COS 51-1 - Evaluating multispecies approaches for designing connected protected area network

Background/Question/Methods

There are increasing calls for protected areas planning that addresses the habitat and connectivity needs of multiple wildlife species. This has been accompanied by development of a diversity of approaches designed to tackle the challenge of incorporating species-specific connectivity information into the planning process. However, there is no consensus on which multispecies connectivity approach is best suited to support conservation planning. Here we ask: (1) How different are the priorities identified using different approaches, and (2) which plans for network expansion (if any) are most likely to support the long-term persistence of multiple species? To answer these questions, we compared 17 approaches to assess multispecies connectivity and incorporate it into a protected areas planning process. Areas were prioritized for addition to the protected areas network within periurban Montreal, Canada, using data for 14 forest-dependent vertebrate species and area-based targets for protection of 5%, 10%, and 17% of the region. We then used a spatially explicit, dynamic model to simulate land use change in and around the expanded protected areas networks identified using different approaches. These simulation results were used to predict changes in habitat amount, connectivity, and metapopulation capacity for each focal species.

Results/Conclusions

Some priority areas for expansion of the protected areas network were consistently identified by all multispecies connectivity approaches, with increasing consensus among approaches as the target area for protection increased. Areas of consensus accounted for only 11% of the total prioritized area when using the 5% target for protection. At the 17% target, areas of consensus were 48% of the total prioritized area. Even with expansion of the protected areas network, our simulations predict that some focal vertebrate species will likely experience declines in habitat, connectivity, and metapopulation capacity. However, the target for protection and the multispecies approach moderated these outcomes for species. Different multispecies connectivity approaches have different underlying assumptions and data requirements. Our results show that these differences can matter, influencing the priorities identified for protection and expected outcomes of conservation action for wildlife species.