Integrating Vulnerability Into Estuarine Conservation Planning: Does the Data Treatment Method Matter?
Protected areas will more efficiently protect biodiversity if threats to the persistence of populations are addressed. Seagrass meadows are globally regarded as critical habitats because of their ecosystem services, human use values, and their diminishing extent. While selecting priority areas for conservation of seagrass meadows is largely aimed at maximizing the protection of their biodiversity, little attention is paid to consider simultaneously the representation of biodiversity and the minimization of threats. This study developed and tested an approach for integrating vulnerability of seagrass meadows to anthropogenic disturbance with the selection of estuarine-protected areas. Vulnerability was measured by data on different land use types in subcatchments. Conservation value was measured by irreplaceability, diversity indices, and rarity of macroinvertebrate species in seagrass meadows. Vulnerability was incorporated into conservation planning by plotting grid cell scores for conservation value versus their scores for vulnerability. The results showed that the performance of the model for the integration of vulnerability into estuarine conservation planning was sensitive to the data treatment. The vulnerability of seagrass meadows and accordingly the arrangement of priority areas for conservation and management attention may change if more information is incorporated into the measurement of vulnerability.
KeywordsConservation measure Vulnerability measure Seagrass Human use Irreplaceability Reserve selection
- Cardno Lawson Treloar. 2008. Brisbane Water Estuary Processes Study. Report prepared for Gosford City Council and Department of Environment and Climate Change (Cardno Lawson Treloar, Gordon). Available at: http://www.gosford.nsw.gov.au/customer/document_gallery/bwemp/brisbane-water-estuary/base_view.
- Clark, G., S. Moser, S. Ratick, K. Dow, W. Meyer, S. Emani, W. Jin, J. Kasperson, R. Kasperson, and H. Schwarz. 1998. Assessing the vulnerability of coastal communities to extreme storms: the case of Revere, MA, USA. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 3: 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Davis, F.W., D.M. Stoms, R.L. Church, W.J. Okin, and K.N. Johnson. 1996. Selecting biodiversity management areas. Pages 1503–1529 in Sierra Nevada ecosystem project: final report to Congress. Volume II: assessments and scientific basis for management options. Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, University of California: Davis.Google Scholar
- Deeley, D.M., and E.I. Paling. 1999. Assessing the ecological health of estuaries in Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research Laboratory. Institute for Environmental Science Murdoch University LWRRDC Occasional Paper 17/99 (Urban Subprogram, report no. 10).Google Scholar
- Gillanders, B.M., and M.J. Kingsford. 2002. Impacts of changes in flow of freshwater on estuarine and open coastal habitats and the associated organisms. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review 40: 233–309.Google Scholar
- Gosford City Council. 1995. Brisbane water plan of management, Gosford City Council, sub-committees and task groups reports, Gosford, NSW, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
- Gundlach, E.R., and M. Hayes. 1978. Vulnerabilitv of coastal environment to oil-spill impacts. Marine Technology Society Journal 12: 18–27.Google Scholar
- Kirkman, H. 1997. Seagrasses of Australia. Canberra: Australia: State of the environment, technical paper series (estuaries and the sea). Canberra: Department of the Environment.Google Scholar
- Margules, C.R., I.D. Cresswell, and A.O. Nicholls. 1994. A scientific basis for establishing networks of protected areas. In Systematics and conservation evaluation, ed. P.L. Forey, C.J. Humphries, and R.I. Vane-Wright, 327–350. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
- Pielou, E.C.E. (ed.). 1976. Population and community ecology. Chicago: Gordon & Breach.Google Scholar
- Pressey, R.L. 1998. Algorithms, politics and timber: an example of the role of science in a public, political negotiation process over new conservation areas in production forests. In Ecology for everyone: communicating ecology to scientists, the public and the politicians, ed. R. Wills and R. Hobbs, 73–87. Sydney: Surrey Beatty and Sons.Google Scholar
- Pressey, R.L. 1999. Applications of irreplaceability analysis to planning and management problems. Parks 9: 42–51.Google Scholar
- Pressey, R.L., S. Ferrier, T.C. Hager, C.A. Woods, S.L. Tully, and K.M. Weinman. 1996. How well protected are the forests of north-eastern New South Wales?—Analyses of forest environments in relation to formal protection measures, land tenure, and vulnerability to clearing. Forest Ecology and Management 85: 311–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Schmera, D., and O. Kiss. 2004. A new measure of conservation value combining rarity and ecological diversity: a case study with light trap collected caddisflies (Insecta: Trichoptera). Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 50: 195–210.Google Scholar
- Shannon, C.E., and W. Weaver. 1949. The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
- Thomson, R. 2007. Brisbane Water Estuary processes study, catchment modelling—MUSIC appendix B. Gordon: Cardno Lawson Treloar Pty Ltd.Google Scholar
- Walker, T., R.J. Hudson, and A.S. Gason. 2005. Catch evaluation of target, by-product and bycatch species taken by gillnets and longline in the sharks fishery of South-Eastern Australia. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Science 35: 505–530.Google Scholar
- Williams, P.H. 1998. Key sites for conservation: area-selection methods for biodiversity. In Conservation in a changing world, ed. G.M. Mace, A. Balmford, and J.R. Ginsberg, 211–249. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Winston, M.R., and P.L. Angermeier. 1995. Assessing conservation value using centers of population density. Conservation Biology 9(6): 1518–1527.Google Scholar