Using Biogeography to Help Set Priorities in Marine Conservation

: Biogeographic information has great potential to enhance systematic conservation planning, although it has yet to be routinely incorporated in marine situations. Fundamental differences between marine and terrestrial environments (physical, biological, and sociopolitical) mean that biogeographic data are harder to obtain for marine systems, biogeographic boundaries more difficult to define, and the outcomes of similar conservation approaches may differ. Despite these challenges, an understanding of spatial context, connections, and scales of processes is needed to set conservation priorities that ensure the representation and continued persistence of species and habitats within functioning ecosystems. As we discovered in our review, scientific knowledge of marine systems is increasing rapidly thanks to recent advances in genetics, remote sensing, and geographical information systems. Such knowledge and tools have important implications for marine planning. We also reviewed the degree to which biogeography is incorporated into current marine conservation projects at spatial scales ranging from global to local. Overall, initiatives are becoming more regional in scope and incorporating biogeographic data in an increasingly rigorous manner. However, initiatives that use few or no data are also on the rise and need to be treated with due caution. We recommend undertaking global and regional reviews within biogeographic frameworks; combining analytical approaches to determine biogeographic classifications and to define a range of potential conservation areas with stakeholder involvement to set priorities; understanding contemporary processes that maintain species distributions; and acquiring knowledge of historical distributions to provide appropriate baselines for current conservation. The urgent need for marine conservation, however, means that planning should proceed with the best currently available biogeographic information even while biogeographic research continues. Resumen: La informacion biogeografica tiene gran potencial para mejorar la planeacion de la conservacion sistematica, aunque aun debe ser incluida rutinariamente a situaciones marinas. Las diferencias (fisicas, biologicas y sociopoliticas) fundamentales entre ambientes marinos y terrestres significan que los datos biogeograficos son mas dificiles de obtener para sistemas marinos, es mas dificil definir los limites biogeograficos y los resultados de metodos de conservacion similares pueden diferir. A pesar de estos retos, se requiere entendimiento del contexto espacial, conexiones y escalas de procesos para definir prioridades de conservacion que garanticen la representacion y persistencia continuada de especies y habitat dentro de ecosistemas funcionales. En nuestras revisiones descubrimos que nuestro conocimiento de los sistemas marinos esta aumentado rapidamente gracias a los avances recientes en genetica, percepcion remota y sistemas de informacion geografica. Estas herramientas han tenido importantes implicaciones en la planeacion marina. Tambien revisamos el grado en que la biogeografia es incorporada a los proyectos actuales de conservacion en escalas espaciales que varian de globales a locales. En general, las iniciativas se estan volviendo mas regionales en alcance y estan incorporando datos biogeograficos de manera cada vez mas rigurosa. Las iniciativas que utilizan pocos o ningun dato tambien estan incrementando y deben ser tratados con la debida precaucion. Recomendamos abordar revisiones globales y regionales en contextos biogeograficos, mediante la combinacion de metodos analiticos para determinar clasificaciones biogeograficas y definir un rango de areas de conservacion potenciales y la participacion del publico para fijar prioridades; el entendimiento de los procesos contemporaneos que mantienen la distribucion de especies; y la adquisicion de conocimiento de las distribuciones historicas para proporcionar bases apropiadas para la conservacion actual. Sin embargo, la urgente necesidad de la conservacion marina significa que la planeacion debe proceder con la mejor informacion biogeografica disponible actualmente aun mientras la investigacion biogeografica continua.

[1]  B. Bett,et al.  The Status of natural resources on the high-seas. Part I: An environmental perspective; Part 2: Legal and polititcal considerations , 2001 .

[2]  Frederick T. Short,et al.  World Atlas of Seagrasses , 2003 .

[3]  D. Pauly.  Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. , 1995, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[4]  S. Andelman,et al.  COMPARING MARINE AND TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF COASTAL MARINE RESERVES , 2003 .

[5]  Lauretta Burke,et al.  Reefs at Risk in Southeast Asia , 2002 .

[6]  Fred Wells,et al.  Marine Biodiversity Hotspots and Conservation Priorities for Tropical Reefs , 2002, Science.

[7]  Hanna,et al.  Principles for Sustainable Governance of the Oceans , 1998, Science.

[8]  Heather M. Leslie,et al.  APPLICATION OF ECOLOGICAL CRITERIA IN SELECTING MARINE RESERVES AND DEVELOPING RESERVE NETWORKS , 2003 .

[9]  Garry R. Russ,et al.  Do marine reserves export adult fish biomass? Evidence from Apo Island, central Philippines , 1996 .

[10]  L. Deegan,et al.  Marine and estuarine ecosystem and habitat classification , 2000 .

[11]  D. Wright,et al.  Marine and coastal geographical information systems , 1999 .

[12]  S. Sarkar,et al.  Systematic conservation planning , 2000, Nature.

[13]  Maria Beger,et al.  Conservation of coral reef biodiversity: A comparison of reserve selection procedures for corals and fishes , 2003 .

[14]  M. Beck,et al.  Ecoregional planning in marine environments: identifying priority sites for conservation in the northern Gulf of Mexico , 2001 .

[15]  W. Fisher,et al.  Warmwater Stream and River Fisheries in the Southeastern United States: Are We Managing Them in Proportion to Their Values? , 1998 .

[16]  L. Hannah,et al.  Climate change‐integrated conservation strategies , 2002 .

[17]  J. Harper,et al.  The British Columbia marine ecosystem classification: Rationale, development, and verification , 1998 .

[18]  M. Mascia,et al.  The Human Dimension of Coral Reef Marine Protected Areas: Recent Social Science Research and Its Policy Implications , 2003 .

[19]  L. Beckley,et al.  Biogeography and the selection of priority areas for conservation of South African coastal fishes , 2000 .

[20]  R. Reeves,et al.  Dolphins, Porpoises, and Whales: 1994-1998 Action Plan for the Conservation of Cetaceans , 1994 .

[21]  G. Brundtland.  World summit on sustainable development , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[22]  Yunqing Zhang,et al.  A portal for the Ocean Biogeographic Information System Un portail pour le Système d'information biogéographique sur l'océan , 2002 .

[23]  J. C. Briggs.  Marine centres of origin as evolutionary engines , 2003 .

[24]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Chapter 17 Mathematical Methods for Identifying Representative Reserve Networks , 2000 .

[25]  D. R. Robertson,et al.  PHYLOGEOGRAPHY OF OPHIOBLENNIUS: THE ROLE OF OCEAN CURRENTS AND GEOGRAPHY IN REEF FISH EVOLUTION , 2001, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[26]  Heather M. Leslie,et al.  Using siting algorithms in the design of marine reserve networks , 2003 .

[27]  Sven Ekman,et al.  Zoogeography of the sea , 1953 .

[28]  C. D. Field,et al.  World Mangrove Atlas , 1997 .

[29]  M. Fladeland,et al.  Remote sensing for biodiversity science and conservation , 2003 .

[30]  P. Kramer,et al.  Ecoregional Conservation Planning for the Mesoamerican Caribbean Reef , 2002 .

[31]  Lewis M. Alexander,et al.  Large Marine Ecosystems: Stress, Mitigation and Sustainability , 1995 .

[32]  John H. Steele,et al.  A comparison of terrestrial and marine ecological systems , 1985, Nature.

[33]  Cynthia E. Davies,et al.  EUNIS Habitat Classification - Revised , 2004 .

[34]  Miklos D. F . Udvardy,et al.  A classification of the biogeographical provinces of the world , 1975 .

[35]  S. Gaines,et al.  New wave: high‐tech tools to help marine reserve research , 2003 .

[36]  John R. Clark,et al.  Marine and coastal protected areas: a guide for planners and managers. , 1989 .

[37]  M. Heads,et al.  Panbiogeography: Tracking the History of Life , 1999 .

[38]  G. Allen,et al.  Coral Reef Fish Assessment in the ‘Coral Triangle’ of Southeastern Asia , 2002, Environmental Biology of Fishes.

[39]  T. Agardy,et al.  Biodiversity in the seas : implementing the Convention on biological diversity in marine and coastal habitats , 1996 .

[40]  John W. McManus,et al.  Reefs at Risk: A Map-Based Indicator of Threats to the World's Coral Reefs , 1998 .

[41]  G. Bustamante,et al.  Setting Geographic Priorities For Marine Conservation In Latin America And The Caribbean , 1999 .

[42]  E. Wikramanayake,et al.  Review: Terrestrial Ecoregions of the Indo-Pacific: A Conservation Assessment , 2002 .

[43]  Matthew S. Kendall,et al.  Methods used to map the benthic habitats of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands , 2002 .

[44]  Octavio Aburto-Oropeza,et al.  A General Model for Designing Networks of Marine Reserves , 2002, Science.

[45]  Malcolm L. Hunter,et al.  Book Review - Drafting a conservation blueprint. A Practitioner's Guide to Planning for Biodiversity Craig R. Groves. Island Press, Washington, DC, 2003, cloth $70, ISBN 1-55963-938-5; paper $35, ISBN 1-55963-939-3 , 2004, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[46]  A. Longhurst.  Ecological Geography of the Sea , 1998 .

[47]  J. Higgins,et al.  Planning for Biodiversity Conservation: Putting Conservation Science into Practice , 2002 .

[48]  Alfred M. Duda,et al.  A new imperative for improving management of large marine ecosystems , 2002 .

[49]  J. Koslow,et al.  Diversity and endemism of the benthic seamount fauna in the southwest Pacific , 2000, Nature.

[50]  A. O. Nicholls,et al.  It's time to work together and stop duplicating conservation efforts … , 2000, Nature.

[51]  Mark Spalding,et al.  World atlas of coral reefs , 2001 .

[52]  D. Bellwood,et al.  Coral Reef Biodiversity and Conservation , 2002, Science.

[53]  B. Schröder,et al.  Habitat models for animal species: development, methods and perspectives for their application. , 2000 .

[54]  D. Olson,et al.  The Global 200: A Representation Approach to Conserving the Earth’s Most Biologically Valuable Ecoregions , 1998 .

[55]  Tony J. Pitcher,et al.  FISHERIES MANAGED TO REBUILD ECOSYSTEMS? RECONSTRUCTING THE PAST TO SALVAGE THE FUTURE , 2001 .

[56]  H. Jungius,et al.  Conservation in tropical africa with special emphasis on the activity of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). , 1972, Acta tropica.

[57]  P. Mumby,et al.  Development of a systematic classification scheme of marine habitats to facilitate regional management and mapping of Caribbean coral reefs , 1999 .

[58]  S. Ferson,et al.  Quantitative Methods for Conservation Biology , 2002, Springer New York.

[59]  B. Hayden,et al.  Classification of Coastal and Marine Environments , 1984, Environmental Conservation.

[60]  R. Kenchington,et al.  Guidelines for Establishing Marine Protected Areas , 1991 .

[61]  Robert G. Bailey,et al.  Ecoregions: The Ecosystem Geography of the Oceans and Continents , 1998 .

[62]  Carl J. Walters,et al.  Ecopath, Ecosim, and Ecospace as tools for evaluating ecosystem impact of fisheries , 2000 .