Environmental Management

, Volume 51, Issue 3, pp 631–641 | Cite as

Identifying Preservation and Restoration Priority Areas for Desert Fishes in an Increasingly Invaded World

  • Thomas K. Pool
  • Angela L. Strecker
  • Julian D. Olden
Article

Abstract

A commonly overlooked aspect of conservation planning assessments is that wildlife managers are increasingly focused on habitats that contain non-native species. We examine this management challenge in the Gila River basin (150,730 km2), and present a new planning strategy for fish conservation. By applying a hierarchical prioritization algorithm to >850,000 fish records in 27,181 sub-watersheds we first identified high priority areas (PAs) termed “preservation PAs” with high native fish richness and low non-native richness; these represent traditional conservation targets. Second, we identified “restoration PAs” with high native fish richness that also contained high numbers of non-native species; these represent less traditional conservation targets. The top 10 % of preservation and restoration PAs contained common native species (e.g., Catostomus clarkii, desert sucker; Catostomus insignis, Sonora sucker) in addition to native species with limited distributions (i.e., Xyrauchen texanus, razorback sucker; Oncorhynchus gilae apache, Apache trout). The top preservation and restoration PAs overlapped by 42 %, indicating areas with high native fish richness range from minimally to highly invaded. Areas exclusively identified as restoration PAs also encompassed a greater percentage of native species ranges than would be expected by the random addition of an equivalent basin area. Restoration PAs identified an additional 19.0 and 26.6 % of the total ranges of two federally endangered species—Meda fulgida (spikedace) and Gila intermedia (Gila chub), respectively, compared to top preservation PAs alone—despite adding only 5.8 % of basin area. We contend that in addition to preservation PAs, restoration PAs are well suited for complementary management activities benefiting native fishes.

Keywords

Spatial conservation prioritization Native fish management Freshwater landscapes 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors graciously acknowledge support from the USGS National Gap Analysis Program and USGS Status and Trends Program. We thank Joanna Whittier and Craig Paukert for their invaluable contributions to the LCRB Aquatic Gap Analysis Project, and Claire Horner-Devine, Jennifer Ruesink, and Christian Torgersen for their thoughtful comments on early versions of the manuscript and their ongoing intellectual support during the project. We also thank the three anonymous reviewers that contributed significantly to the quality of the manuscript.

Supplementary material

267_2012_13_MOESM1_ESM.docx (220 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 220 kb)

References

  1. Bean MJ, Wilcove DS (1997) The private-land problem. Conserv Biol 11:1–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Britton JR, Gozlan RE, Copp GH (2011) Managing non-native fish in the environment. Fish Fish 12:256–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carpenter J, Mueller GA (2008) Small nonnative fishes as predators of larval razorback suckers. Southwest Nat 53:236–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carwardine C, Wilson KA, Watts M, Etter A, Tremblay-Boyar L, Hajkowicz S, Possingham HP (2006) Where do we act to get the biggest conservation bang for our buck? A systematic spatial prioritization approach for Australia. Report to The Department of Environment and Heritage, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  5. Cucherousset J, Olden JD (2011) Ecological impacts of nonnative freshwater fishes. Fisheries 36:215–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dauwalter DC, Sanderson JS, Williams JE, Sedell JR (2011) Identification and implementation of native fish conservation areas in the upper Colorado River basin. Fisheries 36:278–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dudgeon D, Arthington AH, Gessner MO, Kawabata ZI, Knowler DJ, Leveque C, Naiman RJ, Prieur-Richard AH, Soto D, Stiassny MLJ, Sullivan CA (2006) Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biol Rev 81:163–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Elith J, Graham CH, Anderson RP, Dudík M, Ferrier S, Guisan A, Hijmans RJ, Huettmann F, Leathwick JR, Lehmann A, Li J, Lohmann LG, Loiselle BA, Manion G, Moritz C, Nakamura M, Nakazawa Y, Overton JM, Peterson AT, Phillips SJ, Richardson K, Scachetti-Pereira R, Schapire RE, Soberón J, Williams S, Wisz MS, Zimmermann NE (2006) Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data. Ecography 29:129–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elith J, Leathwick JR (2009) Species distribution models: ecological explanation and prediction across space and time. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 40:677–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fagan WF, Aumann C, Kennedy CM, Unmack PJ (2005) Rarity, fragmentation and the scale dependence of extinction-risk in desert fishes. Ecology 86:34–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fielding AH, Bell JF (1997) A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environ Conserv 24:38–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Friedman JH (1991) Multivariate adaptive regression splines. Ann Stat 19:1–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gido KB, Brown JH (1999) Invasion of North America drainages by alien fish species. Freshw Biol 42:387–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hermoso V, Januchowski-Hartley SR, Linke S, Possingham HP (2011) Reference vs. present-day condition: early planning decisions influence the achievement of conservation objectives. Aquat Conserv 21:500–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Januchowski-Hartley SR, Visconti P, Pressey RL (2011) A systematic approach for prioritizing multiple management actions for invasive species. Biol Invasions 13:1241–1253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jones TP, Williams BC, Pittock J, Davis T (2003) Conserving rivers: lessons from WWF’s work for integrated river basin management. World Wildlife Fund, GlandGoogle Scholar
  17. Knight AT, Cowling RM, Campbell BM (2006) An operational model for implementing conservation action. Conserv Biol 20:408–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Konrad CP, Olden JD, Lytle DA, Melis TS, Schmidt JC, Bray EN, Freeman MC, Gido KB, Hemphill NP, Kennard MJ, McMullen LE, Mims MC, Pyron M, Robinson CT, Williams JG (2011) Large-scale flow experiments for managing river systems. Bioscience 61:948–959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Leathwick JR, Rowe D, Richardson J, Elith J, Hastie T (2005) Using multivariate adaptive regression splines to predict the distributions of New Zealand’s freshwater diadromous fish. Freshw Biol 50:2034–2052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leprieur F, Beauchard O, Blanchet S, Oberdorff T, Brosse S (2008) Fish invasions in the world’s river systems: when natural processes are blurred by human activities. PLoS Biol 6:2940Google Scholar
  21. Marchetti MP, Moyle PB (2001) Effects of flow regime on fish assemblages in a regulated California stream. Ecol Appl 11:530–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Margules CR, Sarkar S (2007) Systematic conservation planning. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. Marks JC, Haden GA, O’Neill M, Pace C (2009) Effects of flow restoration and exotic species removal on recovery of native fish: lessons from a dam decommissioning. Restor Ecol 18:934–943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Marsh PC, Douglas ME (1997) Predation by introduced fishes on endangered humpback chub and other native species in the Little Colorado River, Arizona. Trans Am Fish Soc 126:343–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Minckley WL, Marsh PC, Deacon JE, Dowling TE, Hedrick PW, Matthews WJ, Mueller G (2003) A conservation plan for native fishes of the lower Colorado River. Bioscience 53:219–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Minns CK (1995) Allometry of home range size in lake and river fishes. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 52:1499–1508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moilanen A, Arponen A, Stokland JN, Cabeza M (2009) Assessing replacement cost of conservation areas: how does habitat loss influence priorities? Biol Conserv 142:575–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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 B Biol Sci 272:1885–1891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moilanen A, Leathwick J, Elith J (2008) A method for spatial freshwater conservation prioritization. Freshw Biol 53:577–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Naidoo R, Balmford A, Ferraro PJ, Polasky S, Ricketts TH, Rouget M (2006) Integrating economic costs into conservation planning. Trends Ecol Evol 21:681–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nel JL, Roux DJ, Abell R, Ashton PJ, Cowling RM, Higgins JV, Thieme M, Viers JH (2009) Progress and challenges in freshwater conservation planning. Aquat Conserv 19:474–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Olden JD, Poff NL (2005) Long-term trends of native and non-native fish faunas in the American Southwest. Anim Biodivers Conserv 28:75–89Google Scholar
  33. Paukert CP, Pitts KL, Whittier JB, Olden JD (2011) Development and assessment of a landscape-scale ecological threat index for the lower Colorado River Basin. Ecol Indic 11:304–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pearce J, Ferrier S (2000) Evaluating the predictive performance of habitat models developed using logistic regression. Ecol Model 133:225–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Peterson DP, Fausch KD, Watmough J, Cunjak RA (2008) When eradication is not an option: modeling strategies for electrofishing suppression of nonnative brook trout to foster persistence of sympatric native cutthroat trout in small streams. N Am J Fish Manag 28:1847–1867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pool TK, Olden JD, Whittier JB, Paukert CP (2010) Environmental drivers of fish functional diversity and composition in the lower Colorado River basin. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 67:1791–1807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Propst DL, Stefferud JA, Turner PR (1992) Conservation and status of gila trout, Oncorhynchus gilae. Southwest Nat 37:117–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Propst DL, Gido KB, Stefferud JA (2008) Natural flow regimes, nonnative fishes, and native fish persistence in arid-land river systems. Ecol Appl 18:1236–1252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Protected Area Database (2010) USGS Gap Analysis Program. http://www.protectedlands.net/padus/. Accessed 10 Oct 2010
  40. Rayfield B, Moilanen A, Fortin MJ (2009) Incorporating consumer–resource spatial interactions in reserve design. Ecol Model 220:725–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Reyers B, O’Farrell PJ, Nel JN, Wilson K (2012) Expanding the conservation toolbox: conservation planning of multifunctional landscapes. Landsc Ecol 27:1121–1143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rinne JN, Stefferud JA (1999) Single versus multiple species management: native fishes in Arizona. For Ecol Manag 114:357–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Robinson AT (2010) Arizona native fish recovery and non-native fish restoration. Research Branch. Arizona Game and Fish Department, PhoenixGoogle Scholar
  44. Schade CB, Bonar SA (2005) Distribution and abundance on non-native fishes in streams of the American West. N Am J Fish Manag 25:1386–1394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Strecker AL, Olden JD, Whittier JB, Paukert CP (2011) Defining conservation priorities for freshwater fishes according to taxonomic, functional, and phylogenetic diversity. Ecol Appl 21:3002–3013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. R Development Core Team (2010) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  47. Trammell M, Meismer S, Speas D (2004) Nonnative cyprinid removal in the lower Green and Colorado rivers, Utah. Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, Final Report Project 87A, DenverGoogle Scholar
  48. Turner DS, List MD (2007) Habitat mapping and conservation analysis to identify critical streams for Arizona’s native fish. Aquat Conserv 17:737–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Unmack PJ, Fagan WF (2004) Convergence of differentially invaded systems toward invader-dominance: time-lagged invasions as a predictor in desert fish communities. Biol Invasions 6:233–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) (2002) Bonytail (Gila elegans) recovery goals: amendment and supplement to the Bonytail Chub recovery plan. USFWS, DenverGoogle Scholar
  51. Vörösmarty CJ, McIntyre PB, Gessner MO, Dudgeon D, Prusevich A, Green P, Glidden S, Bunn SE, Sullivan CA, Liermann CR, Davies PM (2010) Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature 467:555–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Waller DM (1988) Sharing responsibility for conserving diversity: the complementary roles of conservation biologists and public land agencies. Conserv Biol 2:398–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Whittier JB, Paukert CP, Gido K (2006) Development of an aquatic GAP for the Lower Colorado River Basin. Gap analysis bulletin no. 14, USGS/BRD/Gap Analysis Program. Moscow, IdahoGoogle Scholar
  54. Whittier JB, Paukert CP, Olden JD, Pitts KL, Strecker AL (2011) Lower Colorado River Basin aquatic gap analysis project: final report. U.S. Geological Survey, Gap Analysis Program, RestonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas K. Pool
    • 1
  • Angela L. Strecker
    • 2
  • Julian D. Olden
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Environmental Science and ManagementPortland State UniversityPortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations