Integrating priority areas and ecological corridors into national network for conservation planning in China

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.086Get rights and content

Highlights

  • The method integrates priority areas and ecological corridors to the PA network.

  • Spatial mismatch exists between nature reserves and priority areas.

  • Patches with large areas, long boundaries contribute to high connectivity.

  • Ecological network illuminates a strategy for strengthening PAs in China.

Abstract

Considering that urban expansion and increase of human activities represent important threats to biodiversity and ecological processes in short and long term, developing protected area (PA) network with high connectivity is considered as a valuable conservation strategy. However, conservation planning associated with the large-scale network in China involves important information loopholes about the land cover and landscape connectivity. In this paper, we made an integrative analysis for the identification of conservation priority areas and least-cost ecological corridors (ECs) in order to promote a more representative, connected and efficient ecological PA network for this country. First, we used Zonation, a spatial prioritization software, to achieve a hierarchical mask and selected the top priority conservation areas. Second, we identified optimal linkages between two patches as corridors based on least-cost path algorithm. Finally, we proposed a new framework of China's PA network composed of conservation priority and ECs in consideration of high connectivity between areas. We observed that priority areas identified here cover 12.9% of the region, distributed mainly in mountainous and plateau areas, and only reflect a spatial mismatch of 19% with the current China's nature reserves locations. From the perspective of conservation, our result provide the need to consider new PA categories, specially located in the south (e.g., the middle-lower Yangtze River area, Nanling and Min-Zhe-Gan Mountains) and north regions (e.g., Changbai Mountains), in order to construct an optimal and connected national network in China. This information allows us better opportunities to identify the relative high-quality patches and draft the best conservation plan for the China's biodiversity in the long-term run.

Introduction

Protected areas (PAs) are regarded as one of main strategies for halting biodiversity loss resulted from land use change, habitat loss and fragmentation (Le Saout et al., 2013; Rodrigues et al., 2004; Thomas et al., 2012). The Aichi Biodiversity Targets accepted by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD; available in www.cbd.int/sp/targets/) proposed that global coverage of PAs should not be less than 17% of the total terrestrial surface by 2020. Well-designed PAs are essential for the conservation of both species and ecosystems (Bruner et al., 2001; Game et al., 2009), as well as, consequently, bringing benefit to society (Guerry et al., 2015). In fact, many authors showed that PAs carry out, in a medium and long term, a valuable role in developing reliable adaptation and mitigation strategies to conserve the biodiversity of focal ecosystems under future climate change scenarios (e.g., Ortega-Andrade et al., 2015; Prieto-Torres et al., 2016; Soares-Filho et al., 2010).

To effectively connect the key areas that may differ in shapes and sizes, and reduce the isolation of habitat fragments, both ecologists and conservation biologists recommended constructing ecological corridors (ECs; Peng et al., 2017). These corridors play an important role in providing routes and extended districts for the migratory species (Aars and Ims, 2008; Lynne et al., 2010); but at the same time they represent a valuable conservation tool promoting purify air pollutant, regulate climate and realize the movement of material, energy, and information in the ecosystem (Singh and Gokhale, 2015). Environmental protection organizations recognized the importance about the establishment of large-scale ECs for landscape connectivity, biodiversity restoration and, consequently, to maintain the ecological integrity of ecosystems (Bowers and Mcknight, 2012; Holland, 2012; Huang et al., 2008). Thus, in view of the scenarios mentioned above, some authors proposed an ecological network approach based on sustainability-related indicators into high-priority areas and their linkages (Théau et al., 2015).

An ecological network involves, usually, two parts during its development. One of them, named as “ecological points”, represents the priority areas distributed spatially in areas with high biodiversity and conservation values (Nitu et al., 2014), while, the other (called “ecological links”) is described as the narrow and linear (or near-linear) corridors that comprise the possible areas used directly by organisms to move from one patch to another (Beier and Noss, 1998). Hence this alternative conservation approach can be capable to maintain the protection challenges no matter the environmental and ecological (e.g., moves of species) changes at least in some extent. However, so as to maximize the efficiency of ecological network conservation, it is important to establish landscape connectivity among isolated biotope (Baranyi et al., 2011). This landscape connectivity (considered as the measure to describe the spatial connection and extension of areas) is very important because it ensures the possibility of dispersal and gene flow among populations of species, as well as other ecological functions of ecosystems (Haddad et al., 2003; Saura and Rubio, 2010; Tang et al., 2008). Maintaining or increasing connectivity denotes a better strategy to mitigate the adverse synergistic effects of habitat fragmentation and climate change (Prieto-Torres et al., 2016; Saura et al., 2011b).

Our case of study for ecological network construction is China, where a rapid economic development has produced a decrease in biodiversity and environmental degradation (Jia et al., 2011). The primary category within the China PA system involved the nature reserves (where anthropogenic activities are controlled and limited by the national laws to conserve nature), representing 80% of protected areas (Xu et al., 2017). Although these reserves can preserve some habitats and particular threatened species, it is important to objectively highlight that their current spatial delimitations are promoting the configuration of islands ecologically separated (Roedder et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2016). Despite the increasing habitat fragmentation and global biodiversity crisis, the current application of ECs in China is limited only for local scale or in particular regions, without a global perspective for the landscape connectivity and ecological integrity (Dong et al., 2015; Kong et al., 2010). These cases mainly focused on urban greening (Yu et al., 2006). It represented an important problem and conservation gap for the country, especially if we considered that ecological network was changing from the micro to macroecology perspective to design efficient strategic planning (e.g., Ferretti and Pomarico, 2013; Samways and Pryke, 2016).

In this paper, we implemented an ecological network analysis for strengthening the PA system of China to identify and address the potential conservation gaps mentioned above. This methodological perspective allow us identify new potential conservation areas to promote the creation of a more representative, connected and efficient network for this country, maximizing the representation of biodiversity and improving the conservation of ecosystems in the medium and long term. This information is of great value because it can provide new and more accurate evidence that can guide current conservation decision-making processes.

Section snippets

Environmental and spatial data

For our spatial analyses we used the information available in the land cover (from Global Land 180 Cover by National Mapping Organizations, http://www.iscgm.org/) and nature reserves (IUCN and UNEP-WCMC 2010; available at https://www.protectedplanet.net/) maps of China, as well as the Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI) and Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) from Atmosphere Archive & Distribution System (LAADS) Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC, //ladsweb.modaps.eosdis.nasa.gov

Results

Our result for the prioritization analysis showed that high-priority areas to conserve were distributed mainly in mountainous and plateau areas of China, including the Great Khingan, Changbai, Qinling, and Hengduan Mountains, as well as the Mount Wuyi and Tibetan plateau (Fig. 1). Designated top 20% priority conservation areas covered 12.9% of the country, which were distributed in four main regions: the south (38.6%), the Qinghai-Tibet (27.8%), the north (24.3%) and the northwestern (9.3%). In

The current nature reserve system and priority areas

The primary PAs in China are nature reserves (the most strictly protected PAs, chiefly for biodiversity conservation), covering 15% of the country (Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People's Republic of China, 2015). They are concentrated mainly in the Qinghai-Tibetan region (78.35%) while there is lack of adequate attention to the important areas in other provinces, such as Nanling and Min-Zhe-Gan Mountains, in the southern China, Changbai Mountains and Loess Plateau, in the northern

Acknowledgements

This work is funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51679082, 51479072, 51521006, 51579094, 51579098) and the New Century Excellent Researcher Award Program (NCET-08-0181) from the Ministry of Education of China. This manuscript was improved by comments from three anonymous reviewers.

References (84)

  • S. Liu et al.

    Forest fragmentation and landscape connectivity change associated with road network extension and city expansion: a case study in the Lancang River Valley

    Ecol. Indic.

    (2014)
  • A. Moilanen

    Landscape Zonation, benefit functions and target-based planning: unifying reserve selection strategies

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2007)
  • J. Peng et al.

    Urban ecological corridors construction: a review

    Acta Ecol. Sin.

    (2017)
  • S. Saura et al.

    A new habitat availability index to integrate connectivity in landscape conservation planning: comparison with existing indices and application to a case study

    Landsc. Urban Plan.

    (2007)
  • S. Saura et al.

    Conefor Sensinode 2.2: a software package for quantifying the importance of habitat patches for landscape connectivity

    Environ. Model. Softw.

    (2009)
  • S. Saura et al.

    Network analysis to assess landscape connectivity trends: application to European forests (1990–2000)

    Ecol. Indic.

    (2011)
  • S. Saura et al.

    Key structural forest connectors can be identified by combining landscape spatial pattern and network analyses

    For. Ecol. Manag.

    (2011)
  • K.Z. Scudo

    The greenways of Pavia: innovations in Italian landscape planning

    Landsc. Urban Plan.

    (2006)
  • N.P. Singh et al.

    A method to estimate spatiotemporal air quality in an urban traffic corridor

    Sci. Total Environ.

    (2015)
  • J. Théau et al.

    An evaluation framework based on sustainability-related indicators for the comparison of conceptual approaches for ecological networks

    Ecol. Indic.

    (2015)
  • A. Toccolini et al.

    Greenways planning in Italy: the Lambro River valley greenways system

    Landsc. Urban Plan.

    (2006)
  • T. Turner

    Greenway planning in Britain: recent work and future plans

    Landsc. Urban Plan.

    (2006)
  • P. Yang et al.

    Estimation of water consumption for ecosystems based on Vegetation Interfaces Processes Model: a case study of the Aksu River Basin, Northwest China

    Sci. Total Environ.

    (2018)
  • K. Yu et al.

    The evolution of greenways in China

    Landsc. Urban Plan.

    (2006)
  • C. Zhang et al.

    Effects of heavy metals and soil physicochemical properties on wetland soil microbial biomass and bacterial community structure

    Sci. Total Environ.

    (2016)
  • J. Aars et al.

    The effect of habitat corridors on rates of transfer and interbreeding between vole demes

    Ecology

    (2008)
  • K.A. Baum et al.

    The matrix enhances the effectiveness of corridors and stepping stones

    Ecology

    (2004)
  • K.S. Bawa et al.

    China, India, and the environment

    Science

    (2010)
  • P. Beier et al.

    Do habitat corridors provide connectivity?

    Conserv. Biol.

    (1998)
  • K. Bowers et al.

    Reestablishing a healthy and resilient North America: linking ecological restoration with continental habitat connectivity

    Ecol. Restor.

    (2012)
  • A.G. Bruner et al.

    Effectiveness of parks in protecting tropical biodiversity

    Science

    (2001)
  • C. Carlos et al.

    Optimizing resiliency of reserve networks to climate change: multispecies conservation planning in the Pacific Northwest, USA

    Glob. Chang. Biol.

    (2010)
  • China Preparatory Committee for United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development

    The People's Republic of China National Report on Sustainable Development

    (2012)
  • China's National Development and Reform Commission

    The Main Functional Area Planning

    (2015)
  • J. Dong et al.

    Ecological network construction based on minimum cumulative resistance for the city of Nanjing, China

    Isprs Int. J. Geo-Inf.

    (2015)
  • J. Fajardo et al.

    Combined use of systematic conservation planning, species distribution modelling, and connectivity analysis reveals severe conservation gaps in a megadiverse country (Peru)

    PLoS One

    (2014)
  • D. Fan et al.

    Dispersal corridors for plant species in the Poyang Lake Basin of southeast China identified by integration of phylogeographic and geospatial data

    Ecol. Evol.

    (2017)
  • V. Ferretti et al.

    An integrated approach for studying the land suitability for ecological corridors through spatial multicriteria evaluations

    Environ. Dev. Sustain.

    (2013)
  • E.T. Game et al.

    Dynamic marine protected areas can improve the resilience of coral reef systems

    Ecol. Lett.

    (2009)
  • A.D. Guerry et al.

    Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: from promise to practice

    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.

    (2015)
  • N.M. Haddad et al.

    Corridor use by diverse taxa

    Ecology

    (2003)
  • M.B. Holland

    Mesoamerican Biological Corridor

    (2012)
  • Cited by (148)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text