Limitations of biophysical habitats as biodiversity surrogates in the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park
Susan E. Jackson A and Carolyn J. Lundquist A B C
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A Institute of Marine Science, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand.
B National Institute of Water and Atmosphere (NIWA) Ltd, PO Box 11115, Hamilton 3251, New Zealand.
C Corresponding author. Email: Carolyn.Lundquist@niwa.co.nz
Pacific Conservation Biology 22(2) 159-172 https://doi.org/10.1071/PC15050
Submitted: 19 December 2015 Accepted: 8 April 2016 Published: 10 May 2016
Abstract
The Hauraki Gulf Marine Park (HGMP) is recognised for its diverse natural environment and associated biodiversity, as well as the extensive social, cultural and economic values derived therein. Here, we evaluate the current level of biodiversity protection provided by existing Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) within the HGMP. We use abiotic datasets to develop a habitat classification system to identify the suite of biophysical habitats found in the Marine Park, and their relative protection within existing MPAs (both no-take marine reserves and Cable Protection Zones). Our analysis demonstrated that half of the biophysical habitats identified in the HGMP are not currently afforded protection within MPAs, and that biophysical classifications poorly differentiate across subtidal, soft-sediment habitats using available data layers. We then evaluated representation of these environmental surrogates within a biodiversity prioritisation analysis based on distribution models for demersal fish species. Biophysical habitat surrogates showed poor representation across habitats within highest-priority areas based on prioritisations of demersal fish biodiversity. This suggests the need for further development of biophysical habitat surrogates that are more strongly correlated with biodiversity, if they are to be used to inform biodiversity protection in the HGMP.
Additional keywords: biodiversity surrogates, marine protected areas, marine reserves, marine spatial planning, New Zealand
References
Anderson, O. F., Guinotte, J. M., Rowden, A. A., Clark, M. R., Mormede, S., Davies, A. J., and Bowden, A. (2016). Field validation of habitat suitability models for vulnerable marine ecosystems in the South Pacific Ocean: implications for the use of broad-scale models in fisheries management. Ocean and Coastal Management 120, 110–126.| Field validation of habitat suitability models for vulnerable marine ecosystems in the South Pacific Ocean: implications for the use of broad-scale models in fisheries management.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ballantine, B. (2014). Fifty years on: lessons from marine reserves in New Zealand and principles for a worldwide network. Biological Conservation 176, 297–307.
| Fifty years on: lessons from marine reserves in New Zealand and principles for a worldwide network.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ballantine, W. J., and Langlois, T. J. (2008). Marine reserves: the need for systems. Hydrobiologia 606, 35–44.
| Marine reserves: the need for systems.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ban, N. C. (2009). Minimum data requirements for designing a set of marine protected areas, using commonly available abiotic and biotic datasets. Biodiversity and Conservation 18, 1829–1845.
| Minimum data requirements for designing a set of marine protected areas, using commonly available abiotic and biotic datasets.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Brake, L., and Peart, R. (2015). ‘Sustainable Seas: Managing the Marine Environment.’ (Environmental Defence Society Incorporated: Auckland.)
Bremer, S., and Glavovic, B. (2013). Exploring the science–policy interface for Integrated Coastal Management in New Zealand. Ocean and Coastal Management 84, 107–118.
| Exploring the science–policy interface for Integrated Coastal Management in New Zealand.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Connor, D. W., Allen, J. H., Golding, N., Howell, K. L., Lieberknecht, L. M., Northen, K. O., and Reker, J. B. (2004). The national marine habitat classification for Britain and Ireland. Version 04.05. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough, UK . Available at: www.jncc.gov.uk/MarineHabitatClassification.
Costello, M. J. (2009). Distinguishing marine habitat classification concepts for ecological data management. Marine Ecology Progress Series 397, 253–268.
| Distinguishing marine habitat classification concepts for ecological data management.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Denny, C. M., and Babcock, R. C. (2004). Do partial marine reserves protect reef fish assemblages? Biological Conservation 116, 119–129.
| Do partial marine reserves protect reef fish assemblages?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Department of Conservation, Ministry for the Environment (2000). The New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy – our chance to turn the tide. Department of Conservation and Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, New Zealand.
Department of Conservation, Ministry of Fisheries (2005). Marine protected areas: policy and implementation plan. Department of Conservation and Ministry of Fisheries, Wellington, New Zealand.
Department of Conservation, Ministry of Fisheries (2011). Coastal marine habitats and marine protected areas in the New Zealand Territorial Sea: a broad scale gap analysis. Wellington, New Zealand.
Dixon-Bridges, K., Hutchings, P., and Gladstone, W. (2014). Effectiveness of habitat classes as surrogates for biodiversity in marine reserve planning. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 24, 463–477.
| Effectiveness of habitat classes as surrogates for biodiversity in marine reserve planning.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Douvere, F., and Ehler, C. N. (2009). Ecosystem-based marine spatial management: a new paradigm for the management of coastal and marine places. Ocean Yearbook 23, 1–26.
| Ecosystem-based marine spatial management: a new paradigm for the management of coastal and marine places.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ehler, C., and Fanny, D. (2009). Marine spatial planning: a step-by-step approach toward ecosystem-based management. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and Man and the Biosphere Programme. IOC Manual and Guides No. 53, ICAM Dossier No. 6. UNESCO, Paris.
Ellingsen, K. E., Hewitt, J. E., and Thrush, S. F. (2007). Rare species, habitat diversity and functional redundancy in marine benthos. Journal of Sea Research 58, 291–301.
| Rare species, habitat diversity and functional redundancy in marine benthos.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Folk, R. L. (1954). The distinction between grain size and mineral composition in sedimentary rock nomenclature. The Journal of Geology 62, 344–359.
| The distinction between grain size and mineral composition in sedimentary rock nomenclature.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DyaG2cXmslyjtw%3D%3D&md5=7901c9aa23c64c314656bd5610e00537CAS |
Fraschetti, S., Guarnieri, G., Bevilacqua, S., Terlizzi, A., Claudet, J., Russo, G. F., and Boero, F. (2011). Conservation of Mediterranean habitats and biodiversity countdowns: what information do we really need? Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 21, 299–306.
| Conservation of Mediterranean habitats and biodiversity countdowns: what information do we really need?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Gell, F. R., and Roberts, C. M. (2003). The fishery effects of marine reserves and fishery closures. WWF-US, Washington, DC.
Grantham, H. S., Moilanen, A., Wilson, K. A., Pressey, R. L., Rebelo, T. G., and Possingham, H. P. (2008). Diminishing return on investment for biodiversity data in conservation planning. Conservation Letters 1, 190–198.
| Diminishing return on investment for biodiversity data in conservation planning.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Gray, J. S. (2002). Species richness of marine soft sediments. Marine Ecology Progress Series 244, 285–297.
| Species richness of marine soft sediments.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hartill, B., Bian, R., Armiger, H., Vaughan, M., Rush, N. (2007). Recreational marine harvest estimates of snapper, kahawai and kingfish in QMA 1 in 2004–05. New Zealand Fisheries Assessment Report 2007/26.
Hauraki Gulf Forum (2010). Fishing the Gulf: implementing the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act through fisheries management. Hauraki Gulf Forum, Auckland, New Zealand.
Hauraki Gulf Forum (2011). State of the Our Gulf. Tikapa Moana – Hauraki Gulf. State of the Environment Report 2011. Hauraki Gulf Forum, Auckland, New Zealand.
Hauraki Gulf Forum (2014). State of the Our Gulf 2014. Tikapa Moana/Te Moananui a Toi. State of the Environment Report 2014. Hauraki Gulf Forum, Auckland, New Zealand.
Hewitt, J. E., Thrush, S. F., Legendre, P., Funnell, G. A., Ellis, J., and Morrison, M. (2004). Mapping of marine soft-sediment communities: integrated sampling for ecological interpretation. Ecological Applications 14, 1203–1216.
| Mapping of marine soft-sediment communities: integrated sampling for ecological interpretation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hewitt, J. E., Wang, D., Francis, M., Lundquist, C., and Duffy, C. (2015). Evaluating demersal fish richness as a surrogate for epibenthic richness in management and conservation. Diversity & Distributions 21, 901–912.
| Evaluating demersal fish richness as a surrogate for epibenthic richness in management and conservation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Jackson, S. E. (2014). Biodiversity prioritisation in the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Auckland, New Zealand.
Klein, C. J., Steinback, C., Scholz, A. J., and Possingham, H. P. (2008). Effectiveness of marine reserve networks in representing biodiversity and minimizing impact to fishermen: a comparison of two approaches used in California. Conservation Letters 1, 44–51.
| Effectiveness of marine reserve networks in representing biodiversity and minimizing impact to fishermen: a comparison of two approaches used in California.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Leathwick, J. R., Elith, J., Francis, M. P., Hastie, T., and Taylor, P. (2006). Variation in demersal fish species richness in the oceans surrounding New Zealand: an analysis using boosted regression trees. Marine Ecology Progress Series 321, 267–281.
| Variation in demersal fish species richness in the oceans surrounding New Zealand: an analysis using boosted regression trees.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Leathwick, J., Moilanen, A., Francis, M., Elith, J., Taylor, P., Julian, K., Hastie, T., and Duffy, C. (2008). Novel methods for the design and evaluation of marine protected areas in offshore waters. Conservation Letters 1, 91–102.
| Novel methods for the design and evaluation of marine protected areas in offshore waters.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Levin, L. A., and Dayton, P. K. (2009). Ecological theory and continental margins: where shallow meets deep. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24, 606–617.
| Ecological theory and continental margins: where shallow meets deep.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Lubchenco, J., Palumbi, S. R., Gaines, S. D., and Andelman, S. (2003). Plugging a hole in the ocean: the emerging science of marine reserves. Ecological Applications 13, 3–7.
| Plugging a hole in the ocean: the emerging science of marine reserves.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Lundquist, C. J., Morrisey, D. J., Gladstone-Gallagher, R. V., and Swales, A. (2014). Managing mangrove habitat expansion in New Zealand. In ‘Mangrove Ecosystems of Asia’. (Eds I. Faridah-Hanum, A. Latiff, K. R. Hakeem and M. Ozturk.) pp. 415–438. (Springer: New York.)
Margules, C. R., and Pressey, R. L. (2000). Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405, 243–253.
| Systematic conservation planning.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD3cXjsFyjsLg%3D&md5=5e085c85a4ffbde0d235787c49790108CAS | 10821285PubMed |
MetOcean Solutions Ltd (2013). Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan: sub-tidal sediments and rocky reefs. Report P0102-1 prepared for Waikato Regional Council, November 2013.
Ministry of Fisheries, Department of Conservation (2008). Marine protected areas: classification, protection standard and implementation guidelines. Ministry of Fisheries and Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand.
Moilanen, A. (2007). Landscape zonation, benefit functions and target-based planning: unifying reserve selection strategies. Biological Conservation 134, 571–579.
| Landscape zonation, benefit functions and target-based planning: unifying reserve selection strategies.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Moilanen, A., Franco, A. M. A., Early, R. I., Fox, R., Wintle, B., and Thomas, C. D. (2005). Prioritizing multiple-use landscapes for conservation: methods for large multi-species planning problems. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences 272, 1885–1891.
| Prioritizing multiple-use landscapes for conservation: methods for large multi-species planning problems.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Moilanen, A., Pouzols, F. M., Meller, L., Veach, V., Arponen, A., Leppänen, J., and Kujala, H. (2014). ‘Zonation – Spatial Conservation Planning Methods and Software. Version 4. User Manual.’ (University of Helsinki: Finland.)
Mulcahy, K., Peart, R., and Bull, A. (2012). Safeguarding our Oceans: strengthening marine protection in New Zealand. Environmental Defence Society, Auckland, New Zealand.
Pitcher, C. R., Lawton, P., Ellis, N., Smith, S. J., Incze, L. S., Wei, C.-L., Greenlaw, M. E., Wolff, N. H., Sameoto, J. A., and Snelgrove, P. V. R. (2012). Exploring the role of environmental variables in shaping patterns of seabed biodiversity composition in regional-scale ecosystems. Journal of Applied Ecology 49, 670–679.
| Exploring the role of environmental variables in shaping patterns of seabed biodiversity composition in regional-scale ecosystems.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pressey, R. L., and Logan, V. S. (1998). Size of selection units for future reserves and its influence on actual vs targeted representation of features: a case study in western New South Wales. Biological Conservation 85, 305–319.
| Size of selection units for future reserves and its influence on actual vs targeted representation of features: a case study in western New South Wales.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Richard, Y., and Abraham, E. R. (2013). Risk of commercial fisheries to New Zealand seabird populations. New Zealand Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Report No. 109, Wellington.
Roberts, C. M., Andelman, S., Branch, G., Bustamante, R. H., Castilla, J. C., Dugan, J., Halpern, B. S., Lafferty, K. D., Leslie, H., Lubchenco, J., McArdle, D., Possingham, H. P., Ruckelshaus, M., and Warner, R. R. (2003). Ecological criteria for evaluating candidate sites for marine reserves. Ecological Applications 13, 199–214.
| Ecological criteria for evaluating candidate sites for marine reserves.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Shears, N. T., and Usmar, N. R. (2006). The role of the Hauraki Gulf Cable Protection Zone in protecting exploited fish species: de facto marine reserve? DOC Research & Development Series 253. Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand.
Snelder, T., Leathwick, J., Image, K., Weatherhead, M., and Wild, M. (2004). The New Zealand Marine Environments Classification. NIWA Client Report #MFE04505 prepared for the Ministry for the Environment, Wellington.
Snelder, T. H., Leathwick, J. R., Dey, K. L., Rowden, A. A., Weatherhead, M. A., Fenwick, G. D., Francis, M. P., Gorman, R. M., Grieve, J. M., Hadfield, M. G., Hewitt, J. E., Richardson, K. M., Uddstrom, M. J., and Zeldis, J. R. (2007). Development of an ecologic marine classification in the New Zealand region. Environmental Management 39, 12–29.
| Development of an ecologic marine classification in the New Zealand region.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17123004PubMed |
Snelgrove, P. V. R. (1999). Getting to the bottom of marine biodiversity: sedimentary habitats. Bioscience 49, 129–138.
| Getting to the bottom of marine biodiversity: sedimentary habitats.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Stevens, T., and Connolly, R. M. (2004). Testing the utility of abiotic surrogates for marine habitat mapping at scales relevant to management. Biological Conservation 119, 351–362.
| Testing the utility of abiotic surrogates for marine habitat mapping at scales relevant to management.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Stewart, R. R., Ball, I. R., and Possingham, H. P. (2007). The effect of incremental reserve design and changing reservation goals on the long-term efficiency of reserve systems. Conservation Biology 21, 346–354.
| The effect of incremental reserve design and changing reservation goals on the long-term efficiency of reserve systems.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17391185PubMed |
Townsend, M., Thrush, S. F., and Carbines, M. J. (2011). Simplifying the complex: an Ecosystem Principles Approach to goods and services management in marine coastal ecosystems. Marine Ecology Progress Series 434, 291–301.
| Simplifying the complex: an Ecosystem Principles Approach to goods and services management in marine coastal ecosystems.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ward, T. J., Vanderkleft, M. A., Nicholls, A. O., and Kenchington, R. A. (1999). Selecting marine reserves using habitats and species assemblages as surrogates for biological diversity. Ecological Applications 9, 691–698.
| Selecting marine reserves using habitats and species assemblages as surrogates for biological diversity.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Willis, T. J. (2013). Scientific and biodiversity values of marine reserves. Science for Conservation 340. Department of Conservation, Wellington.
Zacharias, M. A., Howes, D. E., Harper, J. R., and Wainwright, P. (1998). The development and verification of a marine ecological classification: a case study in the Pacific marine region of Canada. Coastal Management 26, 105–124.
| The development and verification of a marine ecological classification: a case study in the Pacific marine region of Canada.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
