Optimizing dispersal corridors for the Cape Proteaceae using network flow.

We introduce a new way of measuring and optimizing connectivity in conservation landscapes through time, accounting for both the biological needs of multiple species and the social and financial constraint of minimizing land area requiring additional protection. Our method is based on the concept of network flow; we demonstrate its use by optimizing protected areas in the Western Cape of South Africa to facilitate autogenic species shifts in geographic range under climate change for a family of endemic plants, the Cape Proteaceae. In 2005, P. Williams and colleagues introduced a novel framework for this protected area design task. To ensure population viability, they assumed each species should have a range size of at least 100 km2 of predicted suitable conditions contained in protected areas at all times between 2000 and 2050. The goal was to design multiple dispersal corridors for each species, connecting suitable conditions between time periods, subject to each species' limited dispersal ability, and minimizing the total area requiring additional protection. We show that both minimum range size and limited dispersal abilities can be naturally modeled using the concept of network flow. This allows us to apply well-established tools from operations research and computer science for solving network flow problems. Using the same data and this novel modeling approach, we reduce the area requiring additional protection by a third compared to previous methods, from 4593 km2 to 3062 km , while still achieving the same conservation planning goals. We prove that this is the best solution mathematically possible: the given planning goals cannot be achieved with a smaller area, given our modeling assumptions and data. Our method allows for flexibility and refinement of the underlying climate-change, species-habitat-suitability, and dispersal models. In particular, we propose an alternate formalization of a minimum range size moving through time and use network flow to achieve the revised goals, again with the smallest possible newly protected area (2850 km2). We show how to relate total dispersal distance to probability of successful dispersal, and compute a trade-off curve between this quantity and the total amount of extra land that must be protected.

[1]  Catherine H. Graham,et al.  Factors Influencing Movement Patterns of Keel‐Billed Toucans in a Fragmented Tropical Landscape in Southern Mexico , 2001 .

[2]  Kevin J. Gutzwiller,et al.  Applying Landscape Ecology in Biological Conservation , 2002, Springer New York.

[3]  T. Dawson,et al.  Integrating multiple modelling approaches to predict the potential impacts of climate change on species’ distributions in contrasting regions: comparison and implications for policy , 2006 .

[4]  L. Hannah,et al.  Assessing the vulnerability of species richness to anthropogenic climate change in a biodiversity hotspot , 2002 .

[5]  L. Hannah,et al.  Developing regional and species-level assessments of climate change impacts on biodiversity in the Cape Floristic Region , 2003 .

[6]  L. Fahrig,et al.  How should we measure landscape connectivity? , 2000, Landscape Ecology.

[7]  James S. Clark,et al.  Why Trees Migrate So Fast: Confronting Theory with Dispersal Biology and the Paleorecord , 1998, The American Naturalist.

[8]  George P. Malanson,et al.  Dispersal across continuous and binary representations of landscapes , 2003 .

[9]  H. Jacquemyn,et al.  Possible effects of habitat fragmentation and climate change on the range of forest plant species , 2002 .

[10]  K. Bawa,et al.  Global Climate Change and Tropical Forest Genetic Resources , 1998 .

[11]  Paul H. Williams,et al.  Planning for Climate Change: Identifying Minimum‐Dispersal Corridors for the Cape Proteaceae , 2005 .

[12]  Ravindra K. Ahuja,et al.  Network Flows: Theory, Algorithms, and Applications , 1993 .

[13]  James S. Clark,et al.  MOLECULAR INDICATORS OF TREE MIGRATION CAPACITY UNDER RAPID CLIMATE CHANGE , 2005 .

[14]  T. Dawson,et al.  Model‐based uncertainty in species range prediction , 2006 .

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

[16]  L. Fahrig,et al.  Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure , 1993 .

[17]  B. Mcrae,et al.  ISOLATION BY RESISTANCE , 2006, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[18]  P. Tetali Random walks and the effective resistance of networks , 1991 .

[19]  T. Dawson,et al.  Long-distance plant dispersal and habitat fragmentation: identifying conservation targets for spatial landscape planning under climate change , 2005 .

[20]  S. Andelman,et al.  Mathematical Methods for Identifying Representative Reserve Networks , 2000 .

[21]  Peter G. Doyle,et al.  Random Walks and Electric Networks: REFERENCES , 1987 .

[22]  Nicolas Ray,et al.  pathmatrix: a geographical information system tool to compute effective distances among samples , 2005 .

[23]  M. B. Davis,et al.  Quaternary history and the stability of forest communities , 1981 .

[24]  L. Underhill,et al.  A changing climate is eroding the geographical range of the Namib Desert tree Aloe through population declines and dispersal lags , 2007 .

[25]  John F. B. Mitchell,et al.  The second Hadley Centre coupled ocean-atmosphere GCM: model description, spinup and validation , 1997 .

[26]  T. Ricketts The Matrix Matters: Effective Isolation in Fragmented Landscapes , 2001, The American Naturalist.

[27]  Claire C. Vos,et al.  Corridors and Species Dispersal , 2002 .

[28]  R. Noss Beyond Kyoto: Forest Management in a Time of Rapid Climate Change , 2001 .