Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A new framework of spatial targeting for single-species conservation planning

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Context

Organisations acting to conserve and protect species across large spatial scales prioritise to optimise use of resources. Spatial conservation prioritization tools typically focus on identifying areas containing species groups of interest, with few tools used to identify the best areas for single-species conservation, in particular, to conserve currently widespread but declining species.

Objective

A single-species prioritization framework, based on temporal and spatial patterns of occupancy and abundance, was developed to spatially prioritize conservation action for widespread species by identifying smaller areas to work within to achieve predefined conservation objectives.

Methods

We demonstrate our approach for 29 widespread bird species in the UK, using breeding bird atlas data from two periods to define distribution, relative abundance and change in relative abundance. We selected occupied 10-km squares with abundance trends that matched species conservation objectives relating to maintaining or increasing population size or range, and then identified spatial clusters of squares for each objective using a Getis-Ord-Gi* or near neighbour analysis.

Results

For each species, the framework identified clusters of 20-km squares that enabled us to identify small areas in which species recovery action could be prioritized.

Conclusions

Our approach identified a proportion of species’ ranges to prioritize for species recovery. This approach is a relatively quick process that can be used to inform single-species conservation for any taxa if sufficiently fine-scale occupancy and abundance information is available for two or more time periods. This is a relatively simple first step for planning single-species focussed conservation to help optimise resource use.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Balmer DE, Gillings S, Caffrey B, Swann R, Downie I, Fuller R (2013) Bird Atlas 2007–2011: the breeding and wintering birds of Britain and Ireland. BTO Books, Thetford

    Google Scholar 

  • Baruch-Mordo S, Breck SW, Wilson KR, Theobald DM (2008) Spatiotemporal distribution of black bear-human conflicts in Colorado, USA. J Wildl Manag 72:1853–1862

    Google Scholar 

  • Beger M, Grantham HS, Pressey RL, Wilson KA, Peterson EL, Dorfman D, Mumby PJ, Lourival R, Brumbaugh DR, Possingham HP (2010) Conservation planning for connectivity across marine, freshwater, and terrestrial realms. Biol Conserv 143:565–575

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs J, Ewald N, Valentini A, Gaboriaud C, Dejean T, Griffiths RA, Foster J, Wilkinson JW, Arnell A, Brotherton P (2015) Using eDNA to develop a national citizen science-based monitoring programme for the great crested newt (Triturus cristatus). Biol Conserv 183:19–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter I, Newbery P (2004) Reintroduction as a tool for population recovery of farmland birds. Ibis 146:221–229

    Google Scholar 

  • CBD (2010) COP Decision X/2. Strategic plan for biodiversity 2011–2020. http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=12268. Accessed 10 Dec 2018

  • Conlisk E, Motheral S, Chung R, Wisinski C, Endress B (2014) Using spatially-explicit population models to evaluate habitat restoration plans for the San Diego cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus sandiegensis). Biol Conserv 175:42–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Conrad KF, Warren MS, Fox R, Parsons MS, Woiwod IP (2006) Rapid declines of common, widespread British moths provide evidence of an insect biodiversity crisis. Biol Conserv 132:279–291

    Google Scholar 

  • Costello C, Polasky S (2004) Dynamic reserve site selection. Resour Energy Econ 26:157–174

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis EB, Freeman SN, Brereton T, Roy DB (2013) Indexing butterfly abundance whilst accounting for missing counts and variability in seasonal pattern. Methods Ecol Evol 4:637–645

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunning JB, Stewart DJ, Danielson BJ, Noon BR, Root TL, Lamberson RH, Stevens EE (1995) Spatially explicit population models: current forms and future uses. Ecol Appl 5:3–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Eaton MA, Burns F, Isaac NB, Gregory RD, August TA, Barlow KE, Brereton T, Brooks DR, Al Fulaij N, Haysom KA, Noble DG, Outhwaite C, Powney GD, Procter D, Williams J (2015) Birds of conservation concern 4: the population status of birds in the United Kingdom channel Isands and Isle of Man. Br Birds 108:708–746

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaston KJ, Fuller RA (2007) Biodiversity and extinction: losing the common and the widespread. Prog Phys Geogr 31:213–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaston KJ, Blackburn TM, Greenwood JJD, Gregory RD, Quinn RM, Lawton JH (2000) Abundance-occupancy relationships. J Appl Ecol 37:39–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons DW, Reid JB, Chapman RA, Ornithologists’ Club S, Conservancy IW (1993) The new atlas of breeding birds in Britain and Ireland: 1988–1991. T & AD Poyser, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillings S, Balmer DE, Fuller RJ (2015) Directionality of recent bird distribution shifts and climate change in Great Britain. Global Change Biol 21:2155–2168

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson JA, Moilanen A, Wintle BA, Thomas CD (2011) Habitat area, quality and connectivity: striking the balance for efficient conservation. J Appl Ecol 48:148–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann M, Brooks TM, Butchart S, Gregory RD, McRae L (2018) Trends in biodiversity: vertebrates. In: Dominick AD, Goldstein MI (eds) The Encyclopedia of the Anthropocene, vol 3. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 175–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Inger R, Gregory R, Duffy JP, Stott I, Voříšek P, Gaston KJ (2015) Common European birds are declining rapidly while less abundant species’ numbers are rising. Ecol Lett 18:28–36

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • IUCN (2012) IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1, 2nd edn. IUCN, Gland

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenouvrier S, Barbraud C, Weimerskirch H, Caswell H (2009) Limitation of population recovery: a stochastic approach to the case of the emperor penguin. Oikos 118:1292–1298. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2009.17498.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston A, Fink D, Reynolds MD, Hochachka WM, Sullivan BL, Bruns NE, Hallstein E, Merrifield MS, Matsumoto S, Kelling S (2015) Abundance models improve spatial and temporal prioritization of conservation resources. Ecol Appl 25:1749–1756. https://doi.org/10.1890/14-1826.1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jones C, Cole N, Canessa S, Chauvenet A, Fogwell D, Owen J (2018) Conserving island ecosystems: managing the recovery process. In: Copsey J, Black S, Groombridge J, Jones C (eds) Species conservation: lessons from Islands. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleijn D, Rundlöf M, Scheper J, Smith HG, Tscharntke T (2011) Does conservation on farmland contribute to halting the biodiversity decline? Trends Ecol Evol 26:474–481

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kober K, Wilson LJ, Black J, O'Brien S, Allen S, Win I, Bingham C, Reid JB (2012) The identification of possible marine SPAs for seabirds in the UK: The application of Stage 1.1–1.4 of the SPA selection guidelines. JNCC

  • Lehtomäki J, Moilanen A (2013) Methods and workflow for spatial conservation prioritization using Zonation. Environ Model Softw 47:128–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazor T, Possingham HP, Edelist D, Brokovich E, Kark S (2014) The crowded sea: incorporating multiple marine activities in conservation plans can significantly alter spatial priorities. PLoS ONE 9:e104489

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Mehtälä J, Vuorisalo T (2007) Conservation policy and the EU Habitats directive: favourable conservation status as a measure of conservation success. Eur Environ 17:363–375

    Google Scholar 

  • Minor ES, Urban DL (2007) Graph theory as a proxy for spatially explicit population models in conservation planning. Ecol Appl 17:1771–1782

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moilanen A, Cabeza M (2002) Single-species dynamic site selection. Ecol Appl 12:913–926

    Google Scholar 

  • Moilanen A, Franco AMA, Early RI, Fox R, Wintle B, Thomas CD (2005) Prioritizing multiple-use landscapes for conservation: methods for large multi-species planning problems. Proc R Soc Lond B 272:1885–1891

    Google Scholar 

  • Moilanen A, Leathwick J, Elith J (2008) A method for spatial freshwater conservation prioritization. Freshw Biol 53:577–592

    Google Scholar 

  • Moilanen A, Wilson K, Possingham HP (2009) Spatial conservation prioritization: quantitative methods & computational tools. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Moorhouse T, Macdonald D, Strachan R, Lambin X (2015) What does conservation research do, when should it stop, and what do we do then? Questions answered with water voles. In: Macdonald D, Feber R (eds) Wildlife conservation on farmland: managing for nature in lowland farms, vol 1. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 269–290

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison CA, Robinson RA, Clark JA, Risely K, Gill JA (2013) Recent population declines in Afro-Palaearctic migratory birds: the influence of breeding and non-breeding seasons. Divers Distrib 19:1051–1058

    Google Scholar 

  • Murdoch W, Polasky S, Wilson KA, Possingham HP, Kareiva P, Shaw R (2007) Maximizing return on investment in conservation. Biol Conserv 139:375–388

    Google Scholar 

  • Naidoo R, Balmford A, Ferraro PJ, Polasky S, Ricketts TH, Rouget M (2006) Integrating economic costs into conservation planning. Trends Ecol Evol 21:681–687

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Newton I (1988) Population limitation in birds. Academic Press, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  • Paradis E, Baillie SR, Sutherland WJ, Gregory RD (1998) Patterns of natal and breeding dispersal in birds. J Anim Ecol 67:518–536

    Google Scholar 

  • Purvis A, Gittleman JL, Cowlishaw G, Mace GM (2000) Predicting extinction risk in declining species. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 267:1947–1952

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Runge CA, Martin TG, Possingham HP, Willis SG, Fuller RA (2014) Conserving mobile species. Front Ecol Environ 12:395–402

    Google Scholar 

  • Sæther B-E, Bakke Ø (2000) Avian life history variation and contribution of demographic traits to the population growth rate. Ecology 81:642–653

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmeller DS, Henry PY, Julliard R, Gruber B, Clobert J, Dziock F, Lengyel S, Nowicki P, Déri E, Budrys E (2009) Advantages of volunteer based biodiversity monitoring in Europe. Conserv Biol 23:307–316

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Siriwardena GM, Calbrade NA, Vickery JA, Sutherland WJ (2006) The effect of the spatial distribution of winter seed food resources on their use by farmland birds. J Appl Ecol 43:628–639

    Google Scholar 

  • Sirkia S, Lehtomaki J, Linden H, Tomppo E, Moilanen A (2012) Defining spatial priorities for capercaillie Tetrao urogallus lekking landscape conservation in south-central Finland. Wildl Biol 18:337–353

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephens PA, Mason LR, Green RE, Gregory RD, Sauer JR, Alison J, Aunins A, Brotons L, Butchart SM, Campedelli T, Chodkiewicz T, Chylarecki P, Crowe O, Elts J, Escandell V, Foppen RB, Heldbjerg H, Herrando S, Husby M, Jiguet F, Lehikoinen A, Lindström A, Noble DG, Paquet J-Y, Reif J, Sattler T, Szép T, Teufelbauer N, Trautmann S, van Strien AJ, van Turnhout CM, Vorisek P, Willis SG (2016) Consistent response of bird populations to climate change on two continents. Science 352:84–87

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Underhill LG, Brooks M, Loftie-Eaton M (2017) The second Southern African Bird Atlas Project: protocol, process, product. Vogelwelt 137:64–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dyck H, Van Strien AJ, Maes D, Van Swaay CAM (2009) Declines in common, widespread butterflies in a landscape under intense human use. Conserv Biol 23:957–965

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wan J, Wang C, Yu J, Nie S, Han S, Zu Y, Chen C, Yuan S, Wang Q (2014) Model-based conservation planning of the genetic diversity of Phellodendron amurense Rupr. due to climate change. Ecol. Evol 4:2884–2900

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Watts ME, Ball IR, Stewart RS, Klein CJ, Wilson K, Steinback C, Lourival R, Kircher L, Possingham HP (2009) Marxan with zones: software for optimal conservation based land-and sea-use zoning. Environ Model Softw 24:1513–1521

    Google Scholar 

  • Westwood A, Reuchlin-Hugenholtz E, Keith DM (2014) Re-defining recovery: a generalized framework for assessing species recovery. Biol Conserv 172:155–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson KA, Underwood EC, Morrison SA, Klausmeyer KR, Murdoch WW, Reyers B, Wardell-Johnson G, Marquet PA, Rundel PW, McBride MF, Pressey RL, Bode M, Hoekstra JM, Andelman S, Looker M, Rondinini C, Kareiva P, Shaw MR, Possingham HP (2007) Conserving biodiversity efficiently: what to do, where, and when. PLoS Biol 5:e223

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson KA, Evans MC, Di Marco M, Green DC, Boitani L, Possingham HP, Chiozza F, Rondinini C (2011) Prioritizing conservation investments for mammal species globally. Philos Trans Soci Lond B 366:2670–2680

    Google Scholar 

  • Winiarski KJ, Miller DL, Paton PW, McWilliams SR (2014) A spatial conservation prioritization approach for protecting marine birds given proposed offshore wind energy development. Biol Conserv 169:79–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Wotton SR, Eaton MA, Sheehan D, Munyekenye F, Burfield IJ, Butchart S, Moleofi K, Nalwanga-Wabwire D, Ndang'ang'a P, Pomeroy D, Senyatso K, Gregory RD (2018) Developing biodiversity indicators for African birds. Oryx. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605317001181

  • Young RP, Hudson MA, Terry AR, Jones CG, Lewis RE, Tatayah V, Zuël N, Butchart SM (2014) Accounting for conservation: using the IUCN Red List Index to evaluate the impact of a conservation organization. Biol Conserv 180:84–96

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank all the volunteers who contributed considerable time and effort in fieldwork for the 2 atlases, and Fiona Hunter and Gillian Gilbert for discussion that guided the design of the framework. We also thank two anonymous reviewers. The 1988–1991 Atlas, and Bird Atlas 2007–2011, were both partnerships between BTO, BirdWatch Ireland and the Scottish Ornithologists’ Club.

Data availibility

The bird atlas data used in this study is available from the British Trust for Ornithology upon request (http://www.bto.org/research-data-services/data-services/data-request-system).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. RSPB Centre for Conservation Science, The Lodge, Sandy, Bedfordshire, UK

    Malcolm Burgess, Richard Gregory & Mark Eaton

  2. RSPB Centre for Conservation Science, RSPB Scotland, Edinburgh, UK

    Jeremy Wilson

  3. British Trust for Ornithology, The Nunnery, Thetford, Norfolk, UK

    Simon Gillings

  4. RSPB, The Lodge, Sandy, Bedfordshire, UK

    Andy Evans & Adrian Southern

  5. RSPB, Etive House, Beechwood Park, Inverness, UK

    Kenna Chisholm

Authors
  1. Malcolm Burgess
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard Gregory
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jeremy Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Simon Gillings
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andy Evans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kenna Chisholm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Adrian Southern
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Mark Eaton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Malcolm Burgess.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Burgess, M., Gregory, R., Wilson, J. et al. A new framework of spatial targeting for single-species conservation planning. Landscape Ecol 34, 2765–2778 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-019-00919-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-019-00919-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation