Incorporating ontogenetic dispersal, ecological processes and conservation zoning into reserve design
Introduction
Conservation planning often aims to ensure the persistence of natural features, typically by protecting a representative selection of each (Halpern and Warner, 2003, Margules and Pressey, 2000a). One of the most important tools available to achieve these goals is the establishment of networks of reserves (Leslie et al., 2003). The identification of reserve networks, or even the location of individual reserves, is a spatially-complex process requiring consideration of many biophysical and socioeconomic factors such as geographic patterns in ‘biodiversity’ and the costs of setting areas aside. Ideally, the placement of reserves would be informed by spatially-realistic models of multiple species, capable of incorporating spatially-dependent processes and the response of populations to reserves, but this is rarely practical. To simplify this task, a number of reserve (or site) selection algorithms have been developed that use computational methods to build potential networks from individual planning units (Cook and Auster, 2005, Early and Thomas, 2007, McDonnell et al., 2002, Noss et al., 2002, Possingham et al., 2000, Stewart et al., 2003). These algorithms provide an explicit framework for integrating conservation targets and goals and have the desirable attribute of searching for conservation scenarios that are near-optimal in terms of minimising the cost of conservation management while meeting pre-specified biodiversity objectives.
Reserve-selection algorithms target surrogates of biodiversity such as habitats, but in the absence of information stating otherwise usually assume that these do not vary in space. Yet, in an increasing number of ecosystems, ecological data on spatially-dependent processes and intra-habitat patterns of community structure are becoming available (Condit et al., 2002, Harborne et al., 2006b, Price, 2002, Ries et al., 2004). Incorporating such spatially-dependent information into the reserve-selection algorithms is therefore an important step in improving the ability of such algorithms to represent ecologically-meaningful patterns of diversity, community structure, and the distribution of particularly-important flora and fauna. This paper describes the incorporation of two spatially-dependent processes into the algorithm Marxan (Ball and Possingham, 2000), which is routinely used for marine reserve design. We derive these approaches from recent ecological studies of Caribbean coral reef ecosystems and while the resulting algorithms will be directly transferable throughout most of the region, the approach taken here can be used in any ecosystem for which comparable data are available. First, we describe in detail the need to adopt a landscape-scale measure of management goals that combines the contributions of both reserve and non-reserve sites. This approach provides the flexibility to consider the impacts of multi-use zoning and implicitly recognises that populations in reserves are not independent from those outside reserves. Second, we develop the notion of spatial dependencies within the landscape to incorporate spatial heterogeneity in the value of individual conservation features such as habitats. We use the example of ontogenetic migrations of fish from mangroves to coral reefs because it nicely demonstrates how spatial ecological processes generate predictable heterogeneity in habitat value that should be considered in the reserve design process. Lastly, we extend our case study to show how habitat value can be disaggregated into ecosystem processes and services. This approach allows levels of key ecosystem processes to be maximised whilst also minimising losses to certain ecosystem services. As such, we believe the approach is a step towards building ecosystem resilience into reserve-selection algorithms.
Many approaches to reserve design make the implicit assumption that the ‘earth is scorched’ beyond reserve boundaries (i.e., that non-reserve areas do not contribute to biodiversity goals). This might be an appropriate strategy when non-reserve areas are likely to become grossly disturbed or if considering heavily-exploited species. However, this assumption has questionable relevance to situations where habitat might deteriorate in quality, but where species are unlikely to become functionally extinct (Mumby, 1999). Indeed, not only do non-reserve areas contribute to the biodiversity of a landscape – albeit at perhaps lower levels than potential reserves – but the processes of larval dispersal and adult migration ensure that the maintenance of diversity within reserves is at least partly influenced by the status of populations beyond reserve borders (Sale et al., 2005). Moreover, responses to reserve establishment are not necessarily restricted to the reserves themselves. Marine reserves can yield a wide range of benefits outside reserves, including spillover effects (Roberts et al., 2001), increase of aesthetic and recreational values (Bhat, 2003, Bohnsack, 1993) and reduction of the probability of extinction (Grafton et al., 2005). Therefore, reserve design should consider the reserve and non-reserve contributions to management goals explicitly.
Reserve-design algorithms will need a new structure and parameterisation to integrate the contributions of both reserve and non-reserve areas to landscape-scale conservation. Each conservation zone needs to be identified and its associated contribution to management goals estimated. The simplest scenario segregates reserves from non-reserve areas but more complex zonations could be considered, such as a hierarchy of levels of resource exploitation. Estimating the contribution of reserves and non-reserves to conservation also requires a temporal scale. For example, non-reserve levels of a species might decline rapidly after harvesting begins whereas populations in reserves could take many years to recover (McClanahan and Graham, 2005). Importantly, the response of management goals to each level of protection (hereafter referred to as different protection zones) is likely to vary among biodiversity surrogates such as habitat types. Lastly, the spatial heterogeneity generated by differential effects of protection zones and habitat responses requires a convenient framework for integration. Altering the calculation of reserve and non-reserve costs provides such a framework.
Reserve cost is typically measured as a function of area during the reserve-selection process (see McDonnell et al., 2002), under the assumption that larger reserve areas will result in greater economic losses (Balmford et al., 2004). However, measuring the cost of a reserve network by its area alone fails to account for differences in per unit area costs among planning units (e.g., Naidoo et al., 2006). Local differences in productivity, species composition and environmental conditions, all of which will have a direct effect upon the socioeconomic cost or value of a planning unit are thus ignored in this situation. As an alternative, the cost of a reserve network can be expressed as the required financial outlay (Balmford et al., 2004), or as the opportunity cost to alternative uses, such as the foregone benefits from fishing (Richardson et al., 2006, Stewart et al., 2003, Stewart and Possingham, 2005). Here, our first modification of reserve-selection algorithms is to extend the calculation of cost to consider the relative cost of reserve and non-reserve planning units and in so doing assess the ecological and economic potential of management goals in the entire landscape. The approach presented here uses fish biomass as a proxy for economic and ecological value. Whilst this is sensitive to habitat type it should be considered only a step towards the uptake of ecosystem-based management into reserve design. We believe that a combination of optimisation tools and dynamical models of populations (e.g., Kaplan et al., 2006, Walters et al., 2007) and fishing effort will be required to accurately predict the response of populations to different configurations of reserves and the resulting changes in economical costs and ecological benefits. These models would need to be dynamic, structured (by age, size or life stage) and spatially realistic. The development of such models, their parameterisation and incorporation within the reserve selection framework is both theoretically and computationally complex. Despite these complexities, however, we believe this approach will be the way forward in ecosystem-based management.
One advantage of relaxing the scorched earth perspective and incorporating the contribution of non-reserve areas to conservation targets is that the framework is flexible enough to incorporate the outcomes of spatial processes like spillover of organisms beyond reserve boundaries. This idea can be extended to consider the outcomes of other spatial ecological processes such as the migration of organisms among habitat patches or, in essence, any spatial demographic process of predictable impact on conservation features. We illustrate this principle using the outcome of ontogenetic migrations of fishes among mangroves, seagrass beds and coral reefs.
Many Caribbean coral reef fish utilise mangrove forests as nurseries during their juvenile phase, before migrating to their adult reef habitat (Nagelkerken et al., 2000). The presence of mangroves has been shown to enhance the biomass of both commercially and ecologically-important fish, including parrotfish, on neighbouring coral reefs (Mumby et al., 2004). Insights from a study in Belize were used to generate an algorithm for the identification of connected mangroves and coral reefs (Mumby, 2006). Here, we extend this approach so that the consequences of a habitat patch’s connectivity to mangroves are incorporated explicitly into the quantification of reserve costs. Although home range estimates and spillover calculations (Botsford et al., 2009, Kramer and Chapman, 1999) suggest that spillover of fish biomass from reserve to non-reserve areas is likely to occur and may even be induced by the spatial density gradient caused by variable levels of protection (Kellner et al., 2008), here we assume zero spillover since there is no evidence for it being substantial in our study area. Similarly, although larval export from reserves is likely to occur, there is no empirical evidence that this mechanism is likely to produce a significant enhancement to populations outside reserves. Due to a lack of information on these effects and the challenges of incorporating them into reserve-selection algorithms we have therefore chosen to ignore larval export in this analysis. While computationally difficult, spatially explicit and dynamic models with dispersal have been constructed for fully optimising reserve site selection (Costello and Polasky, 2008) and we believe that future reserve-selection algorithms should be informed by such models if sufficient data are available to support them.
Combining the steps taken above, we can quantify the value of specific conservation features (e.g., habitat patches on a map) and incorporate the anticipated effects of different protection zones and the consequences of ontogenetic migrations among ecosystems. However, we can take one further step and disaggregate the type of value assigned to individual conservation features or biodiversity surrogates.
Habitats provide many important ecosystem services such as coastal defence and fisheries. In addition, they may also possess a “functional value”, indicating their importance to physical and ecological processes (Harborne et al., 2006a). These ecosystem processes such as herbivory, planktivory and bioerosion underpin the dynamics of individual species, productivity of ecosystems, and their vulnerability to and recovery from disturbance. The case study developed here enables us to quantify spatial heterogeneity in two distinct groups of reef fishes: herbivores and commercially-important species.
Many exercises in systematic conservation planning select levels of representation on the basis of the observed or predicted occurrence of biodiversity surrogates. Target levels of representation are typically equal, or adjusted according to factors such as natural rarity and vulnerability to threats (Margules and Pressey, 2000a). Here we explicitly incorporate ecosystem-based management objectives through the development of target levels of representation for habitats that reflect the relative importance of different habitats for particular ecosystem processes and services (rather than targeting individual ecosystem services directly as in Chan et al. (2006)). For example, planners may wish to maximise particular ecosystem processes in reserves, particularly if they contribute positively to conservation goals. In contrast, it may be desirable to minimise the representation of habitats that are important for ecosystem services, such as fisheries, in order to minimise economic impacts.
In the present study we focus on reserve design for Caribbean coral reefs, largely because much is known about spatially-explicit aspects of their ecology and the processes driving the ecosystem. The health of coral reefs is dependent upon the outcomes of complex relationships between corals, macroalgae and grazing fish. Grazers such as parrotfish influence the cover of macroalgae on reefs (Kramer, 2003, Williams and Polunin, 2001). Since macroalgae compete for space with corals (McCook et al., 2001), grazers can reduce the amount of competition that corals experience with algae. It has been shown that if the level of grazing is low then coral reefs can switch from a coral-dominated to an algal-dominated state, from which it may be difficult or impossible to recover (Mumby et al., 2007). We therefore develop algorithms that allow the level of fish grazing to be maximised across the seascape.
In summary, we extend existing reserve-selection theory to consider ecosystem processes and services at a landscape-scale to integrate the contribution of different protection zones and the existence of ontogenetic migrations among habitat patches. Whilst we apply this methodology to a case study for the Belize Barrier Reef our aim is to highlight the importance of spatial processes in general reserve design and to provide a basis from which a greater range of research questions can be addressed.
Section snippets
Reserve-selection algorithm
Following the philosophy of Marxan (e.g., Leslie et al., 2003, Noss et al., 2002, Possingham et al., 2000), the reserve-selection problem can be defined as one of minimising the cost of reserves whilst aiming to meet specified targets for conservation feature (e.g., habitat) representation (Bedward et al., 1991, Leslie et al., 2003, Pressey et al., 1993). Here we extend the methodology of Marxan to distinguish the contribution of conservation features to ecosystem processes and services and to
Results
A large number of solutions satisfied each set of conservation targets: 100% of runs for a target of reserving 30% of the landscape, and >95% of runs for lower target levels of landscape representation.
Discussion
Computational methods for marine reserve design are frequently used as decision-support tools for the identification of conservation areas. Here we modified the standard Marxan toolbox (Ball and Possingham, 2000) to investigate the impacts of incorporating heterogeneity in ecosystem state. This was achieved by allowing conservation features in non-reserve zones to contribute explicitly to conservation objectives, disaggregating habitat value into ecosystem processes and services and considering
Acknowledgements
This research was made possible by funding from U.S. EPA Science to Achieve Results (R832223), NSF Biocomplexity in the Environment Program (OCE-0119976), and the Khaled bin Sultan Living Oceans Foundation. We would like to thank Hugh Possingham for comments on the manuscript. Kenny Broad, Dan Brumbaugh, Carrie Kappel, and Jim Sanchirico provided useful discussions. Land vector data for the inset map in Fig. 1 were provided by the U.S. Geological Survey, Coastal and Marine Geology Program,
References (70)
- et al.
Scores and score classes for evaluation criteria—a comparison based on the cost of reserving all natural features
Biological Conservation
(1991) Application of non-market valuation to the Florida Keys marine reserve management
Journal of Environmental Management
(2003)- et al.
Optimal harvesting of stochastic spatial resources
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management
(2008) - et al.
Coral reef management in Belize: an approach through integrated coastal zone management
Ocean & Coastal Management
(1998) - et al.
The functional value of Caribbean coral reef, seagrass and mangrove habitats to ecosystem processes
Advances in Marine Biology
(2006) - et al.
Effects of fishing on sex-changing Caribbean parrotfishes
Biological Conservation
(2004) Connectivity of reef fish between mangroves and coral reefs: algorithms for the design of marine reserves at seascape scales
Biological Conservation
(2006)- et al.
Integrating economic costs into conservation planning
Trends in Ecology and Evolution
(2006) - et al.
Beyond opportunism—key principles for systematic reserve selection
Trends in Ecology & Evolution
(1993) - et al.
Critical science gaps impede use of no-take fishery reserves
Trends in Ecology & Evolution
(2005)
Biogeography and the selection of priority areas for conservation of South African coastal fishes
Biological Conservation
Sensitivity of conservation planning to different approaches to using predicted species distribution data
Biological Conservation
Diversity in coral reef fish communities: the effects of habitat patchiness revisited
Marine Ecology-Progress Series
Applying ecological criteria to marine reserve design: a case study from the California Channel Islands
Ecological Applications
The worldwide costs of marine protected areas
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
Marine reserves—they enhance fisheries, reduce conflicts, and protect resources
Oceanus
Length-weight relationships of selected marine reef fishes from the Southeastern United States and the Caribbean
Connectivity, sustainability, and yield: bridging the gap between conventional fisheries management and marine protected areas
Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries
Dependence of sustainability on the configuration of marine reserves and larval dispersal distance
Ecology Letters
Nocturnal foraging habitats of french and bluestriped grunts, Haemulon flavolineatum and H. Sciurus, at tobacco caye, Belize
Environmental Biology of Fishes
A comparison-shopper’s guide to connectivity metrics
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
Conservation planning for ecosystem services
Plos Biology
A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales
Educational and Psychological Measurement
Beta-diversity in tropical forest trees
Science
Use of simulated annealing for identifying essential fish habitat in a multispecies context
Conservation Biology
Multispecies conservation planning: identifying landscapes for the conservation of viable populations using local and continental species priorities
Journal of Applied Ecology
Principles and Methods in Landscape Ecology
Clustering and compactness in reserve site selection: an extension of the biodiversity management area selection model
Forest Science
Marine reserves with ecological uncertainty
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
Matching marine reserve design to reserve objectives
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences
Modeling the beta diversity of coral reefs
Ecology
Dispersal per recruit: an efficient method for assessing sustainability in marine reserve networks
Ecological Applications
Spillover from marine reserves related to mechanisms of population regulation
Theoretical Ecology
Cited by (64)
Connectivity shapes delivery of multiple ecological benefits from restoration
2023, Biological ConservationFunctional regionalization of land resources considering eco-efficiency in Nanjing Metropolitan Area, China
2023, Ecological IndicatorsA study on the ecological zoning of the Nantong coastal zone based on the Marxan model
2022, Ocean and Coastal ManagementSpatial zoning to conserve fish species with complex life cycles in estuaries
2022, Ocean and Coastal ManagementCitation Excerpt :Furthermore, our approach could also be used in combination with other management strategies (such as fishing closures) in a mixed approach to conserve estuarine resources. To our knowledge, despite a growing number of studies attempting to evaluate spatial priorities for fish habitat conservation (Cook and Auster, 2005; Levin and Stunz, 2005; Edwards et al., 2010; Weeks, 2017; Weeks et al., 2017), this study is the first to develop an integrative approach combining spatial variation of different life stages of whitemouth croaker, habitat types and zoning scenarios to find the most efficient strategy to manage this species in the Patos Lagoon estuary. Marine spatial planning aiming to protect essential fishing habitats in estuaries must consider different life cycles (Costa et al., 2015b, 2018; Félix-Hackradt et al., 2018) and should explicitly account for temporal scales and larval dispersal (which can potentially ensure a higher number of recruits at fishing grounds; Krueck et al., 2017), and therefore, be flexible in space and time (Grantham et al., 2008; Costa et al., 2018; Welch et al., 2020).
Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners
2021, Ecosystem Services