Operationalizing ecological connectivity in spatial conservation planning with Marxan Connect

Globally, protected areas are being established to protect biodiversity and to promote ecosystem resilience. The typical spatial conservation planning process leading to the creation of these protected areas focuses on representation and replication of ecological features, often using decision support tools such as Marxan. Yet, despite the important role ecological connectivity has in metapopulation persistence and resilience, Marxan currently requires manual input or specialized scripts to explicitly consider connectivity. ‘Marxan Connect’ is a new open source, open access Graphical User Interface (GUI) tool designed to assist conservation planners with the appropriate use of data on ecological connectivity in protected area network planning. Marxan Connect can facilitate the use of estimates of demographic connectivity (e.g. derived from animal tracking data, dispersal models, or genetic tools) or structural landscape connectivity (e.g. isolation by resistance). This is accomplished by calculating metapopulation-relevant connectivity metrics (e.g. eigenvector centrality) and treating those as conservation features or by including the connectivity data as a spatial dependency amongst sites in the prioritization process. Marxan Connect allows a wide group of users to incorporate directional ecological connectivity into conservation planning with Marxan. The solutions provided by Marxan Connect, combined with ecologically relevant post-hoc testing, are more likely to support persistent and resilient metapopulations (e.g. fish stocks) and provide better protection for biodiversity.

[1]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  The use, and usefulness, of spatial conservation prioritizations , 2018 .

[2]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Incorporating asymmetric connectivity into spatial decision making for conservation , 2010 .

[3]  Rebecca Weeks,et al.  Incorporating seascape connectivity in conservation prioritisation , 2017, PloS one.

[4]  Carina Wyborn,et al.  Prevent perverse outcomes from global protected area policy , 2018, Nature Ecology & Evolution.

[5]  Frédéric Guichard,et al.  A multiple-species framework for integrating movement processes across life stages into the design of marine protected areas , 2017 .

[6]  Santiago Saura,et al.  Conefor Sensinode 2.2: A software package for quantifying the importance of habitat patches for landscape connectivity , 2009, Environ. Model. Softw..

[7]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Conservation planning for connectivity across marine, freshwater, and terrestrial realms , 2010 .

[8]  M. White,et al.  On the selection of thresholds for predicting species occurrence with presence‐only data , 2015, Ecology and evolution.

[9]  Christopher A. Edwards,et al.  The Value of Larval Connectivity Information in the Static Optimization of Marine Reserve Design , 2014 .

[10]  Hugh P Possingham,et al.  Incorporating larval dispersal into MPA design for both conservation and fisheries. , 2017, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[11]  Shay O’Farrell,et al.  A Genuine Win‐Win: Resolving the “Conserve or Catch” Conflict in Marine Reserve Network Design , 2017 .

[12]  G. De’ath,et al.  Establishing Representative No‐Take Areas in the Great Barrier Reef: Large‐Scale Implementation of Theory on Marine Protected Areas , 2005 .

[13]  Megan K. Jennings,et al.  Are all data types and connectivity models created equal? Validating common connectivity approaches with dispersal data , 2018 .

[14]  Anna Metaxas,et al.  A decision tree that can address connectivity in the design of Marine Protected Area Networks (MPAn) , 2018 .

[15]  Alan Hastings,et al.  Population persistence in marine reserve networks: incorporating spatial heterogeneities in larval dispersal , 2010 .

[16]  David Mouillot,et al.  Biologically representative and well‐connected marine reserves enhance biodiversity persistence in conservation planning , 2018 .

[17]  J. Kocik,et al.  Aquatic animal telemetry: A panoramic window into the underwater world , 2015, Science.

[18]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  Methods and workflow for spatial conservation prioritization using Zonation , 2013, Environ. Model. Softw..

[19]  S. Palumbi.  POPULATION GENETICS, DEMOGRAPHIC CONNECTIVITY, AND THE DESIGN OF MARINE RESERVES , 2003 .

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

[21]  Santiago Saura,et al.  A new habitat availability index to integrate connectivity in landscape conservation planning : Comparison with existing indices and application to a case study , 2007 .

[22]  Anna Metaxas,et al.  The current application of ecological connectivity in the design of marine protected areas , 2019, Global Ecology and Conservation.

[23]  Scott F. Heron,et al.  Risk‐sensitive planning for conserving coral reefs under rapid climate change , 2018, Conservation Letters.

[24]  Will F. Figueira,et al.  Defining patch contribution in source-sink metapopulations: the importance of including dispersal and its relevance to marine systems , 2006, Population Ecology.

[25]  F. Allendorf,et al.  What can genetics tell us about population connectivity? , 2010, Molecular ecology.

[26]  J. Kool,et al.  Population connectivity: recent advances and new perspectives , 2012, Landscape Ecology.

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