Applying spatial conservation prioritization software and high-resolution GIS data to a national-scale study in forest conservation

Abstract We apply a recently developed conservation prioritization method (Zonation algorithm) to a national-scale conservation planning task. The Finnish Forest and Park Service (Metsahallitus) was given the mandate to expand the current protected areas in southern Finland by 10 000 ha. The question is which areas should be selected out of the total area of 1 760 000 ha. The data available include a nation-wide GIS data set describing general features of forests at the resolution of 25 m × 25 m for entire Finland and another data set about biodiversity features within the current state-managed conservation areas. Ecologically, the key information includes forest age and the volume of growing stock for 20 forest types representing different productivity classes and dominant tree species. Our analysis employs four different connectivity components to identify forest areas that are (i) locally of high quality and internally well connected, (ii) well connected to surrounding high-quality forests, (iii) well connected to existing conservation areas, and (iv) large enough to allow efficient implementation. Expert evaluation of the results suggested that the present quantitative analysis was helpful in identifying areas with high conservation value systematically across southern Finland. Our analysis also showed that the highest forest conservation potential in Finland is located on privately owned land. The present techniques can be applied to many large-scale planning and management projects.

[1]  Risto K. Heikkinen,et al.  Complementarity and other key criteria in the conservation of herb-rich forests in Finland , 2002, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[2]  Aldina M. A. Franco,et al.  Prioritizing multiple-use landscapes for conservation: methods for large multi-species planning problems , 2005, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[3]  A. Townsend Peterson,et al.  Novel methods improve prediction of species' distributions from occurrence data , 2006 .

[4]  S. Luque,et al.  Habitat Quality Assessment and Modelling for Forest Biodiversity and Sustainability , 2008 .

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

[6]  J. Pykälä.  Effects of New Forestry Practices on Rare Epiphytic Macrolichens , 2004 .

[7]  E. Tomppo.  The Finnish multisource National Forest Inventory: Small-area estimation and map production , 2006 .

[8]  Olli-Pekka Tikkanen,et al.  Red-listed boreal forest species of Finland : associations with forest structure, tree species, and decaying wood , 2006 .

[9]  Juha Siitonen,et al.  Coarse woody debris and stand characteristics in mature managed and old-growth boreal mesic forests in southern Finland , 2000 .

[10]  E. Tomppo,et al.  The Finnish National Forest Inventory , 1995 .

[11]  Keith M. Reynolds,et al.  Suitability for conservation as a criterion in regional conservation network selection , 2008, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[12]  E. Z. Başkent,et al.  Developing and implementing participatory and ecosystem based multiple use forest management planning approach (ETÇAP): Yalnızçam case study ☆ , 2008 .

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

[14]  C. Murcia.  Edge effects in fragmented forests: implications for conservation. , 1995, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[15]  I. Hanski,et al.  Extinction debt and species credit in boreal forests: modelling the consequences of different approaches to biodiversity conservation. , 2000 .

[16]  I. Hanski.  A Practical Model of Metapopulation Dynamics , 1994 .

[17]  Raimo Virkkala,et al.  Maintaining biological diversity in Finnish forests , 1999 .

[18]  W. L. Chadderton,et al.  Dispersal, disturbance and the contrasting biogeographies of New Zealand’s diadromous and non‐diadromous fish species , 2008 .

[19]  Steven J. Phillips,et al.  Aligning Conservation Priorities Across Taxa in Madagascar with High-Resolution Planning Tools , 2008, Science.

[20]  B. Jonsson,et al.  Spore deposition of wood-decaying fungi: importance of landscape composition , 2004 .

[21]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  Incorporating consumer–resource spatial interactions in reserve design , 2009 .

[22]  K. Korhonen,et al.  Evaluation of the Finnish national biodiversity action plan 1997-2005 , 2007 .

[23]  J. Siitonen,et al.  Polypore diversity in managed and old-growth boreal Picea abies forests in southern Finland , 2004 .

[24]  Paul W. Stackhouse,et al.  Climate-induced boreal forest change: Predictions versus current observations , 2007 .

[25]  Fred L. Bunnell,et al.  Creating land allocation zones for forest management: a simulated annealing approach , 2004 .

[26]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  SIMPLE CONNECTIVITY MEASURES IN SPATIAL ECOLOGY , 2002 .

[27]  Sten Folving,et al.  Monitoring forest biodiversity: a European perspective with reference to temperate and boreal forest zone. , 2003, Journal of environmental management.

[28]  Michael K. Montigny,et al.  Using heterogeneity and representation of ecosite criteria to select forest reserves in an intensively managed industrial forest , 2005 .

[29]  I. Hanski.  The shrinking world : ecological consequences of habitat loss , 2005 .

[30]  Karl-Henrik Larsson,et al.  Basidiospore dispersal in the old‐growth forest fungus Phlebia centrifuga (Basidiomycetes) , 2000 .

[31]  Sandra Luque,et al.  Biodiversity value and the optimal location of forest conservation sites in Southern Finland , 2008 .

[32]  Juha Siitonen,et al.  Species richness of Coleoptera in mature managed and old-growth boreal forests in southern Finland , 2000 .

[33]  Jon Moen,et al.  Isolation and edge effects among woodland key habitats in Sweden: Is forest policy promoting fragmentation? , 2005 .

[34]  Trevor Hastie,et al.  Novel methods for the design and evaluation of marine protected areas in offshore waters , 2008 .

[35]  R L Pressey,et al.  Conservation Planning in Forest Landscapes of Fennoscandia and an Approach to the Challenge of Countdown 2010 , 2007, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[36]  Andrew Fall,et al.  Comparing static versus dynamic protected areas in the Québec boreal forest , 2008 .

[37]  R. Whittaker,et al.  Using spatial heterogeneity to extrapolate species richness: a new method tested on Ecuadorian cloud forest birds , 2006 .

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

[39]  A. Bennett,et al.  Where and when to revegetate: a quantitative method for scheduling landscape reconstruction. , 2009, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[40]  M Cabeza,et al.  Design of reserve networks and the persistence of biodiversity. , 2001, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[41]  J. Niemelä,et al.  Meeting the ecological, social and economic needs of sustainable forest management at a regional scale , 2008 .

[42]  Harto Lindén,et al.  LANDSCAPE FRAGMENTATION AND FOREST COMPOSITION EFFECTS ON GROUSE BREEDING SUCCESS IN BOREAL FORESTS , 2000 .

[43]  J. Rolstad,et al.  Wood-decaying fungi in boreal forest: are species richness and abundances influenced by small-scale spatiotemporal distribution of dead wood? , 2004 .

[44]  Martin Ricker,et al.  Optimizing conservation of forest diversity: a country-wide approach in Mexico , 2007, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[45]  Ilse Storch,et al.  Genetic correlates of spatial population structure in central European capercaillie Tetrao urogallus and black grouse T. tetrix: a project in progress , 2000, Wildlife Biology.

[46]  Richard M Cowling,et al.  Conservation planning in a changing world. , 2007, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[47]  I. Hanski,et al.  Forest fragmentation truncates a food chain based on an old‐growth forest bracket fungus , 2000 .

[48]  Ralf Seppelt,et al.  Optimizing landscape configuration to enhance habitat suitability for species with contrasting habitat requirements , 2006 .

[49]  Brendan A. Wintle,et al.  Uncertainty analysis favours selection of spatially aggregated reserve networks , 2006 .

[50]  Paul H. Williams,et al.  Biodiversity conservation planning tools , 2006 .

[51]  I. Hanski,et al.  Young flying squirrels (Pteromys volans) dispersing in fragmented forests , 2004 .

[52]  Mikko Mönkkönen,et al.  Managing Boreal Forest Landscapes for Flying Squirrels , 2000 .

[53]  R. Lundmark.  Cost structure of and competition for forest-based biomass , 2006 .

[54]  M. Kuitunen,et al.  SELECTING HERB‐RICH FOREST NETWORKS TO PROTECT DIFFERENT MEASURES OF BIODIVERSITY , 2001 .

[55]  A. Juutinen,et al.  Cost-effective forest conservation and criteria for potential conservation targets: a Finnish case study , 2008 .

[56]  A. Tsoar,et al.  Predicting Regional Patterns of Similarity in Species Composition for Conservation Planning , 2005 .

[57]  Brendan A. Wintle,et al.  The Boundary‐Quality Penalty: a Quantitative Method for Approximating Species Responses to Fragmentation in Reserve Selection , 2007, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[58]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  Landscape Zonation, benefit functions and target-based planning: Unifying reserve selection strategies , 2007 .