where pollen accumulates or where modification since European settlement has been minimal. Thus, estimates derived from these techniques are often biased towards certain parts of the landscape. Yet we know that environmental variation is a key driver of the structure of Australia’s woodlands in addition to post-European modification.

Colleagues and I have developed a simple method to overcome this problem. We undertook a large stratified sample of woodlands and forests across central New South Wales (from Albury to Moree). Although we targeted unmodified sites, 85% of all plots had evidence of post-European modification in the form of cut stumps, evidence of firewood collection, exotic plants and/or evidence of rabbits or livestock. In other words there are few sites that remain untouched by the impacts of Europeans.

On each plot we measured a series of structural features

of forests that are surrogates of biodiversity or ecological function (eg, numbers of stems by diameter class, volume of coarse woody debris, cover of shrubs, etc). At the same plot we measured several environmental variables that cause variation to forest structure (eg, rainfall, solar radiation, topographic position), some disturbance variables that affect forest structure (eg, fire history) and any evidence of post-European modification (eg, numbers of cut stumps, exotic plant cover).

We then built statistical models to predict the numbers, volume or cover of each structural feature using measures of environmental variation, natural disturbances and post-European modification as predictors. However, we made all predictions from these models with measures representing modification by Europeans held at their minimum observed

(continued on page 6)

An open box-gum woodland has a completely different structure and stem density to a dense Callitris woodland (see next page). (Photo by Phil Gibbons)

Decision Point #44 - 6

values. While our predictions do not strictly represent the pre-European state of our forests and woodlands, they provide unbiased estimates of the structure of these forests and woodlands under conditions representing relatively little modification since European settlement.

Our results are playing an important role informing the management of forests and woodlands. These predictions inform benchmarks used to assess development and incentive applications across New South Wales. They are used to assess the performance of management interventions in the Murray Catchment Management Authority. And they have guided restoration activities in my local nature reserve.

Not quite a parkDo our results support the argument that Australia’s forests and woodlands were more park-like prior to European settlement?

Not really. In 1898 a Frenchman named De Liocourt first observed that, to maintain itself at equilibrium, a forest must have a constant ratio of trees from one diameter class to the next. Our predictions are consistent with De Liocourt’s theory (see figure 2). That is, we predicted that all forest and woodland types we examined contain more small trees for each large tree, although there can be considerable variation from site to site.

If our forests and woodlands were park-like, or dominated only by large trees, then they would not be able to maintain themselves in this state. However, some forest types (eg, white cypress pine) contain more small trees than would be expected for a stand at equilibrium (see photo), so there is evidence that some woodland types have become denser since European settlement.

So, while it may be true that a horseman could gallop through Australia’s woodlands at the time of European settlement, it is unlikely they were able to ride far in a straight line before falling off!

More info: philip.gibbons@anu.edu.au

Further reading

Gibbons P, SV Briggs, DM Ayers, S Doyle, J Seddon, C McElhinny, N Jones, R Sims & JS Doody (2008). Rapidly quantifying reference conditions in modified landscapes. Biological Conservation 141: 2483-2493.

Gibbons P, SV Briggs, DM Murphy, DB Lindenmayer, C McElhinny & M Brookhouse (2010). Benchmark stem densities for forests and woodlands in south-eastern Australia under conditions of relatively little modification by humans since European settlement. Forest Ecology and Management doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2010.09.003.

Pre-European woods & forests (Continued from page 6)

Figure 2: Predicted numbers of trees (per 0.1ha) by diameter class for several forest and woodland types under conditions representing relatively little modification since European settlement (filled bars) compared with numbers of trees required to maintain these forests and woodlands at a theoretical equilibrium (unfilled bars).

This dense Callitris woodland contains more small trees than would be expected for a stand at equilibrium. (Photo by Phil Gibbons)

“While it may be true that a horseman could gallop through

Australia’s woodlands at the time of European settlement, it is unlikely they were able to ride far in a straight line

before falling off!”

Decision Point #44 - 7

by Nicki Munro (ANU, AEDA)

Revegetation plantings have been established on agricultural land throughout the world to mitigate the effects of clearing. The plantings are hoped (and

assumed) to provide habitat for fauna, but do they? Despite the establishment of numerous plantings, and at substantial public cost over the past few decades, we know very little about their effectiveness, particularly in regard to providing habitat for fauna.

At the time of establishing plantings, land managers must make decisions about what to plant, where to plant, how big, and what other resources to include (for example, incorporating an old paddock tree). Depending on these early decisions, the resulting planting can differ substantially in structural complexity and plant diversity, with potentially differing habitat qualities for fauna.

I studied birds in revegetation plantings in Gippsland, Victoria. I looked at plantings that differed in structural complexity and floristic richness, and I distinguished between two types of plantings: (1) ‘woodlot plantings’ composed of native trees only, and (2) ‘ecological plantings’ composed of many species of local trees, shrubs and understorey. I then compared these to remnant forest (as reference goals) and paddocks (as reference starting points) and assessed bird species richness and composition in all four site types. I also looked at the effect on birds of planting in riparian areas compared to non-riparian, weed cover, size, and the effect of planting around an existing old remnant tree. I also looked at changes with the age of planting (as a substitute for observing changes over time).

So what works, and what doesn’t? As might have been expected, the species richness of forest birds was greater in ecological plantings than woodlot plantings. Bird species richness increased with age of planting, and ecological plantings had a similar species richness to remnants by approximately 20 years of age. Woodlot plantings were similar to remnants by about 30 years.

Species richness, however, is not necessarily the best measure of habitat value of revegetation. The bird composition, or community, is ecologically more interesting. I found that the bird species composition also differed between ecological plantings and woodlot plantings. Ecological plantings contained a shrub-associated bird assemblage, whereas woodlot plantings were dominated by generalist bird species. Remnants contained a unique bird assemblage, which were not found in either of the two types of plantings, suggesting that plantings are not a viable replacement of remnant vegetation over our studied time period (of around 26 years).

Are restoration plantings restoring bird communities? And how do you improve your planting?

Bird species richness responded positively to structural complexity, but not to floristic richness. Bird species richness was greater in plantings that were older, in riparian locations, and where weed cover was lower. I conclude that plantings in general can provide habitat for many species of birds, and that structurally complex ecological plantings in particular will provide unique and valuable additional habitat for birds. Of key importance is that structurally complex plantings contributed better bird habitat, and in a shorter period of time, than structurally simple woodlot plantings.

More info: nicola.munro@anu.edu.au

Reference

Nicola T. Munro, NT, J Fischer, G Barrett, J Wood, A Leavesley, DB Lindenmayer (2010). Bird response to revegetation of different structure and floristics – are ‘restoration plantings’ restoring bird communities? Restoration Ecology, online, DOI: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2010.00703.x

Quality vs quantityWhat’s the trade-off between quality and quantity in plantings? Given limited funds, this is a trade-off all land managers must make when establishing plantings. To explore this, Nicki investigated how birds responded to landscape-scale quantity of vegetation (measured by the area of vegetation within 2.25 km of the site, including the site) and local-scale ‘quality’ of vegetation (measured by the Habitat Hectares Condition Score). Richness of all birds and forest birds was significantly positively correlated with condition, but not with vegetation cover in the landscape. This suggests that quality may be more important than quantity.

A red cap robin using directly seeded farm ecological planting. (Photo by Toby Jones)

An ecological planting on a farm in Gippsland, Victoria. (Photo by Nicki Munro)

Decision Point #44 - 8

By Maria Beger (University of Queensland, AEDA)

As conservation planning continues to grow in sophistication, more attention is being paid to incorporating connectivity into our management of resources. It’s part of the move to incorporate processes rather than just patterns in conservation decision making. That means we’re not just asking where the areas of greatest biodiversity are, we’re also attempting to understand how these areas are connected.

Connectivity is important for many reasons. Connectivity between populations and potential habitat leads to the persistence of populations, the re-establishment of sites following disturbance and the flow of genes. Which is not to say that connectivity is a universally good thing because it also allows the spread of negative influences like disease, invasives and pollution.

In aquatic and marine environments, connectivity is largely determined by how the water moves and the characteristics of the organisms that are shifted along by that moving water. It might be the flow of river water, or the shifting of ocean water in a current. The moving water might be transporting sediment, young salmon, plankton, oil, or maybe empty plastic bottles.

Connectivity is regarded by many as being one of the last frontiers in conservation planning but incorporating it in a systematic manner is far from a trivial task. The magnitude of the flow between places is often invisible, changing over time and unequal in different directions (asymmetric) (see figure 1). However, with the development of better ocean and river flow models, conservation planners are now having greater success at incorporating connectivity into their frameworks. AEDA researchers have recently contributed to this process by modifying Marxan so that the asymmetric properties of connectivity can be represented.

When it comes to the asymmetry of water flow, a river is an obvious example because water flows downstream, not upstream, and considering this basic property is important for the propagation of threats (for example figure 2).

Previous methods of assigning connectivity values between planning units led to results that were unsatisfactory. For example, previous Marxan solutions could represent river conservation features in the upper or the lower catchment equally, without considering the main direction of flow. Also, these previous solutions also tended to select a whole

Connecting all the dots Incorporating connectivity into conservation planning

catchment (or catchments) to represent connectivity. This is not a workable solution, and could undermine the confidence of stakeholders about the usefulness of decision support tools. If the decision support tool can only incorporate connectivity by selecting the whole catchment then it’s of limited appeal.

Rivers are intuitive because they are directional. It is much harder to envisage population connectivity between marine habitats. After all it is invisible, and while we can measure river flow rates, we can only model the connectivity strength between reefs (which can be thought of as the ‘flow rates’ of larvae). To visualise/measure the connectedness of a reef, the graph-theoretic measure ‘centrality’ was applied to the modelled connectivity matrices. The more larvae a reef is receiving and sending out, the more a reef is embedded in a chain of connected reefs, the higher is its centrality.

So what does this mean for the real world? The asymmetric connectivity model in Marxan was implemented on the Central Section of the Great Barrier Reef for one species of coral trout (Plectropomus leopardus). The underlying ocean circulation model was created by the former Environmental Modelling section at James Cook University which provided 30 years of proportional connectivity estimates between 321 reefs. This model essentially gives us a percentage of larvae arriving from reef a to reef b. These estimates were used in a meta-population model for the coral trout, which incorporated their life history, age classes, growth rates and reef population size at each reef.

The model was run and averaged over 500 years, with the 30 years of connectivity data being picked at random in the model. The point of all this was that the resulting connectivity strength was used as the input connectivity matrices for Marxan. This connectivity was used in addition to the normal conservation features, such as habitat type and depth classes, for which targets were set, and the connectivity strength was an additional factor to consider. In Marxan, the user can assign the weight of connectivity (how important is it to include highly connected sites?) with the connectivity strength modifier parameter. As the connectivity-strength modifier increases, the weight given to connectivity in the analysis increases too. When it is zero, Marxan analyses the other conservation features according to their targets, and the solution does not represent highly connected reefs well. When the connectivity-strength modifier is high nearly all the reefs

What is there to life without the beasts? And what is man without the beasts? If the beasts were gone, man would die from a great loneliness of

spirit. All things are connected. Chief Seattle 1854

13

2 1

3

2

1

3

2

a) b)

c)Figure 1: Modelling connectivity a) adjacent planning units connected through their boundaries where ecological connectivity is implied through shared boundaries, b) symmetric connectivity between non-adjacent planning units, c) asymmetric connectivity across non-adjacent planning units.

Decision Point #44 - 9

a) c)b)

Figure 2: Invertebrate upstream protected areas in the Snowy River that accord different levels of protection to connectivity. a) represents high levels of connectivity (but requires all of the catchment to be protected. c) represents low protection for connectivity whereas b) lies somewhere in between. Such modelling demonstrates that connectivity can be part of a prioritisation framework.

are chosen (akin to the river example)

The example d) in figure 3 shows that including connectivity comes at a cost. The more weight is given to connectivity, the larger a marine reserve network is chosen. Of course, this makes sense. If connectivity is to be incorporated in your conservation plan then it will inevitably require much more of the network to be included. The question is: how much connectivity do you want to include and what’s the trade off you’re prepared to accept? You can’t afford to put everything into a reserve. How much can you afford, and how much connectivity does this incorporate? How much connectivity do you need? How does uncertainty around your connectivity modelling effect the solutions (because uncertainty varies considerably depending on the model you use). It costs a lot to work out connectivity strength even for a single species. Working with multiple species will be even more challenging.

The quest to incorporate connectivity into our systematic conservation planning is only just beginning, and this is an area full of interesting research questions. It’s a challenging area, however, if we acknowledge that connectivity is a key aspect of the functioning of the systems and species we are trying to conserve, then it’s a challenge we should all be eager to take on.

More info: m.beger@uq.edu.au

Reference

Beger M, S Linke, M Watts, E Game, E Treml, I Ball, & HP Possingham (2010). Incorporating asymmetric connectivity into spatial decision making for conservation. Conservation Letters, doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.00123.x

Figure 3: a) the connectedness of reefs as measured by their graph-theoretic centrality, with redder reefs more connected; b) selection frequency of reefs without considering connectivity, and achieving a 20% target for features such as habitat type and bathymetric classes (warmer colours = more often selected); c) selection frequency of reefs with moderate weight on incorporating connectivity; d) selection frequency of reefs with extremely high weight on connectivity, demonstrating the trade-off between connectivity and reserve network cost.

A current meter deployed at 20m deep in the North Pass of Rongelap Atoll. Currents are the oceanographic driver of connectivity.

b)

c)

a)

d)

“Incorporating connectivity into

planning a systematic manner is far from a

trivial task.”

Decision Point #44 - 10

What’s the best way to protect the natural values of coral reefs? One common approach is to slap it in a marine protected area (MPA), and there

are some fairly sophisticated approaches for identifying how MPAs or might be configured to maximise their value (depending on how you define value). But what if the threat to the reef originates above the water line (ie, is land-based)? Pollution from pesticides used on land, for example, is a land-based threat known to be hurting many coral reefs. Although MPAs cannot reduce land-based threats to coral reefs, there are several conservation actions that can (eg, improved agricultural practices, terrestrial protected areas). Effective conservation prioritisation should provide guidance on how to distribute funds between land- and sea-based conservation actions to protect coral reefs but till recently such a scheme hasn’t been available. AEDA has now filled this gap, and has tested the approach it has developed in how it would help deal with conservation investments in the Coral Triangle.

“Local-scale threats to coral reefs originate from both land- and sea-based human activities,” says Carissa Klein, the lead author on the PLoS paper that recently described the planning approach. “Over-fishing, for example, is a sea-based problem whereas nutrient runoff from farming is a land-based threat. Where both land and sea-based threats exist, conservation strategies should consider each of them.”

For this prioritisation analysis the researchers used information on threats to marine ecosystems, effectiveness of management actions at abating those threats, and the management and opportunity costs of applying those actions.

“We considered eight threats to coral reefs, each associated either with agricultural run-

Investing in coral conservation Do you stay underwater or include actions on land?

off or fishing, and two actions that reduce their impact on coral reefs: effective management of coastal watersheds (land-based action) and coral reefs (sea-based action),” says Klein. “Other threats (eg, sedimentation from deforestation or aquaculture) and conservation actions (eg, improved agriculture practices or fisheries management) could be incorporated into this approach if data was available on their impacts and costs.

“The management cost is the actual cost of implementing that action (eg, managing a protected area). The opportunity cost is the impact to stakeholders in carrying out an action (eg, fishers or farmers losing income as a result of a protected area).

“Having identified threats, actions and costs, we then calculated the rate of return on investment in each action in each of in the sixteen ecoregions in the Coral Triangle, where the rate is calculated as the reduction of threats (return) per dollar spent on their reduction (investment). This is the same approach we use to make any investment decision, whether it be investing in a home or buying stocks”

This approach has been applied to the conservation of terrestrial biodiversity, but it has yet to be applied to marine conservation to balance the trade-offs between marine and terrestrial conservation actions. Although there are differences between these applications, both of them require an explicit statement of the overall objective. The objective in previous terrestrial studies has been species focused (eg, maximise the number of species conserved). Here, the objective is to maximise threat reduction to coral reefs across the Coral Triangle’s ecoregions through investment in land- and sea-based conservation actions. Although the framework could be applied to address a range of different marine conservation objectives.

Figure 1. Resource allocation method for prioritising among land and sea-based conservation actions and locations.

Locals fishing for tuna in waters off PNG. For decision frameworks to make real contributions to conservation in the Coral Triangle they need to take account of people’s needs as well as protect natural values. (Image by Carissa Klein)

“A simple, transparent, and economically grounded

approach like ours is essential to making any conservation

decisions in a large and diverse region like the Coral Triangle.”

Decision Point #44 - 11

The Coral TriangleThe Coral Triangle region is located along the equator at the confluence of the Western Pacific and Indian Oceans. Using coral and reef fish diversity as the two major criteria, the boundaries of this region are defined as covering all or part of the exclusive economic zones of six countries: Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, the Solomon Islands and Timor-Leste. The triangle is a global epicentre of marine biodiversity – with 76% of all known coral species, 37% of all known coral reef fish species, 53% of the world’s coral reefs, the greatest extent of mangrove forests in the world, and spawning and juvenile growth areas for the world’s largest tuna fishery. The multi-lateral Coral Triangle Initiative on Coral Reefs, Fisheries and Food Security was formalised in May 2009.

We ranked each ecoaction (eg, effective management of coral reefs in the Bird’s Head ecoregion) in terms of how cost-effective it is at mitigating threats to coral reefs for two scenarios; the first simply reflecting the management cost and the second adding in the opportunity cost of that management.

“We presented our ranking results at two scales: across the entire Coral Triangle and within each ecoregion [see Figure 2],” says Klein. “At the Coral Triangle scale, we found that terrestrial conservation in one ecoregion is sometimes a higher priority than marine conservation in another ecoregion, especially when management costs alone were considered. For example, the highest ranking terrestrial action was in the North Arafura ecoregion. It has a larger return on investment than marine conservation in half of the other ecoregions.

“However, within any particular ecoregion, marine conservation is almost always a higher priority than terrestrial conservation. The one exception is in the North Philippines when only management costs are considered, where the marine management costs are substantially larger than on the land.

“We then demonstrated how these rankings can be used to allocate a limited budget for conservation. Finally, we compared what you could achieve with our prioritisation approach as opposed to prioritisations based on individual criteria such as minimising cost or maximising species richness in specific areas.”

So how did this prioritisation approach compare to these other approaches?

“We found our prioritisation approach was more effective in the way it allocated the proposed budget of US $400 million than priorities based on individual criteria,” says

Klein. “For example, we found that prioritisation on cumulative threats alone would only provide enough funding for effective management of 6% of one ecoregion, whereas our approach would ensure that 30% of seven ecoregions were managed.

“A simple, transparent, and economically grounded approach like ours is essential to making any conservation decisions in a large and diverse region like the Coral Triangle. That’s especially the case where the budget is primarily financed from international aid.

“Effective conservation of marine resources must consider land- and sea-based human activities and their management costs. Indeed, the lack of a defensible resource allocation plan could lead to costly and contentious conservation strategies that do not protect biodiversity, and may well impede additional global funding to one of the world’s most biodiverse and threatened regions.”

More info: c.klein@uq.edu.au

Reference

Klein CJ, NC Ban, BS Halpern, M Beger, ET Game, HS Grantham, A Green, TJ Klein, S Kininmonth, E Treml, K Wilson, HP Possingham (2010). Prioritizing Land and Sea Conservation Investments to Protect Coral Reefs. PLoS ONE 5(8): e12431. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0012431

Two harlequin sweetlip cruising the reefs around Sabah, Malaysia, part of the Coral Triangle. (Image by Clarissa Klein)

Figure 2: Ecoaction rankings indicate their relative priority for coral reef conservation investment across the Coral Triangle (taller bar, higher rank). Letters labeling ecoregions follow the ranking order for marine conservation (i.e. Ecoregion A ranks highest for marine conservation).

Developing the scienceAlthough the approach discussed here to marine conservation is useful for supporting broad-scale resource allocation decisions, the results are not necessarily applicable to all places within an ecoregion as the conservation context may vary between communities. However, the method can also be applied at a local-scale (eg, provincial or catchment level) using more conservation actions (eg, run-off management, improved agricultural practices, fishing gear-based management). Carissa Klein and Hugh Possingham are actively pursuing these developments. They are leading a NCEAS (National Centre for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis) working group, which consists of about 40 researchers, managers, and decision makers. The group is focusing on five projects (listed on page 12). In addition, Carissa has been awarded a 3-year fellowship from the University of Queensland to continue this work.

Decision Point #44 - 12

The Applied Environmental Decision Analysis research hub (AEDA) is funded by the Commonwealth Environment Research Facility (CERF) program (run by the Australian Government’s Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage & the Arts).

AEDA’s members are primarily based at the University of Queensland, the Australian National University, the University of Melbourne and RMIT.

THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

Decision Point is the monthly magazine of the Applied Environmental Decision Analysis (AEDA) research hub (see below). It’s available free from our website. You can also subscribe to an email alerting you to new issues as they are released at http://www.aeda.edu.au/news

Decision Point is written and produced by David Salt. If you have news or views relating to AEDA or of interest to AEDA members, please send them to David at David.Salt@anu.edu.au

When we print out Decision Point we use recycled paper. We hope you will too.

Decision Point

aeda

The slime decidesWho’d have thought? Brainless slime moulds are irrational! When researchers at the University of Sydney gave the slime mould Physarum polycephalum a choice between 5% oatmeal in the light (keeping in mind they’re photophobic) and a 3% oatmeal in the dark, the slime fed on each option equally (food quality and environmental threat balanced out). Not bad for a lump of slime but explainable. But when a third, inferior option was offered, a 1% oatmeal in the dark, the slime changed behaviour and now it went for the 3 per cent outmeal – the middle option. The researchers think this is demonstrating comparative decision making in which the slime makes a rough comparison across the range rather than working out the absolute value of things. In some ways it’s irrational but it helps to make decisions faster (and speed is often more important for a good decision).

Reference

Latty T and M Beekman (2010). Irrational decision-making in an amoeboid organism: transitivity and context-dependent preferences. Proc. R. Soc. B. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.1045

the funny end bitHigh five for the CTI

Second meeting of the NCEAS working groupBy Carissa Klein (University of Queensland, AEDA)

The NCEAS (National Centre for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis) Working group on Conservation Decision Making was set up to assist conservation decision making in the Coral Triangle Initiative (see Decision Point #37, p8 for background). At its second meeting in September, 2010 it formulated five projects.

1. Prioritising land- and sea conservation investments to protect marine ecosystems: Local-scale threats to marine ecosystems originate from both land-and sea-based human activities. We are developing a prioritisation approach that uses socioeconomic, ecological, and governance information to inform decisions about where and in what to invest to protect marine ecosystems. (See the story on pages 10 & 11)

2. Integrating fisheries and biodiversity management into marine spatial planning: We are developing a decision support tool to (1) engage regional and national government planners and fisheries and conservation managers and (2) communicate the likely influence of different spatial management scenarios (eg, zoning) on fisheries, biodiversity and people. The tool will estimate how spatial management scenarios impact fish population biology and fisher behavior (eg, the benefit to local fisheries if distant semi-industrial fleets are effectively banned from certain areas).

3. Seascape zoning for conservation and multiple resource uses: Seascape zoning can help protect biodiversity, manage fisheries, and plan for climate change. Using Marxan with Zones, we are providing support for two zoning processes: (1) zoning for a potential future World Heritage site in Vatu-i-Ra, Fiji; (2) zoning for conservation and multiple human activities in Malaysia.

4. Broad areas of interest for marine conservation: There are many effective marine conservation projects in the Coral Triangle. Using bio-physical, ecological, and socioeconomic criteria, we will conduct a gap analysis and identify broad priority areas in need of further investment. This analysis will help determine how and where the CTI could enhance current conservation efforts and highlight trans-boundary priorities.

5. Decision support for community driven marine protected area design: The ability of systematic conservation planning approaches to rapidly identify complementary and alternative conservation priorities, and to integrate community knowledge and values, provides a strong platform to help meet the goals of all stakeholders. We developed a decision support tool to help communities design protected area networks using the principles of systematic conservation planning. It has been tested in the Choiseul Province, Solomon Islands.

More info: Carissa Klein, c.klein@uq.edu.au

Participants at the second NCEAS working group meeting, 6-10 September 2010.