Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Testing alternative indicators for biodiversity conservation in oldgrowth boreal forests: ecology and economics Artti Juutinen1 & Mikko Mönkkönen2 1 University of Oulu/Faculty of Economics and Industrial Management, Finland 2 University of Oulu/Department of Biology, Finland Background Habitat loss Setting aside areas that are particularly biodiverse: site selection problem The contribution, which the area can make to represent the overall biodiversity It is costly to measure the overall biodiversity Surrogate measures of biodiversity Background How is one to choose a good indicator? Indicators should reflect the overall biodiversity (the chosen ecological features that are regarded important) Indicators should not be expensive to monitor Formal tests are required Method Site selection models Clear-cutting or protection We compare the benchmark models and indicator models In the benchmark the focus is on species diversity, best available data The benchmark selection represents the maximum level of biodiversity in the area at given resources devoted to conservation Method Funds available for conservation (A) Representation of species Benchmark selection a B The goal level of representation (B) b Indicator selection A Conservation costs (excluding inventory costs) Method Table 1. Site selection models. Site constraint is used in the ecological models (E), and a budget constraint in the integrated models (I). Notation is explained in Appendix 2. EDIV* & IDIV** ENUM* & INUM** Max Z y i Max Z x , y iZs x iZs jJ EDW* & IDW** yij x j Max Z a x j v j b qi x, q j J (1) iQ Subject to x j yi x j qi i Zs j Ni n xj k j 1 n i Q j Mi n xj k j 1 n n xj k (3)* n (4)** j 1 b j x j I s B b j x j I s B b j x j I s B x j , y i 0,1 i Zs, j J x j 0,1 j J x j , qi 0,1 i Q, j J j 1 (2) j 1 j 1 (5) Method IDIV-model Maximize species richness in the selected stands subject to the given budget constraint (species are counted once, if they are present in the selected stands) The IDIV model, which incorporates information on all species, is the benchmark model with which all the other models are compared. n Budget constraint: b j x j I s B j 1 INUM-model Maximize count of species in the selected stands subject to the given budget constraint (species are counted as many times as they are present in the selected stands) Method STAND 1 STAND 2 A A B C IDIV: Z = 3 INUM: Z = 4 STAND 1 STAND 2 STAND 3 STAND 4 A A B C A C D A C D IDIV INUM Data 32 SEMI-NATURAL OLD GROWTH FORESTS STANDS FROM FINLAND IN THE OPTIMIZATIONS THE STANDS WERE TREATED AS HAVING EQUAL SIZE FOUR FOREST TYPES, EIGHT REPLICATES OF EACH XERIC CONIFEROUS FORESTS, MESIC SPRUCE FORESTS, SPRUCE MIRES, HERB RICH SPRUCE DOMINATED HEATH FORESTS SPECIES, 632 (PRESENCE/ABSENCE) VASCULAR PLANTS (103), BIRDS (30), WOOD-INHABITING FUNGI (64), BEETLES (435) DECAYING WOOD COMMERCIAL VALUES OF THE STANDS THE OPPORTUNITY COSTS OF CONSERVATION MAXIMUM NPV FOR EACH STAND, MELA-MODEL FAUSTMANN ROTATION MODEL INVENTORY COSTS OF THE SPECIES GROUPS AND DECAYING WOOD Data INDICATORS TAXONOMIC GROUPS A SUBGROUP OF OLD-GROWTH FOREST INDICATOR SPECIES BASED ON THEIR KNOWN STATUS AS OLD-GROWTH FOREST SPECIALISTS (42 species including species of birds, beetles and woodinhabiting fungi) THE AMOUNT AND QUALITY OF DECAYING WOOD Table 2. Total inventory costs for different indicators. Inventory costs Beetles (435 spp.) € 34 479 Birds (30 spp.) 2 691 Vascular plants (103 spp.) 3 868 Wood-inhabiting fungi (64 spp.) 5 718 Old-growth forest indicators (42 spp.)* Decaying wood (amount in 114 quality classes) 31 788 4 205 Results b) Vascular plants 100 90 80 Beetles Birds 70 60 0 20 40 60 80 Species representation, % Species representation, % a) Beetles and birds 100 90 80 70 60 100 120 0 Opportunity costs, 1000 € 90 80 70 60 20 40 60 80 100 120 d) Old forest species 100 0 40 Opportunity costs, 1000 € Species representation, % Species representation, % c) Wood-inhabiting fungi 20 60 80 100 120 100 90 80 70 60 0 Opportunity costs, 1000 € 20 40 60 80 100 120 Opportunity costs, 1000 € Figure 4. Relative number of species represented (= (1-(Ybench-Yind)/Ybench)*100) in the selected conservation network, plotted as a function of opportunity costs, based on the IDIV model excluding inventory costs using (a) beetles and birds, (b) vascular plants, (c) wood-inhabiting fungi, and (d) old-growth forest indicator species. Results Table 3. Mean cost difference (=(Cbench-Cind)/Cbench*100) between indicator species groups and benchmark at different levels of species represented in the selected network relative to total species number (%), based on the IDIV models. The last row includes the mean cost difference calculated over the whole range, where the particular indicator is operative. The mark (–) indicates the range, where the indicator is not operative. IDIV models Range of Vascular Wood- plants inhabiting forest fungi indicator species Birds Beetles Old-growth represented species 1-60 % 84 79 83 24 20 61-70 % 69 60 63 20 -3 71-80 % 55 38 - 17 -27 81-90 % 45 15 - 13 - 91-100 % - - - 7 - 1-100 % 68 56 79 14 12 Results Table 4. Mean cost difference (=(Cbench-Cind)/Cbench*100) between indicator species groups and benchmark at different levels of species represented in the selected network relative to total species number (%), based on the INUM models. The last row includes the mean cost difference calculated over the whole range, where the particular indicator is operative. The mark (–) indicates the range, where the indicator is not operative. INUM models Range of Vascular Wood- plants inhabiting forest fungi indicator species Birds Beetles Old-growth represented species 1-60 % 81 78 84 24 26 61-70 % 71 66 72 20 19 71-80 % 58 56 61 17 7 81-90 % 41 41 46 12 1 91-100 % 26 18 26 5 -3 1-100 % 48 44 53 13 8 Conclusions The use of indicators seems to result in a loss of overall diversity. It is important to consider trade-offs between conservation costs and diversity loss when assessing the goodness of an indicator. Biodiversity indicators can be tested in economic context by using integrated site selection model. Species richness based model may not be appropriate for indicator groups having small number of species. It seems to be more efficient to use indicators than execute large biodiversity survey. how to reduce inventory costs of biodiversity surveys? Birds and vascular plants should be used as indicators in protecting boreal old-growth forests in the study area.