Coarse-filter surrogates do not represent freshwater fish diversity at a regional scale in Queensland,Australia

S.R. Januchowski-Hartley, Virgilio Hermoso, R.L. Pressey, Simon Linke, J. Kool, R.G. Pearson, Bradley Pusey, Jeremy VanDerWal

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Abiotic and biologically informed classifications are often used in conservation planning as coarse-filter surrogates for species. The relationship between these surrogates and the distribution of species is commonly assumed, but rarely assessed by planners. We derived four abiotic and eight biologically informed classifications of stream reaches to serve as surrogates for biodiversity patterns in the Wet Tropics bioregion, Queensland, Australia. We used stream reaches as planning units and, as conservation targets for each surrogate, we used two percentages – 10% and 30% – of the total stream reach length occupied by each class. We then derived minimum sets of planning units to meet targets for each surrogate and tested the effectiveness of the surrogates by calculating the average achievement of the same targets for predicted distributions of 28 fish species. Our results showed that neither abiotic nor biologically informed classifications were good at representing freshwater fish species; in fact none of the surrogates led to average representation of species better than randomly selected planning units. There were two main reasons for this poor performance. First, none of the surrogates had high classification strength or informativeness about compositional change in fish species within the study region. Second, frequency distributions of probabilities of occurrence for most fish species were strongly right-skewed, with few stream reaches having high probabilities. Combined, these results meant that selection of stream reaches to achieve surrogate targets was effectively random with respect to probabilities of fish species occurrence, leading to poor representation of fish species. We conclude there is a limited basis for using coarse-filter surrogates to represent freshwater fish diversity in this region, and that there is a clear need for research in this as well as other regions if planners are to understand the limitations associated with coarse-filter surrogates for representing freshwater biodiversity more broadly.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2499-2511
Number of pages13
JournalBiological Conservation
Volume144
Issue number10
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

freshwater fish
Queensland
filter
planning
taxonomy
fish
biodiversity
probability distribution
tropics
biogeography
species occurrence
conservation planning
distribution

Cite this

Januchowski-Hartley, S. R., Hermoso, V., Pressey, R. L., Linke, S., Kool, J., Pearson, R. G., ... VanDerWal, J. (2011). Coarse-filter surrogates do not represent freshwater fish diversity at a regional scale in Queensland,Australia. Biological Conservation, 144(10), 2499-2511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.07.004
Januchowski-Hartley, S.R. ; Hermoso, Virgilio ; Pressey, R.L. ; Linke, Simon ; Kool, J. ; Pearson, R.G. ; Pusey, Bradley ; VanDerWal, Jeremy. / Coarse-filter surrogates do not represent freshwater fish diversity at a regional scale in Queensland,Australia. In: Biological Conservation. 2011 ; Vol. 144, No. 10. pp. 2499-2511.
@article{00a2a4d9444e499890f5c8413415b13a,
title = "Coarse-filter surrogates do not represent freshwater fish diversity at a regional scale in Queensland,Australia",
abstract = "Abiotic and biologically informed classifications are often used in conservation planning as coarse-filter surrogates for species. The relationship between these surrogates and the distribution of species is commonly assumed, but rarely assessed by planners. We derived four abiotic and eight biologically informed classifications of stream reaches to serve as surrogates for biodiversity patterns in the Wet Tropics bioregion, Queensland, Australia. We used stream reaches as planning units and, as conservation targets for each surrogate, we used two percentages – 10{\%} and 30{\%} – of the total stream reach length occupied by each class. We then derived minimum sets of planning units to meet targets for each surrogate and tested the effectiveness of the surrogates by calculating the average achievement of the same targets for predicted distributions of 28 fish species. Our results showed that neither abiotic nor biologically informed classifications were good at representing freshwater fish species; in fact none of the surrogates led to average representation of species better than randomly selected planning units. There were two main reasons for this poor performance. First, none of the surrogates had high classification strength or informativeness about compositional change in fish species within the study region. Second, frequency distributions of probabilities of occurrence for most fish species were strongly right-skewed, with few stream reaches having high probabilities. Combined, these results meant that selection of stream reaches to achieve surrogate targets was effectively random with respect to probabilities of fish species occurrence, leading to poor representation of fish species. We conclude there is a limited basis for using coarse-filter surrogates to represent freshwater fish diversity in this region, and that there is a clear need for research in this as well as other regions if planners are to understand the limitations associated with coarse-filter surrogates for representing freshwater biodiversity more broadly.",
author = "S.R. Januchowski-Hartley and Virgilio Hermoso and R.L. Pressey and Simon Linke and J. Kool and R.G. Pearson and Bradley Pusey and Jeremy VanDerWal",
year = "2011",
doi = "10.1016/j.biocon.2011.07.004",
language = "English",
volume = "144",
pages = "2499--2511",
journal = "Biological Conservation",
issn = "0006-3207",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "10",

}

Januchowski-Hartley, SR, Hermoso, V, Pressey, RL, Linke, S, Kool, J, Pearson, RG, Pusey, B & VanDerWal, J 2011, 'Coarse-filter surrogates do not represent freshwater fish diversity at a regional scale in Queensland,Australia', Biological Conservation, vol. 144, no. 10, pp. 2499-2511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.07.004

Coarse-filter surrogates do not represent freshwater fish diversity at a regional scale in Queensland,Australia. / Januchowski-Hartley, S.R. ; Hermoso, Virgilio; Pressey, R.L. ; Linke, Simon; Kool, J.; Pearson, R.G. ; Pusey, Bradley; VanDerWal, Jeremy.

In: Biological Conservation, Vol. 144, No. 10, 2011, p. 2499-2511.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Coarse-filter surrogates do not represent freshwater fish diversity at a regional scale in Queensland,Australia

AU - Januchowski-Hartley, S.R.

AU - Hermoso, Virgilio

AU - Pressey, R.L.

AU - Linke, Simon

AU - Kool, J.

AU - Pearson, R.G.

AU - Pusey, Bradley

AU - VanDerWal, Jeremy

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - Abiotic and biologically informed classifications are often used in conservation planning as coarse-filter surrogates for species. The relationship between these surrogates and the distribution of species is commonly assumed, but rarely assessed by planners. We derived four abiotic and eight biologically informed classifications of stream reaches to serve as surrogates for biodiversity patterns in the Wet Tropics bioregion, Queensland, Australia. We used stream reaches as planning units and, as conservation targets for each surrogate, we used two percentages – 10% and 30% – of the total stream reach length occupied by each class. We then derived minimum sets of planning units to meet targets for each surrogate and tested the effectiveness of the surrogates by calculating the average achievement of the same targets for predicted distributions of 28 fish species. Our results showed that neither abiotic nor biologically informed classifications were good at representing freshwater fish species; in fact none of the surrogates led to average representation of species better than randomly selected planning units. There were two main reasons for this poor performance. First, none of the surrogates had high classification strength or informativeness about compositional change in fish species within the study region. Second, frequency distributions of probabilities of occurrence for most fish species were strongly right-skewed, with few stream reaches having high probabilities. Combined, these results meant that selection of stream reaches to achieve surrogate targets was effectively random with respect to probabilities of fish species occurrence, leading to poor representation of fish species. We conclude there is a limited basis for using coarse-filter surrogates to represent freshwater fish diversity in this region, and that there is a clear need for research in this as well as other regions if planners are to understand the limitations associated with coarse-filter surrogates for representing freshwater biodiversity more broadly.

AB - Abiotic and biologically informed classifications are often used in conservation planning as coarse-filter surrogates for species. The relationship between these surrogates and the distribution of species is commonly assumed, but rarely assessed by planners. We derived four abiotic and eight biologically informed classifications of stream reaches to serve as surrogates for biodiversity patterns in the Wet Tropics bioregion, Queensland, Australia. We used stream reaches as planning units and, as conservation targets for each surrogate, we used two percentages – 10% and 30% – of the total stream reach length occupied by each class. We then derived minimum sets of planning units to meet targets for each surrogate and tested the effectiveness of the surrogates by calculating the average achievement of the same targets for predicted distributions of 28 fish species. Our results showed that neither abiotic nor biologically informed classifications were good at representing freshwater fish species; in fact none of the surrogates led to average representation of species better than randomly selected planning units. There were two main reasons for this poor performance. First, none of the surrogates had high classification strength or informativeness about compositional change in fish species within the study region. Second, frequency distributions of probabilities of occurrence for most fish species were strongly right-skewed, with few stream reaches having high probabilities. Combined, these results meant that selection of stream reaches to achieve surrogate targets was effectively random with respect to probabilities of fish species occurrence, leading to poor representation of fish species. We conclude there is a limited basis for using coarse-filter surrogates to represent freshwater fish diversity in this region, and that there is a clear need for research in this as well as other regions if planners are to understand the limitations associated with coarse-filter surrogates for representing freshwater biodiversity more broadly.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84860389853&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.biocon.2011.07.004

DO - 10.1016/j.biocon.2011.07.004

M3 - Article

VL - 144

SP - 2499

EP - 2511

JO - Biological Conservation

JF - Biological Conservation

SN - 0006-3207

IS - 10

ER -