| Literature DB >> 27556689 |
Cordelia H Moore1,2,3,4,5, Ben T Radford2,4, Hugh P Possingham6, Andrew J Heyward2,7, Romola R Stewart6, Matthew E Watts6, Jim Prescott8, Stephen J Newman3, Euan S Harvey1, Rebecca Fisher2,7, Clay W Bryce9, Ryan J Lowe4,10, Oliver Berry5, Alexis Espinosa-Gayosso7,11, Errol Sporer3, Thor Saunders12.
Abstract
Creating large conservation zones in remote areas, with less intense stakeholder overlap and limited environmental information, requires periodic review to ensure zonation mitigates primary threats and fill gaps in representation, while achieving conservation targets. Follow-up reviews can utilise improved methods and data, potentially identifying new planning options yielding a desirable balance between stakeholder interests. This research explored a marine zoning system in north-west Australia-a biodiverse area with poorly documented biota. Although remote, it is economically significant (i.e. petroleum extraction and fishing). Stakeholder engagement was used to source the best available biodiversity and socio-economic data and advanced spatial analyses produced 765 high resolution data layers, including 674 species distributions representing 119 families. Gap analysis revealed the current proposed zoning system as inadequate, with 98.2% of species below the Convention on Biological Diversity 10% representation targets. A systematic conservation planning algorithm Maxan provided zoning options to meet representation targets while balancing this with industry interests. Resulting scenarios revealed that conservation targets could be met with minimal impacts on petroleum and fishing industries, with estimated losses of 4.9% and 7.2% respectively. The approach addressed important knowledge gaps and provided a powerful and transparent method to reconcile industry interests with marine conservation.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27556689 PMCID: PMC4996080 DOI: 10.1038/srep32029
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1(a) Planning area. (b) Existing State and proposed Commonwealth marine reserves within the planning area. (c) Overlay of the petroleum leases and their current status within the region. (Figure created in ArcGIS 10.2 http://www.esri.com/).
Data used in Marxan analysis.
| Type | Data | Description | Source or Algorithm |
|---|---|---|---|
| Species | Predicted occurrence | 674 species distribution models | MaxEnt |
| Bioregional | Provincial bioregions | 7 regions defined using biological, physical and spatial information. | IMCRA v4.0 |
| Mesoscale bioregions | 13 regions defined using biological, physical and spatial information. | IMCRA v4.0 | |
| Geomorphic units | 19 areas that have similar geomorphological characteristics | IMCRA v4.0 | |
| Topographic | Bathymetry | General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans, 30 arc-second grid | GEBCO_08 Grid 2010 |
| Slope | First derivative of elevation: average change in elevation/distance. | ArcGIS Arc/Info 10.2 | |
| Aspect | Azimuthal direction of steepest slope | ArcGIS Arc/Info 10.2 | |
| Curvature | Combined index of plan and profile curvature. | ArcGIS Arc/Info 10.2 | |
| Plan curvature | Second derivative of elevation: concavity/convexity perpendicular to slope. | Jenness 2010 | |
| Profile curvature | Second derivative of elevation: concavity/convexity parallel to slope | Jenness 2010 | |
| Rugosity (surface area) | Surface area of the local neighbourhood and the ratio of the actual surface area to pixel area. | Jenness 2010 | |
| Oceanographic | Temperature | Depth averaged temperature 2008–2013 | HYCOM |
| Salinity | Depth averaged salinity 2008–2013 | HYCOM | |
| Velocity | Depth averaged velocity 2008–2013 | HYCOM | |
| Tidal range | Mean tidal range | TPX07–Atlas | |
| Petroleum Industry | Prospectvity | Relative petroleum prospectivity of the north and north-west marine planning region | Geoscience Australia |
| Risk modelling | Oil spill risk | Modelled oil spill risk | ArcGIS Arc/Info 10.2 |
| Fisheries | Northern Demersal Scalefish | Catch and effort data collected on a 10° and 60° grid | WA managed Fisheries |
| Kimberley Gillnet and Barramundi | Catch and effort data collected on a 60° grid | WA managed Fisheries | |
| Mackerel | Catch and effort data collected on a 60° grid | WA managed Fisheries | |
| Kimberley Prawn | Catch and effort data collected on a 10° grid | WA managed Fisheries | |
| Spanish Mackerel | Catch and effort data collected on a 60° grid | NT managed fishery | |
| Offshore Net and Line | Catch and effort data collected on a 60° grid | NT managed fishery | |
| Demersal | Catch and effort data collected on a 60° grid | NT managed fishery | |
| Finfish Trawl | Catch and effort data collected on a 60° grid | NT managed fishery | |
| Timor Reef | Catch and effort data collected on a 60° grid | NT managed fishery | |
| North West Slope | Catch and effort data collected on a 60° grid | AFMA managed fishery | |
| Northern Prawn | Catch and effort data collected on a 60° grid | AFMA managed fishery |
Figure 2Spatial data sets.
(a) Geoscience Australia (2008) relative petroleum prospectivity. (b) Commercial fisheries catch data (kg/km2). (c) Distribution of the occurence data collected across the region. (d) Predicted probability of occurence shown for Pristopomoides multidens (goldband jobfish). (e) Predicted probability of occurence shown for Aipysus laevis (olive seasnake). (f) Compiled predicted species data displaying sum of species occurrence across the region. (g) Modelled oil spill risk. (Figure created in ArcGIS 10.2 http://www.esri.com/).
Figure 3Gap analysis.
(a) State and Commonwealth no take and multiple use marine reserves. (b) Gap analysis assessing representativeness within the no-take areas using IMCRA geomorphological features as surrogates for species diversity. (c) Gap analysis assessing impact on petroleum industry using the petroleum prospectively layer. (Figure created in ArcGIS 10.2 http://www.esri.com/).
Figure 4Conservation planning results using Marxan.
(A) Scenario 1: planning unit selection frequency (scenario includes existing NTAs, cost layers and natural values). (B) Scenario 1: best solution. (C) Scenario 2: planning unit selection frequency (scenario includes cost layers and natural values). (D) Scenario 2: best solution. (Figure created in ArcGIS 10.2 http://www.esri.com/).
Figure 5Predicted loss to industry calculated for the current no-take reserves and for the two reserve design scenarios.
(a) Relative proportion of catch taken by each fishery. (b) Predicted catch loss (%) based on fisheries catch data (kg) collected over a five year period for each major fishery operating in the region. (c) Predicted loss of area prospective for oil and gas (%). (Figure created in ArcGIS 10.2 http://www.esri.com/).