Elsevier

Ecological Indicators

Volume 36, January 2014, Pages 552-562
Ecological Indicators

Spatial assessment and mapping of biodiversity and conservation priorities in a heavily modified and fragmented production landscape in north-central Victoria, Australia

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.09.022Get rights and content

Abstract

Human impacts on the natural environment have resulted in a steady decline in biodiversity and associated ecosystem services. A major policy and management challenge is to efficiently allocate limited resources for nature conservation to maximise biodiversity benefits. Spatial assessment and mapping of biodiversity value plays a vital role in identifying key areas for conservation and establishing conservation priorities. This study measured biodiversity value using readily available data and tools in order to identify conservation priority sites in a heavily modified and fragmented production landscape. The study also assessed trade-offs among biodiversity and other ecosystem services. We used spatial tools for assessing and mapping biodiversity such as Patch Analyst in ArcGIS 10.2 to assess landscape alteration states, and the Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs to identify habitat quality. Results indicated that areas of high biodiversity conservation value were concentrated in less modified land-cover types. Substantially modified land-cover types (generally associated with agriculture and irrigated pastures) had lower habitat quality and biodiversity value. The analysis revealed that assessments based solely on habitat condition may not be the most suitable basis for conservation planning because this does not include associated adjacent land uses, roads or other threats to biodiversity. Spatially targeted environmental plantings and less intensive agroforestry that reconnect native remnants in heavily fragmented landscapes can provide significant potential conservation outcomes. Planned landscape reconfiguration based on readily available spatial data can yield net positive benefits to biodiversity by halting degradation of remnant native vegetation and increasing total habitat area.

Introduction

In recent years, the importance of biodiversity to global economies, human welfare and survival has been well documented and widely recognised (Butchart et al., 2010, Duffy, 2009, Rands et al., 2010, Steffen et al., 2009, TEEB, 2009). In Australia, biodiversity continues to decline in spite of Federal and state government efforts to manage threats (Bennett, 2003, DSE, 2010, NRMC, 2010, OECD, 2008, SoE, 2011, Steffen et al., 2009) with similar trends globally (Butchart et al., 2010, CBD, 2010, MEA, 2005, Steffen et al., 2009). Moreover, Australia has suffered the largest documented extinction of species of any continent over the last 200 years (DSEWPC, 2011). The main identified threats to biodiversity in Australia include loss, fragmentation and degradation of habitat or natural ecosystems, spread of invasive species, unsustainable use of natural resources, inappropriate fire regimes, and climate change (Bennett, 2003, NRMC, 2010, Steffen et al., 2009).

With significant expansion in production landscapes for agricultural activity around the world and a resultant ongoing decline of natural systems (FAO, 2005, World Bank, 2010), there is an increasing focus on the role of production landscapes in conserving biodiversity and providing a variety of ecosystem services (Bélair et al., 2010, Kandziora et al., 2013, Wilson et al., 2010). Securing biodiversity in the production landscape can enhance agricultural productivity through pollination and pest regulation, water quality and nutrient regulation, soil stabilisation, and carbon sequestration (Hooper et al., 2005, Kasel et al., 2011, Scherr and McNeely, 2008, Tscharntke et al., 2005). While there is ongoing debate about the relative merits of integrated versus partitioned conservation activity (Phalan et al., 2011, Tscharntke et al., 2012), conservation policy makers and land managers are giving strong support to conserving biodiversity in highly modified production landscapes (Wilson et al., 2010). Spatial assessment and mapping of conditions suitable for biodiversity conservation or restoration are also essential for the establishment of baseline biological data that will aid successful conservation planning and management in highly modified landscapes (Eigenbrod et al., 2009, Jones-Walters, 2008) and help identify priority sites for allocating limited resources (Brooks et al., 2006, Higgins, 2006).

Extent and quality of habitat conditions are often used as proxies of biodiversity (Nelson et al., 2011, Tallis et al., 2010) and remote sensing based techniques are being increasingly employed to generate biodiversity and ecosystem services indicators (García-Gómez and Maestre, 2011, Lück-Vogel et al., 2013, Nagendra et al., 2013, Spanhove et al., 2012). Recent research has focused on linking current land use and vegetation types to biodiversity and associated ecosystem services (Burkhard et al., 2012, Falcucci et al., 2007, Foley et al., 2005, Hector and Bachi, 2007, Kandziora et al., 2013, Yapp et al., 2010). A variety of approaches have been used to identify conservation priority sites within production landscapes, each focused on a different aspect of biodiversity (e.g., Kandziora et al., 2013, Schneiders et al., 2012, Tallis et al., 2010) from global (Brooks et al., 2006, Jongman, 2013) to local scale (Higgins, 2006, Jongman, 2013). Given the imperative for expeditious implementation of conservation solutions (Watts and Handley, 2010), rapid assessment approaches that use readily available data and tools are highly desirable (Baral et al., 2013, Burkhard et al., 2012, Grantham et al., 2008, Grantham et al., 2009).

The aim of this study is to spatially characterise a heavily modified and fragmented production landscape and assess biodiversity value using readily available data and tools in order to identify conservation priority sites. An additional aim is to assess the effect of land-use change on the provision of biodiversity and associated ecosystem services. To achieve these objectives we used spatial approaches and tools for biodiversity assessment and mapping such as Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Trade-offs (InVEST) biodiversity models (Tallis et al., 2010) and patch analyst tool (Rempel et al., 1999, Rempel et al., 2012). The resulting data and maps and subsequent analyses are used to consider the opportunities for re-configuring natural vegetation in cleared, modified and degraded landscapes to meet new sustainable landscape management objectives. Furthermore, we comment on the suitability of InVEST tools for habitat quality assessment and conservation planning.

Section snippets

Study site

The study site is located in north-central Victoria, Australia between Kerang and Lake Boga, approximately 320 km north-west of Melbourne (35.972° S, 143.228° E, Fig. 1). The total area spans about 30,000 ha, essentially defined by the boundaries of the Little Murray and Lower Loddon Rivers in the North, West and South and the Murray Valley Highway in the West. Within the study area lies the Winlaton and Reedy Lakes Future Farming Landscapes (FFL) projects managed by Kilter Pty Ltd. The terrain

Spatial characterisation of the landscape – Patch Analyst tool

Twenty two percent of the study area (6800 ha) supported native vegetation. This vegetation was highly fragmented, in more than 4000 irregularly shaped patches. Of these patches 98.5% were small sized patches (<10 ha), 1.2% were medium sized (10–50 ha) and only 0.3% were large sized (>50 ha). Although there was one large block of approximately 1800 ha intact native vegetation (Fig. 2), the small sized patches of native vegetation dominated the landscape with mean patch size of 1.8 ha and median patch

Discussion

This study demonstrates that readily available spatial datasets and tools can be used to assess habitat quality and biodiversity values in human-dominated landscapes and can be useful for initial assessment and conservation planning. Our analysis also indicates that there is a high potential for protecting and enlarging small remnant patches for reducing fragmentation and increasing connectivity and associated biodiversity at the landscape scale.

Conclusions

Conservation of biodiversity and associated ecosystem services in highly modified and fragmented production landscapes is a crucial natural resource management issue in Australia and elsewhere. Availability of data and appropriate tools are often identified as issues in assessment of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Here we successfully demonstrate spatial approaches to classifying the landscape for habitat quality, based on the size, density, distribution and condition of native remnant

Acknowledgements

Himlal Baral was supported by a University of Melbourne Research Scholarship and top-up scholarship from the Cooperative Research Centre for Forestry. Spatial data were provided by the Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) through the University of Melbourne and the North Central Catchment Management Authority. We thank Graeme Newell from the Arthur Rylah Institute of Environmental Research, DSE and Kilter Pty Ltd for supplementary data and ongoing support. We thank two

References (99)

  • M. Kandziora et al.

    Interactions of ecosystem properties, ecosystem integrity and ecosystem service indicators—a theoretical matrix exercise

    Ecol. Indic.

    (2013)
  • S. Kasel et al.

    Species-specific effects of native trees on soil organic carbon in biodiverse plantings across north-central Victoria, Australia

    Geoderma

    (2011)
  • M.D.K. Leh et al.

    Quantifying and mapping multiple ecosystem services change in West Africa

    Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.

    (2013)
  • M. Lück-Vogel et al.

    Remote sensing based ecosystem state assessment in the Sandveld Region, South Africa

    Ecol. Indic.

    (2013)
  • H. Nagendra et al.

    Remote sensing for conservation monitoring, Assessing protected areas, habitat extent, habitat condition, species diversity, and threats

    Ecol. Indic.

    (2013)
  • N.J. Ostle et al.

    UK land use and soil carbon sequestration

    Land Use Policy

    (2009)
  • C.P. Paukert et al.

    Development and assessment of a landscape-scale ecological threat index for the Lower Colorado River Basin

    Ecol. Indic.

    (2011)
  • P.L. Pert et al.

    A composite threat indicator approach to monitor vegetation condition in the Wet Tropics, Queensland, Australia

    Ecol. Indic.

    (2012)
  • S. Polasky et al.

    Where to put things? Spatial land management to sustain biodiversity and economic returns

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2008)
  • L. Rubio et al.

    Assessing the importance of individual habitat patches as irreplaceable connecting elements. An analysis of simulated and real landscape data

    Ecol. Complex.

    (2012)
  • A. Schneiders et al.

    Biodiversity and ecosystem services: complementary approaches for ecosystem management?

    Ecol. Indic.

    (2012)
  • T. Spanhove et al.

    Can remote sensing estimate fine-scale quality indicators of natural habitats?

    Ecol. Indic.

    (2012)
  • T. Tscharntke et al.

    Global food security, biodiversity conservation and the future of agricultural intensification

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2012)
  • K. Watts et al.

    Developing a functional connectivity indicator to detect change in fragmented landscapes

    Ecol. Indic.

    (2010)
  • G. Yapp et al.

    Linking vegetation type and condition to ecosystem goods and services

    Ecol. Complex.

    (2010)
  • H. Baral et al.

    Measuring and managing ecosystem goods and services in changing landscapes: a south-east Australian perspective

    J. Environ. Plann. Manage.

    (2013)
  • C. Bélair et al.

    Sustainable use of biological diversity in socio-ecological production landscapes. Background to the ‘Satoyama Initiative for the benefit of biodiversity and human well-being

    (2010)
  • J. Bennett

    The economic value of biodiversity: a scoping paper

  • T.M. Brooks et al.

    Global biodiversity conservation priorities

    Science

    (2006)
  • BRS

    Guidelines for Land Use Mapping in Australia: Principles, Procedures and Definitions. A Technical Handbook Supporting the Australian Collaborative Land Use Mapping Programme. Edition 3

    (2006)
  • J.M. Bullock et al.

    Long-term enhancement of agricultural production by restoration of biodiversity

    J. Appl. Ecol.

    (2007)
  • S.H. Butchart et al.

    Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines

    Science

    (2010)
  • S. Cao et al.

    Impact of China's Grain for Green Project on the landscape of vulnerable arid and semi-arid agricultural regions, a case study in northern Shaanxi Province

    J. Appl. Ecol.

    (2009)
  • CBD

    Global Biodiversity Outlook. 3: Executive Summary

    (2010)
  • CEF

    Biodiversity Fund Fact Sheet

    (2012)
  • X. Chen et al.

    Using cost-effective targeting to enhance the efficiency of conservation investments in payments for ecosystem services

    Conserv. Biol.

    (2010)
  • E.F. Connor et al.

    The statistics and biology of the species–area relationship

    Am. Nat.

    (1979)
  • N.D. Crossman et al.

    Carbon payments and low-cost conservation

    Conserv. Biol.

    (2011)
  • R.S. de Groot et al.

    Quantifying and valuing goods and services provided by plantation forests

  • DSE

    Kerang Lakes Ramsar Site Strategic Management Plan

    (2004)
  • DSE

    Threatened Fauna 100 (GIS Databases), Biodiversity Policy and Programs

    (2008)
  • DSE

    Threatened Flora 100 (GIS Databases), Biodiversity Policy and Programs

    (2008)
  • DSE

    Kerang Wetlands Ramsar Site Ecological Character Description

    (2010)
  • DSE

    Simplified Native Vegetation Groups

    (2011)
  • DSEWPC

    Biodiversity Conservation

    (2011)
  • J.E. Duffy

    Why biodiversity is important to the functioning of real-world ecosystems

    Front. Ecol. Environ.

    (2009)
  • F. Eigenbrod et al.

    Ecosystem service benefits of contrasting conservation strategies in a human-dominated region

    Proc. R. Soc. Biol. Sci.

    (2009)
  • T.J. Eyre et al.

    Method for the Establishment and Survey of Reference Sites for BioCondition Version 2.0

    (2011)
  • A. Falcucci et al.

    Changes in land-use/land-cover patterns in Italy and their implications for biodiversity conservation

    Landsc. Ecol.

    (2007)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text