Inventories, Focal Species, & Crayons: Evaluating Conservation Planning Tools

George R. HessMatthew J. RubinoFrank H. KochKatherine A. EschelbachC. Ashton DrewJorie M. Favreau

North Carolina State UniversityRaleigh, North Carolina 27695-8002 USA

The Challenge

People transform landscapes faster than research data can be collected

Planners need to act with incomplete data

Can we create shortcuts that correctly identify land for protection?

Some Possible Approaches

Inventory data$$$$$$

Some Possible Approaches

Inventory data$$$$$$

Surrogate species$$$$

Some Possible Approaches

Inventory data$$$$$$

Surrogate species$$$$

Crayons, maps, & conservation principles

$$

Some Possible Approaches

Inventory data$$$$$$

Surrogate species$$$$

Crayons, maps, & conservation principles

$$

Random selection$

Our Research Question

Can simple approaches identify land for protection as effectivelyas complex approaches?

Our Research Question

Can simple approaches identify land for protection as effectivelyas complex approaches?

Compared plans in the Triangle Region of North Carolina, USA

Study Area

Triangle Region — North Carolina — USA

Approach

InventoryData

HabitatMapping

Conservation Principles

RandomSelection

Inventory-Based Plan

Focal Species Plan

SimplePlans

NullModel

Approach

InventoryData

HabitatMapping

Conservation Principles

RandomSelection

Inventory-Based Plan

Focal Species Plan

SimplePlans

NullModel

Test Against Inventory Data

Effectiveness of each Plan

Effectiveness

Proportion of known species & communities of conservation concern protected by plan

Effectiveness

Natural Heritage Inventory

Point location of species & communities of conservation concern

Cataloged through the years from a variety of sources

Data used for effectiveness test AND creating inventory-based plan

Inventory-based Plan

Based on Natural Heritage Inventory

Considered species habitat needs and community extent

Created a map of core conservation lands

$$$$$$

Inventory-based Plan$$$$$$

Focal Species Plan

Created by me & graduate students

Focal species selected to represent landscapes & conservation threats

Habitat modeled & mapped for each species

Combined maps to create plan

$$$$

Focal Species Plan

animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu

www.owlpages.com

Extensive undisturbed landsBobcatEastern box turtle

Riparian & bottomlandBarred owl

UplandOvenbirdBroad-winged hawk

MaturePileated woodpecker

wildwnc.org

www.birdperch.com

$$$$

Focal Species Plan$$$$

Simple Plans

Used simple conservation principles to identify forest land for protection

$$

Simple Plans

Used simple conservation principles to identify forest land for protection

Created two of eachSame area as inventory planSame area as focal species plan

$$

Simple Plans

Used simple conservation principles to identify forest land for protection

Created two of eachSame area as inventory planSame area as focal species plan

Avoids direct comparison of plans with grossly unequal areas

$$

Simple Plans

Used simple conservation principles to identify forest land for protection

Largest patches in region

$$

Simple Plans$$

Simple Plans

Used simple conservation principles to identify forest land for protection

Largest patches in regionLargest patches in each county, then nearest

$$

Simple Plans$$

Simple Plans

Used simple conservation principles to identify forest land for protection

Largest patches in regionLargest patches in each county, then nearestDiverse forest typesClose to already protected areasClose to wetlands & riparian areas

$$

Random Selection

All forest patches patches had same selection probability

Repeated 50 times Average95% confidence interval

$

Recap – Approach

InventoryData

HabitatMapping

Conservation Principles

RandomSelection

Recap – Approach

InventoryData

HabitatMapping

Conservation Principles

RandomSelection

Inventory-Based Plan

Focal Species Plan

SimplePlans

NullModel

Recap – Approach

InventoryData

HabitatMapping

Conservation Principles

RandomSelection

Inventory-Based Plan

Focal Species Plan

SimplePlans

NullModel

Test Against Inventory Data

Recap – Effectiveness

Inventory Beats Focal Species

Plan Effectiveness Area

Inventory 94% 335 km2

(5% of forest)

Focal Species 87%2,446 km2

(37% of forest)

Inventory plan more effective & used less land … but more costly

Inventory Beats Simple

Plan Effectiveness

Inventory 94%

Random 33±1.8%

Largest Patches 35%

Large / Near 55%

Diverse Forests 33%

Close to protected 78%

Close to riparian (100m buffer) 29%

Close to riparian (whole patch) 35%

Focal Species Ties Simple

Plan Effectiveness

Focal Species 87%

Random 87±1.2%

Largest Patches 84%

Large / Near 88%

Diverse Forests 94%

Close to protected 94%

Close to riparian (100m buffer) 90%

Close to riparian (whole patch) 83%

Our Research Question

Can simple approaches identify land for protection as effectivelyas complex approaches?

It Depends …

Inventory data needed, if only small amounts of land (≈5%) protected

It Depends …

Inventory data needed, if only small amounts of land (≈5%) protected

Simple or random might work, if large amounts of land (≈35%) protected

It Depends …

Inventory data needed, if only small amounts of land (≈5%) protected

Simple or random might work, if large amounts of land (≈35%) protected

Generalization awaits further testing in other systems, BUT …

There Seems to be a Pattern

Most “effective” surrogate plans protected more than 35% of land

Looked at surrogate approach “success stories” in literature

Only considered cases in which plan tested against inventory data

Interesting New Question

Is there a threshold of land available for protectionabove which simple approaches are as effective as complex ones?

Tempting Conclusions

Inventory-based plans are best

Simple plans are the way to go, if you’re protecting lots of land

Focal species (and other surrogate) approaches have little value

Tempting, but …

We cannot support these conclusions

Tempting, but …

We cannot support these conclusions

Limited measure of effectiveness

Tempting, but …

We cannot support these conclusions

Limited measure of effectiveness

Population viability not considered

Tempting, but …

We cannot support these conclusions

Limited measure of effectiveness

Population viability not considered

Focal species plan considered reproduction

Tempting, but …

We cannot support these conclusions

Limited measure of effectiveness

Population viability not considered

Focal species plan considered reproduction

Reason to doubt random selection as effective as simple plans

Conclusions (the real ones)

Inventory data appear necessary when little land can be protected

Unclear what to do if large amounts of land can be protected

Simple plans look good, but … … what about population viability?

Might be a protection area-threshold above which simple plans work well

Going Forward

How universal are our results?

Is there a protection-area threshold above which simple plans work?

Further tests of effectivenessVariety of ecosystems & scales

Going Forward

How universal are our results?

Is there a protection-area threshold above which simple plans work?

Further tests of effectivenessVariety of ecosystems & scales

Incorporate population viability

Going Forward

How universal are our results?

Is there a protection-area threshold above which simple plans work?

Further tests of effectivenessVariety of ecosystems & scales

Incorporate population viability

Examine alternativesBiophysical / habitat surrogates

The Payoff

We might determine conditions under which inventory-, surrogate, or simple approaches can be used.

Acknowledgements

Linda Pearsall, Natural Heritage data

For stimulating discussionBill FaganPeter LandresRoger PowellTaylor Ricketts

For encouragement & supportNCSU Forestry Department

Acknowledgements

For corresponding about surrogate species approaches

Luciano BaniJames DietzErica FleischmanDavid FreudenbergerNigel Leader-WilliamsMelodie McGeochBrian Miller

Contact Information

George HessForestry DepartmentNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleigh NC 27695-8002 USA

george_hess@ncsu.eduwww4.ncsu.edu/~grhess/research/surrogates

USA 919.515.7437