Abstract
In nature reserves and habitat conservation areas, monitoring is required to determine if reserves are meeting their goals for preserving species, ecological communities, and ecosystems. Increasingly, reserves are established to protect multiple species and communities, each with their own conservation goals and objectives. As resources are always inadequate to monitor all components, criteria must be applied to prioritize both species and communities for monitoring and management. While methods for prioritizing species based on endangerment or risk have been established, approaches to prioritizing ecological communities for monitoring are not well developed, despite a long-standing emphasis on communities as target elements in reserve design. We established guidelines based on four criteria derived from basic principles of conservation and landscape ecology—extent, representativeness, fragmentation, and endangerment—to prioritize communities in the San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSCP). The MSCP was one of the first multiple-species habitat conservation areas established in California, USA, and it has a complex spatial configuration because of the patterns of surrounding land use, which are largely urbanized. In this case study, high priority communities for monitoring include coastal sage scrub (high endangerment, underrepresented within the reserve relative to the region, and moderately fragmented), freshwater wetlands, and coastal habitats (both have high fragmentation, moderate endangerment and representativeness, and low areal extent). This framework may be useful to other conservation planners and land managers for prioritizing the most significant and at-risk communities for monitoring.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Andelman SJ, Groves C, Regan HM (2004) A review of protocols for selecting species at risk in the context of U.S. Forest Service viability assessments. Acta Oecologica 26:75–83
Anselin A, Meire PM, Anselin L (1989) Multicriteria techniques in ecological evaluation: an example using the analytical hierarchy process. Biological Conservation 49:215–229
Atkinson AJ, Trenham PC, Fisher RN, Hathaway SA, Johnson BS, Torres SG, Moore YC (2004) Designing adaptive monitoring programs in an adaptive management context for regional multiple species conservation plans. Western Ecological Research Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Sacramento, CA
Austin MP, Margules CR (1984) The concept of representativeness in conservation evaluation with particular relevance to Australia. Technical Memorandum 84/11. CSIRO Division of Water and Land Resources, Canberra
Barrows CW, Swartz MB, Hodges WL, Allen MF, Rotenberry JT, Li B-L, Scott TA, Chen X (2005) A framework for monitoring multiple-species conservation plans. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:1333–1345
Brooks TM, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, da Fonseca GAB, Rylands AB, Konstant WR, Flick P, Pilgrim J, Oldfield S, Magin G, Hilton-Taylor C (2002) Habitat loss and extinction in the hotspots of biodiversity. Conservation Biology 16:909–923
California Department of Fish and Game (2003) California Fish and Game Code: section 2800–2835, Natural Community Conservation Planning Act. Available at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/nccp/displaycode.html. Accessed February 7, 2007
Chattin L, Rubin L, Mangey D (2006) A winning combination: local land-use planning and fine-scale vegetation maps. Fremontia 34:9–13
Davis FW, Stine PA, Stoms DM, Borchert MI, Hollander A (1995) Gap analysis of the actual vegetation of California: 1. The southwestern region. Madroño 42:40–78
Fahrig L (2002) Effect of habitat fragmentation on the extinction threshold: A synthesis. Ecological Applications 12:346–353
Figueira J, Greco S, Ehrgott M (eds) (2005) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science Vol. 78. Springer, Berlin
Franklin JF (1993) Preserving biodiversity: species, ecosystems, or landscapes? Ecological Applications 3:202–205
Franklin J, Simons DK, Beardsley D, Rogan JM, Gordon H (2001) Evaluating errors in a digital vegetation map with forest inventory data and accuracy assessment using fuzzy sets. Transactions in Geographic Information Systems 5:285–304
Goodchild MF (1994) Integrating GIS and remote sensing for vegetation analysis and modeling: methodological issues. Journal of Vegetation Science 5:615–626
Goodchild MF, Gopal S (eds) (1989) The accuracy of spatial databases. Taylor & Francis, London
Greer K (2004) Habitat conservation planning in San Diego County: lessons learned after five years of implementation. Environmental Practice 6:230–239
Grossman DH, Faber-Langendeon D, Weakley AS, Anderson M, Bourgeron P, Crawford R, Goodin K, Landaal S, Metzler K, Patterson K, Pyne M, Reid M, Sneddon L (1998) International classification of ecological communities: terrestrial vegetation of the United States, vol 1. The National Vegetation Classification System: development, status and applications. The Nature Conservancy, Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.naturserve.org/library/vol1.pdf. Accessed February 6, 2007
Hanna S (1997) Interior Secretary praises “monumental conservation achievement” in San Diego County. Press release. U.S. Department of Interior, Available at: http://www.doi.gov/news/archives/sand.html. Accessed February 6, 2007
Holland RF (1986) Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento
Jewell SD (2000) Multi-species recovery plans. Endangered Species Bulletin 25:30–31
Keith DA (1998) An evaluation and modification of World Conservation Union Red List criteria for classification of extinction risk in vascular plants. Conservation Biology 12:1076–1090
Laurance WF (2000) Do edge effects occur over large spatial scales? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15:134–135
Leyva C, Espejel I, Escofet A, Bullock SH (2006) Coastal landscape fragmentation by tourism development: impacts and conservation alternatives. Natural Areas Journal 26:117–125
Lowell K, Jaton A (1999) Spatial accuracy assessment: land information uncertainty in natural resources. Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea, MI
Luck M, Wu J (2002) A gradient of urban landscape pattern: a case study from the Phoenix metropolitan region, Arizona, USA. Landscape Ecology 17:327–339
Margules CR, Pressey RL (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243–253
Margules CR, Usher MB (1981) Criteria used in assessing wildlife conservation potential—a review. Biological Conservation 21:79–109
Margules CR, Nicholls AO, Pressey RL (1988) Selecting networks of reserves to maximize biological diversity. Biological Conservation 43:63–76
Mazzotti FJ, Morgenstern CS (1997) A scientific framework for managing urban natural areas. Landscape and Urban Planning 38:171–181
McAlpine CA, Lindenmayer DB, Eyre TJ, Phinn SR (2002) Landscape surrogates of forest fragmentation: synthesis of Australian Montreal Process case studies. Pacific Conservation Biology 8:108–120
McGarigal K (2002) Landscape pattern metrics. In: El-Shaarawi AH, Piergorsch WW (eds) Encyclopedia of environmetrics. John Wiley & Sons, Sussex, UK, pp 1135–1142
McGarigal K, Marks BJ (1995) FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. Available at: http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/documents/Metrics/Metrics%20TOC.htm. Accessed February 7, 2007
Medail F, Quezel P (1999) Biodiversity hotspots in the Mediterranean basin: setting global conservation priorities. Conservation Biology 13:1510–1513
Moffett A, Sarkar S (2006) Incorporating multiple criteria into the design of conservation area networks: a minireview with recommendations. Diversity and Distributions 12:125–137
Mulder BS, Noon BR, Spies TA, Raphael MG, Palmer CJ, Olsen AR, Reeves GH, Welsh HH (1999) The strategy and design of the effectiveness monitoring program for the Northwest Forest Plan. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-437, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR
Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, Da Fonseca GAB, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858
Nicholson E, Wilcove DS (2007) Assessing the threat status of ecological communities: scale, viability, and ecological theory. In: Society for Conservation Biology, 21st Annual Meeting, Port Elizabeth, South Africa, Volume of Abstracts
Noon BR (2003) Conceptual issues in monitoring ecological resources. In: Busch DE, Trexler JC (eds) Monitoring ecosystems: interdisciplinary approaches for evaluating ecoregional initiatives. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 27–72
Noon BR, Spies TA, Raphael MG (1999) Conceptual basis for designing an effectiveness monitoring program. In: Mulder BS (ed) The strategy and design of the effectiveness monitoring program for the Northwest Forest Plan. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-437. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Portland, OR, pp 21–48
Noss RF (1987) From plant communities to landscapes in conservation inventories: a look at The Nature Conservancy (USA). Biological Conservation 41:11–37
Noss RF (1990) Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology 4:355–364
Noss RF (1996) Ecosystems as conservation targets. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11:351
Olsen AR, Sedransk J, Edwards D, Gotway CA, Liggett W, Rathbun S, Reckhow KH, Young LJ (1999) Statistical issues for monitoring ecological and natural resources in the United States. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 54:1–45
Olsen LM, Dale VH, Foster T (2007) Landscape patterns as indicators of ecological change at Fort Benning, Georgia, USA. Landscape and Urban Planning 79:137–149
O’Neill RV, Krummel JR, Gardner RH, Sugihara G, Jackson BJ, DeAngelis DL, Milne BT, Turner MG, Zygmut B, Christensen S, Dale VH, Graham RL (1988) Indices of landscape pattern. Landscape Ecology 1:153–162
Pereira JMC, Duckstein L (1993) A multiple criteria decision-making approach to GIS-based land suitability evaluation. International Journal of Geographic Information Systems 7:407–424
Possingham HP, Wilson KA, Andelman SJ, Vynne CH (2006) Protected areas: goals, limitations and design. In: Groome MJ, Meffe GK, Carroll CR (eds) Principles of conservation biology, 3rd edn. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA, pp 509–533
Pressey RL, Possingham HP, Logan VS, Day JR, Williams PH (1999) Effects of data characteristics on the results of reserve selection algorithms. Journal of Biogeography 26:179–191
Purvis A, Gittleman JL, Cowlinshaw G, Mace GM (2000) Predicting extinction risk in declining species. Proceedings of the Royal Society 267:1947–1952
Rahn ME, Doremus H, Diffendorfer J (2006) Species coverage in multispecies conservation plans: where’s the science? Bioscience 56:613–619
Regan HM, Colyvan M, Markovchick-Nicolls L (2006) A formal model for consensus and negotiation in environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management 80:167–176
Regan HM, Davis FW, Andelman SJ, Widyanata A, Freese M (2007) Comprehensive criteria for biodiversity evaluation in conservation planning. Biodiversity and Conservation 16:2715–2728
Regan HM, Hierl LA, Franklin J, Deutchman DH, Schmalbach HL, Winchell CS, Johnson BS (2008) Species prioritization for monitoring and management in regional multiple species conservation plans. Diversity and Distribution 14:462–471
Riitters KH, O’Neill RV, Hunsaker CT, Wickham JD, Yankee DH, Timmins SP, Jones KB, Jackson BL (1995) A factor-analysis of landscape pattern and structure metrics. Landscape Ecology 10:23–39
Rodriguez JP, Balch JK, Rodriguez-Clark KM (2007) Assessing extinction risk in the absence of species-level data: quantitative criteria for terrestrial ecosystems. Biodiversity and Conservation 16:183–209
Rubinoff D (2001) Evaluating the California gnatcatcher as an umbrella species for conservation of southern California coastal sage scrub. Conservation Biology 15:1374–1383
Sawyer JO, Keeler-Wolf T (1995) A manual of California vegetation. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Available at: http://davisherb.ucdavis.edu/cnpsActiveServer/hollandlist.asp. Accessed February 7, 2007
Scott JM, Davis FW, Csuti B, Noss RF, Butterfield B, Groves C, Anderson H, Caicco S, D’Erchia F, Edwards TC Jr, Ulliman J, Wright RG (1993) Gap analysis: a geographical approach to protection of biological diversity. Wildlife Monographs 123:1–41
Scott JM, Goble DD, Wiens JA, Wilcove DS, Bean M, Male T (2005) Recovery of imperiled species under the Endangered Species Act: the need for a new approach. Frontiers of Ecology and the Environment 3:383–389
Scott TA, Sullivan JE (2000) The selection and design of multiple-species habitat preserves. Environmental Management 26:S37–S53
Shearer AW, Mouat DA, Bassett SD, Binford MW, Johnson CW, Saarinen JA (2006) Examining development-related uncertainties for environmental management: strategic planning scenarios in Southern California. Landscape and Urban Planning 77:359–381
Slocombe DS (1998) Defining goals and criteria for ecosystem-based management. Environmental Management 22:483–493
Sprugel DG (1991) Disturbance, equilibrium, and environmental variability—What is natural vegetation in a changing environment? Biological Conservation 58:1–18
Stehman SV, Czaplewski RL (1998) Design and analysis for thematic map accuracy assessment: fundamental principles. Remote Sensing of Environment 64:331–344
Stenhouse RN (2004) Fragmentation and internal disturbance of native vegetation reserves in the Perth metropolitan area, Western Australia. Landscape and Urban Planning 68:389–401
Stow D, O’Leary J, Hope A (1993) Accuracy assessment of MSCP GIS vegetation layer. San Diego State University. Prepared for Ogden Environmental and Energy Services, San Diego, CA
Turner MG, O’Neill RV, Gardner RH, Milne BT (1989) Effects of changing spatial scale on the analysis of landscape pattern. Landscape Ecology 3:153–162
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1996) Habitat conservation planning and incidental take permit processing handbook. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/hcp/hcpbook.html. Accessed April 3, 2007
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2007) Conservation plans and agreement database. Available at: http://ecos.fws.gov/conserv_plans/index.jsp. Accessed February 7, 2007
Westman WE (1981) Factors influencing the distribution of species of Californian coastal sage scrub. Ecology 62:439–455
Wilson EO (1992) The diversity of life. Norton, New York
Wilson KA, McBride MF, Bode M, Possingham HP (2006) Prioritizing global conservation efforts. Nature 440:337–340
Winchell C, Doherty P (2006) Estimation of California Gnatcatcher pair abundance and occupancy rates. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Prepared for California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento
Yoccoz NG, Nichols JD, Boulinier T (2001) Monitoring of biological diversity in space and time. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16:446–453
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by a Local Assistance Grant (P0450009) from the California Department of Fish and Game and in cooperation with the MSCP Monitoring Partners, a multiagency and multijurisdictional task force. Linnea Spears-Lebrun assisted with data analysis. We are grateful to many people for making this project possible, especially Clark Winchell (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), who, along with Keith Greer, Elizabeth Santos, and the anonymous reviewers, provided comments that improved this paper. We thank Douglas Stow for information concerning the map accuracy assessment. The opinions expressed and any errors that remain in this paper are the authors’.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hierl, L.A., Franklin, J., Deutschman, D.H. et al. Assessing and Prioritizing Ecological Communities for Monitoring in a Regional Habitat Conservation Plan. Environmental Management 42, 165–179 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9109-3
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9109-3