The effect of target setting on conservation in Canada’s boreal: what is the right amount of area to protect?
Conservation of Canada’s boreal forest has been tied to various campaigns advocating specific area-based targets as part of a broader Systematic Conservation Planning (SCP) effort. Although target setting is an important component of SCP, it is known that the final outcomes of conservation plans are sensitive to the target chosen. There have been few systematic evaluations of how these outcomes change with targets. Here, we use distribution of terrestrial mammals in the Boreal Shield Ecozone of Canada to assess the effects of targets on conservation plans with individual sites that are predicted to be large enough to allow for species persistence. We examine three types of targets; percentage of landscape, percentage of umbrella species range, and minimum number of sites, to see how the final set (in terms of numbers of sites and percent of land) is affected and how well the final set represents the full suite of mammal species. We found a large discrepancy (164,000 km2) in the land required to achieve minimal representation targets depending on the target used. The minimum number of sites target was most efficient and required only 1.25% of the ecozone, while the smallest percentage target that could capture all species was 10%. The use of an umbrella species (caribou, Rangifer tarandas) range was the least effective target, as several species could not be represented at any percentage of the umbrella species range. Thus, conservation planners working in the boreal should be mindful of the impacts their targets have on the final design.
KeywordsConservation planning Percent target Biodiversity Mammals Species-at-risk Effectiveness Efficiency
This work was supported by funding from the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement. Mammal data were provided by NatureServe (www.natureserve.org) and its network of natural heritage member programs, a leading source of information about rare and endangered species, and threatened ecosystems. Marxan is provided through the University of Queensland and was created by Ian Ball, Matt Watts and Hugh Possingham. Thanks to S.J. Leroux and K. Vice for helpful comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript. Reviews by S. Cumming and one anonymous reviewer greatly improved the manuscript.
- Baidou P, Baldwin R, Carlson M, Darveau M, Drapeau P, Gaston K, Jacobs J et al (2013) Conserving the world’s last great forest is possible: here’s how. International Boreal Conservation Science Panel Report.Google Scholar
- Ball IR, Possingham HP, Watts M (2009) Marxan and relatives: software for spatial conservation prioritisation. In: Moilanen A, Wilson KA, Possingham HP (eds) Spatial conservation prioritisation: quantitative methods and computational tools. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 185–195Google Scholar
- Beyer HL (2004) Hawth’s Analysis Tools for ArcGIS. http://www.spatialecology.com/htools. Accessed 21 Jul 2015
- Convention on Biological Diversity (2010) Strategic plan for biodiversity 2011-2020, including Aichi biodiversity targets. https://www.cbd.int/sp/default.shtml. Accessed 7 Dec 2016
- COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada) (2002) COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the grey fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus interior in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi+32 ppGoogle Scholar
- COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada) (2013) COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Little Brown Myotis Myotis lucifugus, Northern Myotis Myotis septentrionalis and Tri-colored Bat Perimyotis subflavus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xxiv+93 pp. www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm
- COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada) (2014) COSEWIC Assessment Process, Categories and Guidelines. http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/pdf/Assessment_process_and_criteria_e.pdf. Accessed 06 Aug 2015
- CPAWS—(The) Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (2008) CPAWS’ Wilderness Conservation Vision and Approach. 2008. http://cpaws.org/uploads/pubs/cpaws_conservation-vision.pdf Accessed 6 Aug 2015
- Ecological Stratification Working Group (1996) A National Ecological Framework for Canada. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Research Branch, Centre for Land and Biological Resources Research, and Environment Canada, State of the Environment Directorate, Ecozone Analysis Branch, Ottawa/Hull. Report and national map at 1:7,500,000 scale. ISBN 0-662-24107-XGoogle Scholar
- Groves CR, Game ET (2015) Conservation planning: informed decisions for a healthier planet. Macmillan Learning, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Hummel M (ed) (1995) Protecting Canada’s endangered spaces: an owner’s manual. Key Porter Books and World Wildlife Fund, TorontoGoogle Scholar
- Knight AT, Cowling RM, Possingham HP, Wilson KA (2009) From theory to practice: designing and situating spatial prioritization approaches to better implement conservation action. In: Moilanen A, Wilson KA, Possingham HP (eds) Spatial conservation prioritisation: quantitative methods and computational tools. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 249–259Google Scholar
- Moilanen A, Wilson KA, Possingham HP (eds) (2009) Spatial conservation prioritization: quantitative methods and computational tools. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Natureserve. 2013. NatureServe Web Service. Arlington, VA. U.S.A. http://services.natureserve.org. Accessed 10 July 2015
- Wells J, Childs D, Reid F, Smith D, Darveau M, Courtois V (2014) Boreal birds need half: maintaining North America’s bird nursery and why it matters. Boreal Songbird Initiative, Seattle, Washington, Ducks Unlimited Inc., Memphis, Tennessee, and Ducks Unlimited Canada, Stonewall, ManitobaGoogle Scholar
- Wilson KA, Cabeza M, Klein CJ (2009) Fundamental concepts of spatial conservation prioritization. In: Moilanen A, Wilson KA, Possingham HP (eds) Spatial conservation prioritisation: quantitative methods and computational tools. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 16–27Google Scholar