Optimizing wetland restoration and management for avian communities using a mixed integer programming approach

Biological Conservation

Volumn 142, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 94-109

  Stralberg, Diana ^a   Applegate, David L ^b   Phillips, Steven J ^b   Herzog, Mark P ^a   Nur, Nadav ^a   Warnock, Nils ^a,c  

^a PRBO CONSERVATION SCIENCE   (United States)

^b AT AND T LABS RESEARCH   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Birds; Conservation planning; Optimization; Salt ponds; San Francisco Bay; Tidal marsh

Indexed keywords

BIRD; CONSERVATION PLANNING; HABITAT CONSERVATION; LANDSCAPE; MARSH; OPTIMIZATION; RESTORATION ECOLOGY;

CALIFORNIA; NORTH AMERICA; SAN FRANCISCO BAY; UNITED STATES;

AVES;

EID: 57049129306     PISSN: 00063207     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2008.10.013     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. Aerts J., Eisinger E., Heuvelink G.B.M., and Stewart T.J. Using linear integer programming for multi-site land-use allocation. Geographical Analysis 35 (2003) 148-169
2. Arponen A., Heikkinen R.K., Thomas C.D., and Moilanen A. The value of biodiversity in reserve selection: representation, species weighting, and benefit functions. Conserv. Biol. 19 (2005) 2009-2014
3. Bedward M., Pressey R.L., and Keith D.A. A new approach for selecting fully representative reserve networks: addressing efficiency, reserve design and land suitability with an iterative analysis. Biol. Conserv. 62 (1992) 115-125
4. Bender D.J., Contreras T.A., and Fahrig L. Habitat loss and population decline: a meta-analysis of the patch size effect. Ecology 79 (1998) 517-533
5. Bolger D.T., Alberts A.C., and Soulé M.E. Occurrence patterns of bird species in habitat fragments: sampling, extinction, and nested species subsets. Am. Nat. 137 (1991) 155-166
6. Bolger D.T., Scott T.A., and Rotenberry J.T. Breeding bird abundance in an urbanizing landscape in coastal southern California. Conserv. Biol. 11 (1997) 406-421
7. Brown, S., Hickey, C., Harrington, B., Gill, R., 2001. United States Shorebird Conservation Plan, second ed. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, MA. (accessed 30.05.08).
8. Burnham K.P., and Anderson D.R. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach (2002), Springer-Verlag, New York
9. Cabeza M., Araujo M.B., Wilson R.J., Thomas C.D., Cowley M.J.R., and Moilanen A. Combining probabilities of occurrence with spatial reserve design. J. Appl. Ecol. 41 (2004) 252-262
10. Cabeza M., and Moilanen A. Site selection algorithms and habitat loss. Conserv. Biol. 17 (2003) 1402-1413
11. Cabeza M., and Moilanen A. Replacement cost: A practical measure of site value for cost-effective reserve planning. Biol. Conserv. 132 (2006) 336-342
12. Camm J.D., Polaski S., Solow A., and Csuti B. A note on optimal algorithms for reserve site selection. Biol. Conserv. 78 (1996) 353-355
13. Chmura G.L., Anisfeld S.C., Cahoon D.R., and Lynch J.C. Global carbon sequestration in tidal, saline wetland soils. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 17 (2003) 1111
14. Church R.L., Stoms D.M., and Davis F.W. Reserve selection as a maximal covering location problem. Biol. Conserv. 76 (1996) 105-112
15. Crooks K.R., and Soulé M.E. Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions in a fragmented system. Nature 400 (1999) 563-566
16. Crossman N.D., and Bryan B.A. Systematic landscape restoration using integer programming. Biol. Conserv. 128 (2006) 369
17. Csuti B., Polasky S., Williams P.H., Pressey R.L., Camm J.D., Kershaw M., Kiester A.R., Downs B., Hamilton R., Huso M., and Sahr K. A comparison of reserve selection algorithms using data on terrestrial vertebrates in Oregon. Biol. Conserv. 80 (1997) 83-97
18. Dantzig G.B. Linear Programming and Extensions (1963), Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
19. Davidson N.C., and Evans P.R. The role of man-made and man-modified wetlands in the enhancement of the survival of overwintering shorebirds. Colonial Waterbirds 9 (1986) 176-188
20. Elphick C.S. Assessing conservation trade-offs: identifying the effects of flooding rice fields for waterbirds on non-target bird species. Biol. Conserv. 117 (2004) 105-110
21. Elphick C.S., and Oring L.W. Winter management of Californian rice fields for waterbirds. J. Appl. Ecol. 35 (1998) 95-108
22. Erwin R.M. Dependence of waterbirds and shorebirds on shallow-water habitats in the mid-Atlantic coastal region: An ecological profile and management recommendations. Estuaries 19 (1996) 213-219
23. ESRI, 2001. ArcInfo 8.1. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CA. (accessed 2.06.08).
24. Faith D.P., Ferrier S., and Walker P.A. The ED strategy: how species-level surrogates indicate general biodiversity patterns through an 'environmental diversity' perspective. J. Biogeogr. 31 (2004) 1207-1217
25. Flather C.H., and Sauer J.R. Using landscape ecology to test hypotheses about large-scale abundance patterns in migratory birds. Ecology 77 (1996) 28-35
26. Foin T.C., Garcia E.J., Gill R.E., Culberson S.D., and Collins J.N. Recovery strategies for the California clapper rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus) in the heavily-urbanized San Francisco estuarine ecosystem. Landsc. Urban Plann. 38 (1997) 229-243
27. Foxgrover, A.C., Jaffe, B.E., 2005. South San Francisco Bay 2004 topographic lidar survey: Data overview and preliminary quality assessment, US Geological Survey Open-File Report OFR-2005-1284, version 1.0. (accessed 30.05.08).
28. Hof J., and Bevers M. Optimizing forest stand management with natural regeneration and single-tree choice variables. Forest Sci. 46 (2000) 168-175
29. Hof J., and Raphael M.G. Optimization of habitat placement: a case study of the Northern Spotted Owl in the Olympic Peninsula. Ecol. Appl. 7 (1997) 1160-1169
30. ILOG, 2007. CPLEX 11.0. ILOG, Sunnyvale, CA. (accessed 2.06.08).
31. Isola C.R., Colwell M.A., Taft O.W., and Safran R.J. Interspecific differences in habitat use of shorebirds and waterfowl foraging in managed wetlands of California's San Joaquin Valley. Waterbirds 23 (2000) 196-203
32. Josselyn, M., 1983. The Eçology of San Francisco Bay Tidal Marshes: A Community Profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Biological Services, FWS/OBS-83/23. Washington, D.C.
33. Kerr J.T. Species richness, endemism, and the choice of areas for conservation. Conserv. Biol. 11 (1997) 1094-1100
34. Kremen C., Cameron A., Moilanen A., Phillips S.J., Thomas C.D., Beentje H., Dransfield J., Fisher B.L., Glaw F., Good T.C., Harper G.J., Hijmans R.J., Lees D.C., Louis E., Nussbaum R.A., Raxworthy C.J., Razafimpahanana A., Schatz G.E., Vences M., Vieites D.R., Wright P.C., and Zjhra M.L. Aligning conservation priorities across taxa in Madagascar with high-resolution planning tools. Science 320 (2008) 222-225
35. Kushlan, J.A., Steinkamp, M.J., Parsons, K.C., Capp, J., Cruz, M.A., Coulter, M., Davidson, I., Dickson, L., Edelson, N., Elliot, R., Erwin, R.M., Hatch, S., Kress, S., Milko, R., Miller, S., Mills, K., Paul, R., Phillips, R., Saliva, J.E., Sydeman, B., Trapp, J., Wheeler, J., Wohl., K., 2002. Waterbird Conservation for the Americas: The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, Version 1. Waterbird Conservation for the Americas. Washington, DC. (accessed 2.06.08).
36. Leslie H., Ruckelshaus R., Ball I.R., Andelman S., and Possingham H.P. Using siting algorithms in the design of marine reserve networks. Ecol. Appl. 13 (2003) S185-S198
37. Margules C.R., and Pressey R.L. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405 (2000) 243-253
38. Markowitz H.M., and Manne A.S. On the solution of discrete programming problems. Econometrica 25 (1957) 84-110
39. Moilanen A. Landscape Zonation, benefit functions and target-based planning: Unifying reserve selection strategies. Biol Conserv 134 (2007) 571-579
40. Moilanen A. Two paths to a suboptimal solution - once more about optimality in reserve selection. Biol. Conserv. 141 (2008) 1919
41. NAWMP, 2004. North American Waterfowl Management Plan 2004. Implementation Framework: Strengthening the Biological Foundation. Canadian Wildlife Service. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales. (accessed 2.06.08).
42. Nevo A., and Garcia L. Spatial optimization of wildlife habitat. Ecol. Model 91 (1996) 271-281
43. Newbold S.C. A combined hydrologic simulation and landscape design model to prioritize sites for wetlands restoration. Environmen. Model. Assess. 10 (2005) 251-263
44. Nur, N., Jones, S.L., Geupel, G.R., 1999. Statistical guide to data analysis of avian monitoring programs. US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, BTP-R6001-1999, Washington, DC. (accessed 2.06.08).
45. Önal H. A computationally convenient diversity measure: theory and application. Environ. Resource Econ. 9 (1997) 409
46. Önal H. First-best, second-best, and heuristic solutions in conservation reserve site selection. Biol. Conserv. 115 (2004) 55-62
47. Önal H., and Briers R.A. Selection of a minimum-boundary reserve network using integer programming. Proc. Roy. Soc. London - Ser. B: Biol. Sci. 270 (2003) 1487-1491
48. Page G.W., Stenzel L.E., and Shuford W.D. Distribution and abundance of the Snowy Plover on its western North American breeding grounds. J. Field Ornithol. 62 (1991) 245-255
49. Papadimitriou C.H., and Steiglitz K. Combinatorial Optimization: Algorithms and Complexity (1982), Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
50. Possingham H.P., Ball I., and Andelman S. Mathematical methods for reserve system design. In: Ferson S., and Burgman M. (Eds). Quantitative Methods for Conservation Biology (2000), Springer-Verlag, New York, NY 291-306
51. Pressey R.L., Possingham H.P., and Margules H.P. Optimality in reserve selection algorithms: when does it matter and how much?. Biol. Conserv. 76 (1996) 259-267
52. Pressey R.L., Watts M., Ridges M., and Barrett T. C-Plan Conservation Planning Software. User Manual (2005), NSW Department of Environment and Conservation
53. Ralph, C.J., Geupel, G.R., Pyle, P., Martin, T.E., DeSante, D.F., 1993. Handbook of Field Methods for Monitoring Landbirds. General technical report, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. Accessed 41.
54. Rodrigues A.S.L., and Gaston K.J. Maximising phylogenetic diversity in the selection of networks of conservation areas. Biol. Conserv. 105 (2002) 103-111
55. Roise J.P., Gainey K.W., and Shear T.H. An approach to optimal wetland mitigation using mathematical programming and geographic information system based wetland function estimation. Wetland Ecol. Manage. 12 (2004) 321-331
56. SAS, 2003. The SAS System for Windows, version 9.1. Cary, NC. (accessed 3.06.08).
57. Seppelt R., and Voinov A. Optimization methodology for land use patterns using spatially explicit landscape models. Ecol. Model. 151 (2002) 125-142
58. SFEI, 1998. EcoAtlas beta release, version 1.5b4. San Francisco Estuary Institute, Oakland, CA. (accessed 2.06.08).
59. Shuford W.D., and Gardali T. California Bird Species of Special Concern: a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, CA, and California (2008), Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA
60. Siegel, S.W., Bachand, P.A.M., 2002. Feasibility analysis of South Bay salt pond restoration, San Francisco Estuary, California. Wetlands and Water Resources, San Rafael, California. (accessed 30.05.08).
61. Soulé M.E., Bolger D.T., Alberts A.C., Wright J., Sorice M., and Hill S. Reconstructed dynamics of rapid extinctions of chaparral requiring birds in urban habitat islands. Conserv. Biol. 2 (1988) 75-92
62. Spautz H., Nur N., Stralberg D., and Chan Y. Multiple-scale habitat relationships of tidal marsh breeding birds in the San Francisco Bay estuary. Stud. Avian Biol. 32 (2006) 247-269
63. Stenzel L.E., Hickey C.M., Kjelmyr J.E., and Page G.W. Abundance and distribution of shorebirds in the San Francisco Bay area. West Birds 33 (2002) 69-98
64. Stralberg, D., Herzog, M., Warnock, N., Nur, N., Valdez., S., 2006. Habitat-based modeling of wetland bird communities: an evaluation of potential restoration alternatives for South San Francisco Bay. Final report to California Coastal Conservancy, December 2006 PRBO Conservation Science, Petaluma, CA. (accessed 30.05.08).
65. Takekawa, J.Y., Miles, A.K., Schoellhamer, D.H., Jaffe, B., Athearn, N.D., Spring, S.E., Shellenbarger, G.G., Saiki, M.K., Mejia, F., 2005. South Bay salt ponds restoration project short-term data needs, 2003-2005. Unpublished draft final report, US Geological Survey, Vallejo, CA. (accessed 3.06.08).
66. Underhill L.G. Optimal and suboptimal reserve selection algorithms. Biol. Conserv. 70 (1994) 85-87
67. USGS, 1996. San Francico Bay - 1985 Habitat. USGS Midcontinent Ecological Science Center (MESC), Fort Collins, CO. (accessed 2.06.08).
68. Vanderkam R.P.D., Wiersma Y.F., and King D.J. Heuristic algorithms vs. linear programs for designing efficient conservation reserve networks: evaluation of solution optimality and processing time. 137 (2007) 349
69. Vane-Wright R.I., Humphries C.J., and Williams P.H. What to protect? Systematics and the agony of choice. Biol. Conserv. 55 (1991) 235-254
70. Vickery J.A., Sutherland W.J., O'Brien M., Watkinson A.R., and Yallop A. Managing coastal grazing marshes for breeding waders and overwintering geese: is there a conflict?. Biol. Conserv. 79 (1997) 23-34
71. Warnock N., Page G.W., Ruhlen T.D., Nur N., Takekawa J.Y., and Hanson J. Management and conservation of San Francisco Bay salt ponds: effects of pond salinity, area, tide, and season on Pacific Flyway waterbirds. Waterbirds 25 (2002) 79-92
72. Weber L.M., and Haig S.M. Shorebird use of South Carolina managed and natural coastal wetlands. J. Wildlife Manage. 60 (1996) 73-82
73. Williams J.C., ReVelle C.S., and Levin S.A. Using mathematical optimization models to design nature reserves. Frontiers Ecol. Environ. 2 (2004) 98-105
74. Williams P., Gibbons D., Margules C., Rebelo A., Humphries C., and Pressey R. A comparison of richness hotspots, rarity hotspots, and complimentary areas for conserving diversity of British birds. Conserv. Biol. 10 (1996) 155-174
75. Williams P.B., and Faber P.M. Salt marsh restoration experience in the San Francisco Bay Estuary. J. Coast Res. 27 (2001) 203-211