Optimizing dispersal corridors for the Cape Proteaceae using network flow.

AT&T Labs-Research, 180 Park Avenue, Florham Park, New Jersey 07932, USA.
Ecological Applications (Impact Factor: 4.13). 08/2008; 18(5):1200-11. DOI: 10.1890/07-0507.1
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We introduce a new way of measuring and optimizing connectivity in conservation landscapes through time, accounting for both the biological needs of multiple species and the social and financial constraint of minimizing land area requiring additional protection. Our method is based on the concept of network flow; we demonstrate its use by optimizing protected areas in the Western Cape of South Africa to facilitate autogenic species shifts in geographic range under climate change for a family of endemic plants, the Cape Proteaceae. In 2005, P. Williams and colleagues introduced a novel framework for this protected area design task. To ensure population viability, they assumed each species should have a range size of at least 100 km2 of predicted suitable conditions contained in protected areas at all times between 2000 and 2050. The goal was to design multiple dispersal corridors for each species, connecting suitable conditions between time periods, subject to each species' limited dispersal ability, and minimizing the total area requiring additional protection. We show that both minimum range size and limited dispersal abilities can be naturally modeled using the concept of network flow. This allows us to apply well-established tools from operations research and computer science for solving network flow problems. Using the same data and this novel modeling approach, we reduce the area requiring additional protection by a third compared to previous methods, from 4593 km2 to 3062 km , while still achieving the same conservation planning goals. We prove that this is the best solution mathematically possible: the given planning goals cannot be achieved with a smaller area, given our modeling assumptions and data. Our method allows for flexibility and refinement of the underlying climate-change, species-habitat-suitability, and dispersal models. In particular, we propose an alternate formalization of a minimum range size moving through time and use network flow to achieve the revised goals, again with the smallest possible newly protected area (2850 km2). We show how to relate total dispersal distance to probability of successful dispersal, and compute a trade-off curve between this quantity and the total amount of extra land that must be protected.

Download full-text


Available from: Guy F Midgley, Jun 17, 2015
  • Source
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Geodiversity has been used as a surrogate for biodiversity when species locations are unknown, and this utility can be extended to situations where species locations are in flux. Recently, scientists have designed conservation networks that aim to explicitly represent the range of geophysical environments, identifying a network of physical stages that could sustain biodiversity while allowing for change in species composition in response to climate change. Because there is no standard approach to designing such networks, we compiled 8 case studies illustrating a variety of ways scientists have approached the challenge. These studies show how geodiversity has been partitioned and used to develop site portfolios and connectivity designs; how geodiversity-based portfolios compare with those derived from species and communities; and how the selection and combination of variables influences the results. Collectively, they suggest 4 key steps when using geodiversity to augment traditional biodiversity-based conservation planning: create land units from species-relevant variables combined in an ecologically meaningful way; represent land units in a logical spatial configuration and integrate with species locations when possible; apply selection criteria to individual sites to ensure they are appropriate for conservation; and develop connectivity among sites to maintain movements and processes. With these considerations, conservationists can design more effective site portfolios to ensure the lasting conservation of biodiversity under a changing climate. © 2015 Society for Conservation Biology.
    Conservation Biology 04/2015; 29(3). DOI:10.1111/cobi.12503 · 4.32 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Most conservation planning to date has focused on protecting today's biodiversity with the assumption that it will be tomorrow's biodiversity. However, modern climate change has already resulted in distributional shifts of some species and is projected to result in many more shifts in the coming decades. As species redistribute and biotic communities reorganize, conservation plans based on current patterns of biodiversity may fail to adequately protect species in the future. One approach for addressing this issue is to focus on conserving a range of abiotic conditions in the conservation-planning process. By doing so, it may be possible to conserve an abiotically diverse "stage" upon which evolution will play out and support many actors (biodiversity). We reviewed the fundamental underpinnings of the concept of conserving the abiotic stage, starting with the early observations of von Humboldt, who mapped the concordance of abiotic conditions and vegetation, and progressing to the concept of the ecological niche. We discuss challenges posed by issues of spatial and temporal scale, the role of biotic drivers of species distributions, and latitudinal and topographic variation in relationships between climate and landform. For example, abiotic conditions are not static, but change through time-albeit at different and often relatively slow rates. In some places, biotic interactions play a substantial role in structuring patterns of biodiversity, meaning that patterns of biodiversity may be less tightly linked to the abiotic stage. Furthermore, abiotic drivers of biodiversity can change with latitude and topographic position, meaning that the abiotic stage may need to be defined differently in different places. We conclude that protecting a diversity of abiotic conditions will likely best conserve biodiversity into the future in places where abiotic drivers of species distributions are strong relative to biotic drivers, where the diversity of abiotic settings will be conserved through time, and where connectivity allows for movement among areas providing different abiotic conditions. © 2015 Society for Conservation Biology.
    Conservation Biology 04/2015; 29(3). DOI:10.1111/cobi.12505 · 4.32 Impact Factor