Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHermoso, Virgilio
dc.contributor.authorCattarino, Lorenzo
dc.contributor.authorLinke, Simon
dc.contributor.authorKennard, Mark J
dc.date.accessioned2019-07-04T12:39:53Z
dc.date.available2019-07-04T12:39:53Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.identifier.issn1052-7613
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/aqc.2891
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/381462
dc.description.abstract1: Integrating ecosystem services (ESs) in landscape planning can help to identify conservation opportunities by finding co‐benefits between biodiversity conservation and the maintenance of regulating and cultural ecosystem services. The adequate integration of ESs needs careful consideration of potential trade‐offs, however, especially between provisioning services and biodiversity conservation (e.g. the potentially negative consequences of agricultural water extraction within areas important for the maintenance of biodiversity). These trade‐offs have been overlooked in systematic spatial planning to date, especially in freshwater systems. 2: Marxan with Zones was used to identify priority areas for the conservation of freshwater biodiversity (139 species of freshwater fish, turtles, and waterbirds) and the provision of freshwater ESs in the Daly River, northern Australia. Four different surrogates for ESs were mapped, including those potentially incompatible with conservation goals (i.e. groundwater provision for agriculture and recreational fisheries) and those that are more compatible with conservation (i.e. flood regulation by riparian forests; provision of perennial water). The spatial allocation of multiple management zones was prioritized: (i) three conservation zones, aiming to represent freshwater biodiversity and compatible ESs to enhance co‐benefits; and (ii) two production zones, where access to provisioning ESs could be granted. The representation of ESs obtained when using the multi‐zoning approach was compared with that achieved with a single management zone approach. The comparison was performed across different representation targets. 3: Different results were found with low and high targets for ESs. With low targets (<25% of all ESs), the multi‐zoning approach achieved up to 53% more co‐benefits than the single‐zone approach. With high targets (>25% of all ESs), the trade‐offs avoided were more evident, with up to 56% less representation of incompatible ESs within conservation zones. 4: Multi‐zone planning could help decision makers respond better to the increasingly complex catchment management context, caused by an increasing demand for provisioning services and a diminishing availability of resources, as well as manage and plan for challenges in other realms facing similar problems.
dc.description.peerreviewedYes
dc.languageEnglish
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherJohn Wiley and Sons
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdom
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom1004
dc.relation.ispartofpageto1014
dc.relation.ispartofissue4
dc.relation.ispartofjournalAquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems
dc.relation.ispartofvolume28
dc.subject.fieldofresearchEnvironmental sciences
dc.subject.fieldofresearchOther environmental sciences not elsewhere classified
dc.subject.fieldofresearchBiological sciences
dc.subject.fieldofresearchEnvironmental management
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode41
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode419999
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode31
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode4104
dc.titleCatchment zoning to enhance co-benefits and minimize trade-offs between ecosystem services and freshwater biodiversity conservation
dc.typeJournal article
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Articles
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articles
dc.description.versionAccepted Manuscript (AM)
gro.facultyGriffith Sciences, School of Environment and Science
gro.rights.copyright© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Catchment zoning to enhance co‐benefits and minimize trade‐offs between ecosystem services and freshwater biodiversity conservation, Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, Volume 28, Issue 4, Pages 1004-1014, which has been published in final form at DOI. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving (http://olabout.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-828039.html)
gro.hasfulltextFull Text
gro.griffith.authorKennard, Mark J.


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record