Environmental Management

, Volume 57, Issue 6, pp 1281–1291 | Cite as

Applications of Rapid Evaluation of Metapopulation Persistence (REMP) in Conservation Planning for Vulnerable Fauna Species

  • Subhashni TaylorEmail author
  • Michael Drielsma
  • Robert Taylor
  • Lalit Kumar


In many regions species are declining due to fragmentation and loss of habitat. If species persistence is to be achieved, ecologically informed, effective conservation action is required. Yet it remains a challenge to identify optimal places in a landscape to direct habitat reconstruction and management. Rather than relying on individual landscape metrics, process-based regional scale assessment methodology is needed that focuses primarily on species persistence. This means integrating, according to species’ ecology, habitat extent, suitability, quality and spatial configuration. The rapid evaluation of metapopulation persistence (REMP) methodology has been developed for this purpose. However, till now no practical conservation planning application of REMP has been described. By integration of expert ecological knowledge, we extended REMP’s capabilities to prioritize conservation action for a highly modified agricultural region of central NSW, Australia based on the metapopulation ecology of 34 fauna species. The region’s current capacity to support the species was evaluated in relation to the pre-European state for which there was known viability. Six of the species were found to currently have insufficient habitat to support viable populations. Seeking locations to maximize overall improvement in viability for these species, we prioritized conservation action to locations near the threshold of metapopulation persistence.


REMP Metapopulation capacity Spatial biodiversity prioritization Conservation planning Multi-species evaluation Occupancy 



Funding for the WWW project was provided by Border Rivers/Gwydir, Namoi, Lachlan and Central-West Catchment Management Authorities. The following people provided information on the ecological requirements of the species included in the analysis: George Barrott-Brown, Peter Christie, Hal Cogger, Stephen Debus, Eric and Veronica Doerr, Murray Ellis, Hugh Ford, David Geering, Rod Kavanagh, Cilla Kinross, Brad Law, Greg Lollback, Richard Major, Terry Mazzer, Damon Oliver, Harry Parnaby, Michael Pennay, Darren Shelly, Debbie Saunders, Julian Seddon and Phil Spark. Thanks also to Janeen Robb, Jill Smith, Glenn Manion, Jamie Love and Nereda Christian for technical support.

Supplementary material

267_2016_681_MOESM1_ESM.docx (260 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 260 kb)


  1. Australian State of the Environment Committee (2011) State of the environment 2011. Australian Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra. ( Accessed 29 July 2013
  2. Ball IR, Possingham HP (2000) Marxan (v. 1.8.6): marine reserve design using spatially explicit annealing. User manual. ( Accessed 2 Aug 2013
  3. Barrett GW, Silcocks AF, Cunningham R, Oliver DL, Weston MA, Baker J (2007) Comparison of atlas data to determine the conservation status of bird species in New South Wales, with an emphasis on woodland-dependent species. Aust Zool 34:37–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burgman MA (2000) Population viability analysis for bird conservation: prediction, heuristics, monitoring and psychology. EMU 100:347–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Butchart SHM, Walpole M, Collen B, van Strien A, Scharlemann JPW, Almond REA et al (2010) Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328:1164–1168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Calabrese JM, Fagan WF (2004) A comparison-shopper’s guide to connectivity metrics. Front Ecol Environ 2:529–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Day JR, Possingham HP (1995) A stochastic metapopulation model with variability in patch size position. Theor Popul Biol 48:1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Doerr VAJ, Barrett T, Doerr ED (2011) Connectivity, dispersal behaviour and conservation under climate change: a response to Hodgson et al. J Appl Ecol 48:143–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Drew A, Freudenberger D, Clayton M (2002). Weddin catchment biodiversity assessment. CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  10. Drielsma M, Ferrier S (2009) Rapid evaluation of metapopulation persistence in highly variegated landscapes. Biol Conserv 142:529–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ellis M, Drielsma M, Mazzer L, Baigent E (2007) Clearing, grazing and reservation: assessing regional impacts of vegetation management on the fauna of south western New South Wales. In: Dickman C, Lunney D, Burgin S (eds) Animals of arid Australia: out on their own?. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, pp 102–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2006) Beyond fragmentation: the continuum model for fauna research and conservation in human-modified landscapes. Oikos 112:473–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2007) Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: a synthesis. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 16:265–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fuller RA, Drielsma MJ, Watson JEM, Taylor R, Sushinsky J, Smith J et al (2012). Western woodlands way. Priorities for ecological restoration. Spatial Ecology Laboratory, University of Queensland and landscape modeling and decision support section, vol 1. New South Wales Office of Environment and Heritage, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  15. Gibbons P, Freudenberger D (2006) An overview of methods used to assess vegetation condition at the scale of the site. Ecol Manag Restor 7:S10–S17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hanski I (1999a) Habitat connectivity, habitat continuity, and metapopulations in dynamic landscapes. Oikos 87:209–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hanski I (1999b) Metapopulation ecology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Hanski I (2004) Metapopulation theory, its use and misuse. Basic Appl Ecol 5:225–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hanski I, Ovaskainen O (2000) The metapopulation capacity of a fragmented landscape. Nature 404:755–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hodgson JA, Thomas CD, Wintle BA, Moilanen A (2009) Climate change, connectivity and conservation decision making: back to basics. J Appl Ecol 46:964–969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hodgson JA, Moilanen A, Wintle BA, Thomas CD (2011) Habitat area, quality and connectivity: striking the balance for efficient conservation. J Appl Ecol 48:148–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (2012) The IUCN red list of threatened species. Version 2012.2. ( Accessed 29 July 2012
  23. Lambeck RJ (1997) Focal species: a multi-species umbrella for nature conservation. Conserv Biol 11:849–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lehtomäki J, Moilanen A (2013) Methods and workflow for spatial conservation prioritization using zonation. Environ Model Softw 47:128–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lindenmayer DB, Wood JT, McBurney L, MacGregor C, Youngentob K, Banks SC (2011) How to make a common species rare: a case against conservation complacency. Biol Conserv 144:1663–1672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McIntyre S, Barrett GW (1992) Habitat variegation, an alternative to fragmentation. Conserv Biol 6:146–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moilanen A (2011) On the limitations of graph-theoretic connectivity in spatial ecology and conservation. J Appl Ecol 48:1543–1547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moilanen A, Kujala H (2008). The Zonation conservation planning framework and software v. 2.0: user manual. ( Accessed 27 Sept 2013
  29. Nicholson E, Ovaskainen O (2009) Conservation prioritization using metapopulation models. In: Moilanen A, Wilson KA, Possingham HP (eds) Spatial conservation prioritization: quantitative methods and computational tools. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 110–121Google Scholar
  30. Parkes D, Newell G, Cheal D (2003) Assessing the quality of native vegetation: the ‘habitat hectares’ approach. Ecol Manag Restor 4:S29–S38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Possingham HP, Lindenmayer DB, Norton TW (1993) A framework for the improved management of threatened species based on population viability analysis (PVA). Pac Conserv Biol 1:39–45Google Scholar
  32. Reid JRW, Cunningham RB (2008). Statistical analysis of Cowrta woodland birds program’s bird database to document trends in individual bird species and functional groups for monitoring and evaluation and to identify targets for habitat management and restoration. Report to Lachlan CMA and Birds Australia. Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  33. Seddon J, Briggs S, Doyle S (2002). Little river catchment biodiversity assessment. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  34. Taylor R, Drielsma MJ (2012). Western woodlands way. Priorities for investment in remnant vegetation and connectivity, vol 2. New South Wales Office of Environment and Heritage, DubboGoogle Scholar
  35. Zerger A, Gibbons P, Jones S, Doyle S, Seddon J, Briggs SV et al (2006) Spatially modelling native vegetation condition. Ecol Manag Restor 7:S37–S44CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Subhashni Taylor
    • 1
    Email author
  • Michael Drielsma
    • 1
    • 2
  • Robert Taylor
    • 3
    • 4
  • Lalit Kumar
    • 1
  1. 1.Ecosystem Management, School of Environmental and Rural ScienceUniversity of New EnglandArmidaleAustralia
  2. 2.New South Wales Office of Environment and HeritageUniversity of New EnglandArmidaleAustralia
  3. 3.New South Wales Office of Environment and HeritageDubboAustralia
  4. 4.WaranaAustralia

Personalised recommendations