Transcript Background

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
T able 1. S ite selection m ode ls. S ite constraint is used in the ecological m odels (E ), and a
budget constraint in the integrated m odels (I). N otation is ex plained in A ppendix 2.
E D IV * & ID IV **
Max Z 
x , y 

E N U M * & IN U M **
 
Max Z 
yi
x 
i Zs
y ij x j
i  Zs j  J
E D W * & ID W **
Max Z  a
x , q 

x jv j  b
j J
 qi
(1)
i Q
S ubject to

x j  yi

 i  Zs
j  Ni
n
n

xj  k
 xj
xj  k
j 1
j 1
j 1
n
n
n

b jx j  Is  B
j 1
x j , y i  0 ,1
iQ
(2)
j  Mi
n

x j  qi

b jx j  Is  B
j 1
 i  Zs ,  j  J
x j  0 ,1
(3)*
 k
 b jx j  Is
 B
(4)**
j 1
 j J
x j , q i  0 ,1
 i  Q ,  j  J (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.
 Budget constraint:  b x  I  B
 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)
n
j
j 1
j
s
Method
STAND 1
STAND 2
A
A
B
C
ID IV : Z = 3
IN U M : Z = 4
STAND 1
STAND 2
STAND 3
STAND 4
A
A
B
C
A
C
D
A
C
D
ID IV
IN U M
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
T able 2. T otal inventory costs for different indicators.
Inv entory costs
B eetles (435 spp.)
€
34 479
B irds (30 spp.)
2 691
V ascular plants (103 spp.)
3 868
W ood-inhabiting fun gi (64 spp.)
5 718
O ld-grow th forest indicators (42 spp.)*
D ecayin g w ood (am ount in 114 quality classes)
31 788
4 205
Results
100
90
80
B e e tle s
70
B ird s
60
0
20
40
60
80
100
representation, %
b ) Va sc ula r p la nts
Species
Species
representation, %
a ) B e e tle s a nd b ird s
100
90
80
70
60
120
0
O p p o rtunity c o sts, 1 0 0 0 €
80
70
60
40
60
80
100
120
representation, %
90
20
60
80
100
120
d ) O ld fo re st sp e c ie s
100
0
40
O p p o rtunity c o sts, 1 0 0 0 €
Species
Species
representation, %
c ) W o o d -inha b iting fungi
20
100
90
80
70
60
0
O p p o rtunity c o sts, 1 0 0 0 €
20
40
60
80
100
O p p o rtunity c o sts, 1 0 0 0 €
F igu re 4 . R elativ e n u m b er o f sp ecies rep resen ted (= (1 -(Y b en c h -Y in d )/Y b en ch )* 1 0 0 ) in th e
selected co n se rv atio n n e tw o rk , p lo tted as a fu n ctio n o f o p p o rtu n ity co sts, b ased o n the
ID IV m o d el ex clu d in g in v en to ry co sts u sin g (a ) b eetles an d b ird s, ( b ) v asc u lar p lan ts, (c)
w o o d -in h ab itin g fu n gi, a n d (d ) o ld -gro w th fo rest in d icato r sp ecies.
120
Results
T able 3. M ean cost difference (= (C b en ch -C in d )/C b en ch *100) betw een indicator species
groups and benchm ark at different levels of sp ecies represented in the selected netw o rk
relative to total sp ecies n um ber (% ), b ased on the ID IV m od els. T he last ro w includes the
m ean cost difference calculated ov er the w hole range, w h ere the particular indicato r is
operative. T h e m ark (– ) indicates the ran ge, w h ere the indicator is not operative.
ID IV m odels
R ange o f
V ascular
W ood-
plants
inhabiting
forest
fungi
indicator
species
B irds
B eetles
O ld-grow th
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
T able 4. M ean cost difference (= (C b en ch -C in d )/C b en ch *100) betw een indicator species
groups and benchm ark at different levels of sp ecies represented in the selected netw o rk
relative to total species num ber (% ), b ased on th e IN U M m odels. T he last row in cludes
the m ean cost difference calculated ov er the w hole ran ge, w here the p articular indicator is
operative. T h e m ark (– ) indicates the ran ge, w h ere the indicator is not operative.
IN U M m odels
R ange o f
V ascular
W ood-
plants
inhabiting
forest
fungi
indicator
species
B irds
B eetles
O ld-grow th
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.