Applying systematic conservation planning principles to palustrine and inland saline wetlands of New Zealand

SUMMARY 1. Previous attempts to identify nationally important wetlands for biodiversity in New Zealand were based on expert panel opinions because quantitative approaches were hampered by a lack of data. We apply principles of systematic conservation planning to remote sensing data within a geographical information system (GIS) to identify nationally important palustrine and inland saline wetlands. 2. A catchment-based classification was used to divide New Zealand into 29 biogeographic units. To meet representation goals, all wetland classes need to be protected within each unit. 3. We mapped current and historic wetlands down to a minimum size of 0.5 ha. Over 7000 current wetlands were mapped using standardised satellite imagery and a collection of point or polygon data. Historical extent was estimated from soil information refined using a digital elevation model. The current extent of wetlands is 10% of the historic extent, which is consistent with previous estimates. 4. A classification was produced using fuzzy expert rules within a GIS to identify seven wetland classes: bog, fen, swamp, marsh, pakihi ⁄ gumland, seepage and inland saline. Swamps and pakihi ⁄ gumland are the most common, but the former has sustained the greatest reduction in area with only 6% of its historical extent remaining. A preliminary field assessment of classification accuracy in the Otago region found only 60% agreement, mainly because of the misclassification of marshes into swamps. 5. Wetland condition was estimated using six measures of human disturbance (natural cover, human-made impervious cover, introduced fish, woody weeds, artificial drainage and nitrate leaching risk) applied at three spatial scales: the wetland’s catchment, a 30-m buffer around the wetland and the wetland itself. Measures were transformed and combined into a single condition index. More than 60% of remaining wetlands had condition indices <0.5, probably indicating moderate to severe degradation and loss of native biodiversity. 6. Sites were ranked within each biogeographic unit using the wetland classification to ensure a representative set of wetland diversity. Rankings were determined by combining condition and complementarity to calculate conservation effectiveness that was then weighted by irreplaceability. Highest ranked sites in each biogeographic unit were usually the largest remaining wetlands that contained multiple wetland classes. This reflects their

[1]  D. Scott New Zealand's Resource Management Act and fresh water , 1993 .

[2]  R. McDowall Volcanism and freshwater fish biogeography in the northeastern North Island of New Zealand , 1996 .

[3]  J. Fitzsimons,et al.  Freshwater Reserves in Australia: Directions and Challenges for the Development of a Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative System of Protected Areas , 2005, Hydrobiologia.

[4]  C. Hawkins,et al.  Biodiversity of stream insects: variation at local, basin, and regional scales. , 1998, Annual review of entomology.

[5]  M. Brinson,et al.  Temperate freshwater wetlands: types, status, and threats , 2002, Environmental Conservation.

[6]  Jonathan V. Higgins,et al.  A Freshwater Classification Approach for Biodiversity Conservation Planning , 2005 .

[7]  JoAnn M. Hanowski,et al.  Responsiveness of Great Lakes Wetland Indicators to Human Disturbances at Multiple Spatial Scales: A Multi-Assemblage Assessment , 2007 .

[8]  Robin Abell,et al.  Freshwater ecoregions of North America : a conservation assessment , 1999 .

[9]  G. Powell,et al.  Mapping More of Terrestrial Biodiversity for Global Conservation Assessment , 2004 .

[10]  L. Hubert‐Moy Ramsar Convention on Wetlands , 2005 .

[11]  Scott P. Sowa,et al.  A GAP ANALYSIS AND COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION STRATEGY FOR RIVERINE ECOSYSTEMS OF MISSOURI , 2007 .

[12]  Robert C. Bailey,et al.  Management options for river conservation planning: condition and conservation re‐visited , 2007 .

[13]  Lotfi A. Zadeh,et al.  Fuzzy Sets , 1996, Inf. Control..

[14]  S. Hamilton,et al.  Freshwater conservation planning in data-poor areas : An example from a remote Amazonian basin (Madre de Dios River, Peru and Bolivia) , 2007 .

[15]  A. Ausseil,et al.  Rapid Mapping and Prioritisation of Wetland Sites in the Manawatu–Wanganui Region, New Zealand , 2007, Environmental management.

[16]  Asad Mohsin,et al.  Hamilton, New Zealand , 2008 .

[17]  Andrés Millán,et al.  Conservation of Freshwater Biodiversity: a Comparison of Different Area Selection Methods , 2005, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[18]  Manuela M. P. Huso,et al.  A comparison of reserve selection algorithms using data on terrestrial vertebrates in Oregon , 1997 .

[19]  I. R. Johnson,et al.  Shades of irreplaceability: towards a measure of the contribution of sites to a reservation goal , 1994, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[20]  Michael J. Winterbourn,et al.  An Ecoregion Classification of the South Island, New Zealand , 1997 .

[21]  L. Fahrig Effects of Habitat Fragmentation on Biodiversity , 2003 .

[22]  B. Sorrell,et al.  Variation in wetland invertebrate communities in lowland acidic fens and swamps , 2008 .

[23]  Dirk J. Roux,et al.  Rivers in peril inside and outside protected areas: a systematic approach to conservation assessment of river ecosystems , 2007 .

[24]  Jane Elith,et al.  A method for spatial freshwater conservation prioritization , 2008 .

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

[26]  David M. Stoms,et al.  Extinction rates under nonrandom patterns of habitat loss , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[27]  M. Rosenzweig Species diversity in space and time: Patterns in space , 1995 .

[28]  Robert C. Bailey,et al.  Integrating stream bioassessment and landscape ecology as a tool for land use planning , 2007 .

[29]  S. Timmins Wetland vegetation recovery after fire: Eweburn Bog, Te Anau, New Zealand , 1992 .

[30]  R L Pressey,et al.  Beyond opportunism: Key principles for systematic reserve selection. , 1993, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[31]  W. Ponder,et al.  Genetic differentiation of aquatic snails (Gastropoda: Hydrobiidae) from artesian springs in arid Australia , 1995 .

[32]  E. Connor,et al.  The Species-Area Relationship , 2001 .

[33]  John P. Wilson,et al.  Terrain analysis : principles and applications , 2000 .

[34]  John R. Leathwick,et al.  An Environmental Domain Classification of New Zealand and Its Use as a Tool for Biodiversity Management , 2003 .

[35]  R. Norris,et al.  Irreplaceability of river networks: towards catchment-based conservation planning , 2008 .

[36]  R. Abell,et al.  Unlocking the potential of protected areas for freshwaters , 2007 .

[37]  G. Allen,et al.  Freshwater Ecoregions of the World: A New Map of Biogeographic Units for Freshwater Biodiversity Conservation , 2008 .

[38]  Ian G. Cowx,et al.  Selection of Priority Areas for Fish Conservation in Guadiana River Basin, Iberian Peninsula , 2004 .

[39]  J. Dymond,et al.  Correcting satellite imagery for the variance of reflectance and illumination with topography , 2003 .

[40]  E. Connor,et al.  Species–Area Relationships , 2013 .

[41]  H. Dunn Can Conservation Assessment Criteria Developed for Terrestrial Systems be Applied to Riverine Systems? , 2003 .

[42]  Paul H. Williams,et al.  What to protect?—Systematics and the agony of choice , 1991 .

[43]  A. Farina Principles and Methods in Landscape Ecology , 1997, Springer Netherlands.

[44]  C. Findlay,et al.  Estimating the ‘critical’ distance at which adjacent land-use degrades wetland water and sediment quality , 2004, Landscape Ecology.

[45]  R. Abell Conservation Biology for the Biodiversity Crisis: a Freshwater Follow‐up , 2002 .