Comparing spatial conservation prioritization methods with site- versus spatial dependency-based connectivity.

Abstract

Larval dispersal is an important component of marine reserve networks. Two conceptually different approaches to incorporate dispersal connectivity into spatial planning of these networks exist, and it is an open question as to when either is most appropriate. Candidate reserve sites can be selected individually based on local properties of connectivity or on a spatial dependency-based approach of selecting clusters of strongly connected habitat patches. The first acts on individual sites, whereas the second acts on linked pairs of sites. We used a combination of larval dispersal simulations representing different seascapes and case studies of biophysical larval dispersal models in the Coral Triangle region and the province of Southeast Sulawesi, Indonesia, to compare the performance of these 2 methods in the spatial planning software Marxan. We explored the reserve design performance implications of different dispersal distances and patterns based on the equilibrium settlement of larvae in protected and unprotected areas. We further assessed different assumptions about metapopulation contributions from unprotected areas, including the case of 100% depletion and more moderate scenarios. The spatial dependency method was suitable when dispersal was limited, a high proportion of the area of interest was substantially degraded, or the target amount of habitat protected was low. Conversely, when subpopulations were well connected, the 100% depletion was relaxed, or more habitat was protected, protecting individual sites with high scores in metrics of connectivity was a better strategy. Spatial dependency methods generally produced more spatially clustered solutions with more benefits inside than outside reserves compared with site-based methods. Therefore, spatial dependency methods potentially provide better results for ecological persistence objectives over enhancing fisheries objectives, and vice versa. Different spatial prioritization methods of using connectivity are appropriate for different contexts, depending on dispersal characteristics, unprotected area contributions, habitat protection targets, and specific management objectives. Comparación entre los métodos de priorización de la conservación espacial con sitio y la conectividad espacial basada en la dependencia.