Large‐scale,long‐term ecosystem monitoring: Interview with David Lindenmayer

David Lindenmayer leads six large‐scale, long‐term research programmes in south‐eastern Australia to help conserve biodiversity in restored areas on farmland as well as conservation in reserves, national parks, wood production forests and plantations. What makes this award‐winning researcher tick and how is the research influencing biodiversity management and policy?     

Improving biodiversity monitoring

Effective biodiversity monitoring is critical to evaluate, learn from, and ultimately improve conservation practice. Well conceived, designed and implemented monitoring of biodiversity should: (i) deliver information on trends in key aspects of biodiversity (e.g. population changes); (ii) provide early warning of problems that might otherwise be difficult or expensive to reverse; (iii) generate quantifiable evidence of conservation successes (e.g. species recovery following management) and conservation failures; (iv) highlight ways to make management more effective; and (v) provide information on return on conservation investment. The importance of effective biodiversity monitoring is widely recognized (e.g. Australian Biodiversity Strategy). Yet, while everyone thinks biodiversity monitoring is a good idea, this has not translated into a culture of sound biodiversity monitoring, or widespread use of monitoring data. We identify four barriers to more effective biodiversity monitoring in Australia. These are: (i) many conservation programmes have poorly articulated or vague objectives against which it is difficult to measure progress contributing to design and implementation problems; (ii) the case for long‐term and sustained biodiversity monitoring is often poorly developed and/or articulated; (iii) there is often a lack of appropriate institutional support, co‐ordination, and targeted funding for biodiversity monitoring; and (iv) there is often a lack of appropriate standards to guide monitoring activities and make data available from these programmes. To deal with these issues, we suggest that policy makers, resource managers and scientists better and more explicitly articulate the objectives of biodiversity monitoring and better demonstrate the case for greater investments in biodiversitymonitoring. There is an urgent need for improved institutional support for biodiversity monitoring in Australia, for improved monitoring standards, and for improved archiving of, and access to, monitoring data. We suggest that more strategic financial, institutional and intellectual investments in monitoring will lead to more efficient use of the resources available for biodiversity conservation and ultimately better conservation outcomes.     

Softening the agricultural matrix: a novel agri‐environment scheme that balances habitat restoration and livestock grazing

The loss and degradation of woody vegetation in the agricultural matrix represents a key threat to biodiversity. Strategies for habitat restoration in these landscapes should maximize the biodiversity benefit for each dollar spent in order to achieve the greatest conservation outcomes with scarce funding. To be effective at scale, such strategies also need to account for the opportunity cost of restoration to the farmer. Here, we critique the Whole‐of‐Paddock Rehabilitation program, a novel agri‐environment scheme which seeks to provide a cost‐effective strategy for balancing habitat restoration and livestock grazing. The scheme involves the revegetation of large (minimum 10 ha) fields, designed to maximize biodiversity benefits and minimize costs while allowing for continued agricultural production. The objectives and design of the scheme are outlined, biodiversity and production benefits are discussed, and we contrast its cost‐effectiveness with alternative habitat restoration strategies. Our analysis indicates that this scheme achieves greater restoration outcomes at approximately half the cost of windbreak‐style plantings, the prevailing planting configuration in southeastern Australia, largely due to a focus on larger fields, and the avoidance of fencing costs through the use of existing farm configuration and infrastructure. This emphasis on cost‐effectiveness, the offsetting of opportunity costs through incentive payments, and the use of a planting design that seeks to maximize biodiversity benefits while achieving production benefits to the farmer, has the potential to achieve conservation in productive parts of the agricultural landscape that have traditionally been “off limits” to conservation.     

The business of biodiversity – What is needed for biodiversity markets to work

There has been considerable discussion in Australia about market-based initiatives with the potential to bring effective incentives and greater investment for farmers and other land managers to promote biodiversity conservation. These initiatives include biodiversity trading markets (also termed the nature repair market), stewardship schemes, certification programmes, sustainability frameworks, and natural capital accounting. We welcome these discussions and believe these initiatives would be true advances if they bring much greater investment in conservation and stronger protection and recovery of biodiversity. However, we also have major concerns about the integrity and scientific credibility of some of these initiatives. In this article, we discuss why it is critical that such initiatives both carefully define biodiversity and determine what elements of biodiversity are to be targeted in conservation efforts. We also discuss the fundamental importance of appropriate and agreed biodiversity metrics, as well as the critical need for rigorous, well designed and independent biodiversity monitoring. To ensure that initiatives like biodiversity trading markets, stewardship schemes, certification programmes, sustainability frameworks and natural capital accounting are rigorous, non-corruptible and actually deliver what they are intended to do, they will need to be underpinned by appropriate programme designs. This includes robust and transparent governance structures, high-quality monitoring and timely reporting of key metrics.     

Trends and values of ‘Land for Wildlife’ programs for private land conservation

The Land for Wildlife program started in Victoria in 1981 as a voluntary program with the broad aim of supporting landholders in providing habitat for wildlife on their property. The program has since spread across Australia and is implemented in a range of guises, through a variety of governance approaches. This research collected qualitative and quantitative data on Land for Wildlife programs across Australia to conduct the first national review. Data were gathered on changes in program membership to assess different participation trends. In addition, phone interviews with Land for Wildlife coordinators throughout Australia were conducted to explore how the programs are positioned in delivering biodiversity outcomes in a range of different regions. Over 14,000 properties covering 2.3 million ha are currently registered under Land for Wildlife programs. with at least 500,000 ha of habitat managed for conservation. Limited resources present a large challenge faced by a number of programs, with generally low funding and staffing resulting in restricted biodiversity focus and conservation outcomes. We suggest options to enhance the programs and propose future research directions.     

Prioritising Mangrove Ecosystem Services Results in Spatially Variable Management Priorities

Incorporating the values of the services that ecosystems provide into decision making is becoming increasingly common in nature conservation and resource management policies, both locally and globally. Yet with limited funds for conservation of threatened species and ecosystems there is a desire to identify priority areas where investment efficiently conserves multiple ecosystem services. We mapped four mangrove ecosystems services (coastal protection, fisheries, biodiversity, and carbon storage) across Fiji. Using a cost-effectiveness analysis, we prioritised mangrove areas for each service, where the effectiveness was a function of the benefits provided to the local communities, and the costs were associated with restricting specific uses of mangroves. We demonstrate that, although priority mangrove areas (top 20%) for each service can be managed at relatively low opportunity costs (ranging from 4.5 to 11.3% of overall opportunity costs), prioritising for a single service yields relatively low co-benefits due to limited geographical overlap with priority areas for other services. None-the-less, prioritisation of mangrove areas provides greater overlap of benefits than if sites were selected randomly for most ecosystem services. We discuss deficiencies in the mapping of ecosystems services in data poor regions and how this may impact upon the equity of managing mangroves for particular services across the urban-rural divide in developing countries. Finally we discuss how our maps may aid decision-makers to direct funding for mangrove management from various sources to localities that best meet funding objectives, as well as how this knowledge can aid in creating a national mangrove zoning scheme.     

Species richness declines and biotic homogenisation have slowed down for NW‐European pollinators and plants

Concern about biodiversity loss has led to increased public investment in conservation. Whereas there is a widespread perception that such initiatives have been unsuccessful, there are few quantitative tests of this perception. Here, we evaluate whether rates of biodiversity change have altered in recent decades in three European countries (Great Britain, Netherlands and Belgium) for plants and flower visiting insects. We compared four 20‐year periods, comparing periods of rapid land‐use intensification and natural habitat loss (1930–1990) with a period of increased conservation investment (post‐1990). We found that extensive species richness loss and biotic homogenisation occurred before 1990, whereas these negative trends became substantially less accentuated during recent decades, being partially reversed for certain taxa (e.g. bees in Great Britain and Netherlands). These results highlight the potential to maintain or even restore current species assemblages (which despite past extinctions are still of great conservation value), at least in regions where large‐scale land‐use intensification and natural habitat loss has ceased.     

Key lessons for achieving biodiversity‐sensitive cities and towns

Australia's urban landscapes offer opportunities to marry socio‐economic and biodiversity conservation objectives. Yet, information is needed on what urban landscape and habitat features are important for wildlife. In this article, we draw together our research from southeastern Australia to describe key lessons for biodiversity‐sensitive cities and towns. Lesson 1: The effects of urbanization on wildlife extend into adjacent habitats. We recommend retaining large, undisturbed areas of habitat away from development, avoiding intensive development adjacent to important conservation areas, prioritizing areas of ecological and social significance, screening light and noise pollution at the urban fringe and around large nature reserves, and planting appropriately provenanced locally native species for public streetscapes, parks and gardens. Lesson 2: Strategic enhancement of urban greenspace offers biodiversity gains. We recommend increasing the total amount of greenspace cover, maintaining ecological structures as habitat islands, using landscaping techniques to minimize risks to human safety, and gardening with low‐flowering native shrubs. Lesson 3: Large old trees need to be managed for long‐term sustainability. We recommend retaining large old trees in new developments, increasing the maximum standing life of urban trees, protecting regenerating areas and planting more seedlings, supplementing habitat features associated with large trees, and ensuring that young trees have space to grow through time. Lesson 4: Education and engagement connects residents with nature and raises awareness. We recommend education programs to enhance opportunities for residents to experience and learn about biodiversity, engaging residents in the establishment and maintenance of wildlife habitat, providing ‘cues to care’, facilitating access to garden plants that benefit wildlife, and encouraging cat containment. These lessons provide an evidence‐base for implementing conservation and management actions to improve the capacity of our cities and towns to support a diverse and abundant biota.     

What to do in the face of multiple threats? Incorporating dependencies within a return on investment framework for conservation

Aim Our study aimed to determine priority areas for conservation investment with explicit consideration of the impacts of multiple threatening processes, and the dependencies that exist between actions required to abate these threats. Location Australia. Methods We analysed the return on investment for two different management actions aimed at reducing the impact of invasive species on the native fauna and flora of Australia. We focussed on the management of the European red fox (Vulpes vulpes) and European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) at two spatial scales: across 72 biogeographic regions of Australia and within one high‐priority biogeographic region. We considered each action independently and also explicitly accounted for the option of an integrated fox and rabbit management action. We accounted for the spatial distributions of the threatened species within our analysis and determined how this refined spatial information influenced both the priority areas and the timing of this investment. Results Integrated fox and rabbit management was identified as a higher priority than singular threat abatement in most bioregions, whereas rabbit control alone was the most frequent priority if dependencies between actions were ignored. At the regional scale, funding was entirely directed to integrated action when seven or more species within the priority region were impacted by more than one threat. The total allocation of funding and timing of initial investment remained relatively insensitive to differences in the spatial overlap of species distributions. Main conclusions Our findings indicate that prioritizing conservation actions without explicit consideration of the impacts of multiple threats can reduce the cost‐effectiveness of investments. The benefits expected from investment in abating one threat alone may be overestimated where other processes continue to threaten species persistence. We conclude that future attention should be directed to refining our understanding of the cost‐efficiencies delivered through integrated actions and institutional mechanisms to achieve their delivery.     

全国重要生态功能区生物多样性保护成效区域对比评估

国家重要生态功能区是国家主体功能区战略实施和生态保护红线划定的基础,关系到全国乃至全球范围的生态安全。开展大尺度生物多样性保护成效区域对比评估对促进物种栖息地科学管理、提升国家生物多样性保护水平具有较为重要的意义。本研究以2015年《全国生态功能区划》修编版划定的24个生物多样性保护生态功能区为研究对象,选取生态功能区内或邻近生态功能区的国家级自然保护区核心区作为参照区,利用InVEST模型计算多年参照区生境质量指数,并从中筛选出最大值,构建全国尺度的生境质量指数参照基准,在此基础上,采用空间叠加分析方法建立保护成效指数,定量分析了24个重要生态功能区生物多样性保护成效空间对比差异。研究结果表明:(1)基于参照基准的生物多样性保护成效区域对比评估方法可以较好地应用于全国尺度,全国重要生态功能区生境质量指数参照基准呈现明显的"西北低,东南高"的分布格局,而重要生态功能区生物多样性保护成效则表现出"西北高,东南低"的空间差异;(2)位于华东和华南地区的重要生态功能区生态环境本底状况较好,东北和华中地区的重要生态功能区居中,而西北和西南地区的重要生态功能区生态环境本底状况较差;(3)2015年西北和西南地区的重要生态功能区生境质量指数基本与参照基准持平,表现为生物多样性保护成效较好,华中和华南地区的重要生态功能区生境质量指数小幅度低于参照基准,体现保护效果居中,保护效果较差的重要生态功能区则位于东北与华东地区,其生境质量指数大幅度低于参照基准。通过对全国尺度重要生态功能区生物多样性保护成效区域对比评估,为进一步完善国家生物多样性保护成效的绩效考评机制和转移支付提供科学依据。     

Insect natural history,multi-species interactions and biodiversity in ecosystems

The composition and dynamics of ecosystems are influenced by insects serving as providers, eliminators and facilitators across multiple trophic levels. The role of insects in ecosystems may be documented by manipulative field studies involving exclusion techniques applied to species that are decomposers, herbivores or predators. The presence or absence of insects is important to the distribution, abundance and diversity of plants and vertebrates, which typically are the premier species in conservation efforts. Thus, policy-making in environmental management programmes should consider the role of insects in ecosystems when establishing objectives and procedures for species conservation and biodiversity.     

Funding begets biodiversity

Aim Effective conservation of biodiversity relies on an unbiased knowledge of its distribution. Conservation priority assessments are typically based on the levels of species richness, endemism and threat. Areas identified as important receive the majority of conservation investments, often facilitating further research that results in more species discoveries. Here, we test whether there is circularity between funding and perceived biodiversity, which may reinforce the conservation status of areas already perceived to be important while other areas with less initial funding may remain overlooked. Location Eastern Arc Mountains, Tanzania. Methods We analysed time series data (1980–2007) of funding (n = 134 projects) and plant species records (n = 75,631) from a newly compiled database. Perceived plant diversity, over three decades, is regressed against funding and environmental factors, and variances decomposed in partial regressions. Cross‐correlations are used to assess whether perceived biodiversity drives funding or vice versa. Results Funding explained 65% of variation in perceived biodiversity patterns – six times more variation than accounted for by 34 candidate environmental factors. Cross‐correlation analysis showed that funding is likely to be driving conservation priorities and not vice versa. It was also apparent that investment itself may trigger further investments as a result of reduced start‐up costs for new projects in areas where infrastructure already exists. It is therefore difficult to establish whether funding, perceived biodiversity, or both drive further funding. However, in all cases, the results suggest that regional assessments of biodiversity conservation importance may be biased by investment. Funding effects might also confound studies on mechanisms of species richness patterns. Main conclusions Continued biodiversity loss commands urgent conservation action even if our knowledge of its whereabouts is incomplete; however, by concentrating inventory funds in areas already perceived as important in terms of biodiversity and/or where start‐up costs are lower, we risk losing other areas of underestimated or unknown value.     

Biodiversity gains from efficient use of private sponsorship for flagship species conservation

To address the global extinction crisis, both efficient use of existing conservation funding and new sources of funding are vital. Private sponsorship of charismatic ‘flagship’ species conservation represents an important source of new funding, but has been criticized as being inefficient. However, the ancillary benefits of privately sponsored flagship species conservation via actions benefiting other species have not been quantified, nor have the benefits of incorporating such sponsorship into objective prioritization protocols. Here, we use a comprehensive dataset of conservation actions for the 700 most threatened species in New Zealand to examine the potential biodiversity gains from national private flagship species sponsorship programmes. We find that private funding for flagship species can clearly result in additional species and phylogenetic diversity conserved, via conservation actions shared with other species. When private flagship species funding is incorporated into a prioritization protocol to preferentially sponsor shared actions, expected gains can be more than doubled. However, these gains are consistently smaller than expected gains in a hypothetical scenario where private funding could be optimally allocated among all threatened species. We recommend integrating private sponsorship of flagship species into objective prioritization protocols to sponsor efficient actions that maximize biodiversity gains, or wherever possible, encouraging private donations for broader biodiversity goals.     

Can postmining revegetation create habitat for a threatened mammal?

Most revegetation conducted for biodiversity conservation aims to mimic reference ecosystems present predisturbance. However, revegetation can overshoot or undershoot targets, particularly in the early stages of a recovery process, resulting in conditions different from the reference model. Revegetation that has, as yet, failed to fully meet revegetation targets may, nonetheless, provide habitat for threatened species not present in reference ecosystems. To investigate this possibility, we surveyed Quokka (Setonix brachyurus), a threatened macropod, in a mining landscape in south‐western Australia. We established four sites in each of riparian forest, which is the preferred habitat of quokkas but is not mined, mid‐slope forest, which is the premining reference ecosystem but is not suitable habitat for quokkas, and revegetated forest on mine pits 16–21 years postmining. We recorded quokkas in all riparian forest sites and two revegetated forest sites but not in any mid‐slope forest sites. Occupied revegetated sites had greater cover between 0 and 2 m and were spatially closer to riparian forest than unoccupied revegetated sites, suggesting predation pressure was likely influencing which mine pits were occupied. Our study demonstrated postmining revegetation can provide new habitat for a threatened species and suggested that revegetating a small proportion of sites to provide new habitat for threatened species could be considered as a management option in some scenarios. This could improve landscape connectivity and increase both the area of available habitat and between‐site heterogeneity, which could all potentially increase the ability of revegetation to conserve biodiversity.     

Ecologically functional landscapes and the role of dingoes as trophic regulators in south‐eastern Australia and other habitats

Large carnivores can play a pivotal role in maintaining healthy, balanced ecosystems. By suppressing the abundances and hence impacts of herbivores and smaller predators, top predators can indirectly benefit the species consumed by herbivores and smaller predators. Restoring and maintaining the ecosystem services that large carnivores provide has been identified as a critical step required to sustain biodiversity and maintain functional, resilient ecosystems. Recent research has shown that Australia's largest terrestrial predator, the Dingo (Canis lupus dingo), has strong effects on ecosystems in arid Australia and that these effects are beneficial for the conservation of small mammals and vegetation. Similarly, there is evidence from south‐eastern Australia that dingoes suppress the abundance of macropods and red Fox (Vulpes vulpes). It is likely that dingoes in south‐eastern Australia also generate strong indirect effects on the prey of foxes and macropods, as has been observed in the more arid parts of the continent. These direct and indirect effects of dingoes have the potential to be harnessed as passive tools to assist biodiversity conservation through the maintenance of ecologically functional dingo populations. However, research is required to better understand dingoes' indirect effects on ecosystems and the development of dingo management strategies that allow for both the preservation of dingoes and protection of livestock.     

Can shooting be an effective management tool for foxes? Preliminary insights from a management programme

Historically, shooting has been a popular method for controlling foxes in Australia, but past research has shown it to be an ineffective method for significantly reducing fox population numbers. These past studies investigated shooting when conducted in isolated, one‐off programmes. In more recent years large, coordinated group fox management programmes has become popular in both agricultural and conservation areas. These landscape scale programmes give more chance of long‐term respite from predation damage by slowing down the immigration rates of foxes into the culled area. Studies have been conducted investigating the effectiveness of large‐scale group fox management programmes that primarily used 1080 baiting as the method of control to protect vulnerable livestock and small animal. This study investigated the potential of a large‐scale group programme that used shooting as the main form of control to reduce the impact of fox predation.     

Step back from the forest and step up to the Bonn Challenge: how a broad ecological perspective can promote successful landscape restoration

We currently face both an extinction and a biome crisis embedded in a changing climate. Many biodiverse ecosystems are being lost at far higher rates than they are being protected or ecologically restored. At the same time, natural climate solutions offer opportunities to restore biodiversity while mitigating climate change. The Bonn Challenge is a U.N. programme to restore biodiversity and mitigate climate change through restoration of the world's degraded landscapes. It provides an unprecedented chance for ecological restoration to become a linchpin tool for addressing many environmental issues. Unfortunately, the Forest and Landscape Restoration programme that underpins the Bonn Challenge, as its name suggests, remains focused on trees and forests, despite rising evidence that many non‐forest ecosystems also offer strong restoration potential for biodiversity and climate mitigation. We see a need for restoration to step back to be more inclusive of different ecosystem types and to step up to provide integrated scientific knowledge to inform large‐scale restoration. Stepping back and up will require assessments of where to restore what species, with recognition that in many landscapes multiple habitat types should be restored. In the process, trade‐offs in the delivery of different ecosystem services (e.g. carbon, biodiversity, water, albedo, livestock forage) should be clearly addressed. We recommend that biodiversity safeguards be included in policy and implemented in practice, to avoid undermining the biophysical relationships that provide ecosystem resilience to climate change. For ecological restoration to contribute to international policy goals will require integrated large‐scale science that works across biome boundaries.     

Identifying keystone habitats with a mosaic approach can improve biodiversity conservation in disturbed ecosystems

Conserving native biodiversity in the face of human‐ and climate‐related impacts is a challenging and globally important ecological problem that requires an understanding of spatially connected, organismal‐habitat relationships. Globally, a suite of disturbances (e.g., agriculture, urbanization, climate change) degrades habitats and threatens biodiversity. A mosaic approach (in which connected, interacting collections of juxtaposed habitat patches are examined) provides a scientific foundation for addressing many disturbance‐related, ecologically based conservation problems. For example, if specific habitat types disproportionately increase biodiversity, these keystones should be incorporated into research and management plans. Our sampling of fish biodiversity and aquatic habitat along ten 3‐km sites within the Upper Neosho River subdrainage, KS, from June‐August 2013 yielded three generalizable ecological insights. First, specific types of mesohabitat patches (i.e., pool, riffle, run, and glide) were physically distinct and created unique mosaics of mesohabitats that varied across sites. Second, species richness was higher in riffle mesohabitats when mesohabitat size reflected field availability. Furthermore, habitat mosaics that included more riffles had greater habitat diversity and more fish species. Thus, riffles (<5% of sampled area) acted as keystone habitats. Third, additional conceptual development, which we initiate here, can broaden the identification of keystone habitats across ecosystems and further operationalize this concept for research and conservation. Thus, adopting a mosaic approach can increase scientific understanding of organismal‐habitat relationships, maintain natural biodiversity, advance spatial ecology, and facilitate effective conservation of native biodiversity in human‐altered ecosystems.     

Linking Land‐Use Scenarios,Remote Sensing and Monitoring to Project Impact of Management Decisions

Large‐scale modifications of natural ecosystems lead to mosaics of natural, semi‐natural and intensively used habitats. To improve communication in conservation planning, managers and other stakeholders need spatially explicit projections at the landscape scale of future biodiversity under different land‐use scenarios. For that purpose, we visualized the potential effect of five forest management scenarios on the avifauna of Kakamega Forest, western Kenya using different measures of bird diversity and GIS data. Future projections of bird diversity combined: (1) remotely sensed data on the spatial distribution of different forest management types; (2) field‐based data on the biodiversity of birds in the different management types; and (3) forest management scenarios that took into account possible views of various stakeholder groups. Management scenarios based on the species richness of forest specialists were very informative, because they reflected differences in the proportions of near‐natural forest types among the five scenarios. Projections based on community composition were even more meaningful, as they mirrored not only the proportions of near‐natural forest types, but also their perimeter to area ratios. This highlights that it is important to differentiate effects of the total area of available habitat and the degree of habitat fragmentation, both for species richness and community composition. Furthermore, our study shows that an approach that combines land‐use scenarios, remote sensing and field data on biodiversity can be used to visualize future biodiversity. As such, visualizations of alternative scenarios are valuable for successful communication about conservation planning considering different groups of stakeholders in species‐rich tropical forests.