Protected areas lacking for many common fluvial fishes of the conterminous USA

Abstract

Aim To assess the effectiveness of protected areas in two catchment scales (local and network) in conserving regionally common fluvial fishes using modelled species distributions. Location Conterminous United States. Methods A total of 150 species were selected that were geographically widespread, abundant, non‐habitat specialists and native within nine large ecoregions. Species distribution models were developed using boosted regression trees, and modelled distributions were assessed for protection status under two alternatives: lands strictly managed for biodiversity (Highly Restricted Use) and those allowing multiple uses (Multiple Use), with protection target levels (i.e., the amount of protected area required for protection) for local and network catchments being developed from ecoregion‐based urban and agricultural land use thresholds from fish responses. Results Overall, less than 2% of fluvial catchments in the conterminous USA are meeting both local and network catchment protection target levels under the Highly Restricted Use alternative, whereas 16% of catchments met protection levels for the Multiple Use alternative, with protection largely concentrated in the western USA. For common native species distributions within ecoregions, only one species had >10% of streams meeting combined local and network catchment protection target levels under the Highly Restricted Use alternative, whereas 50 distributions (~14% of species distribution models) met this level under the Multiple Use alternative. Main conclusions Even for fishes considered widespread and abundant, protection levels are lacking, particularly when considering only lands that are actively managed for biodiversity. Given the increasing intensification of anthropogenic activities and substantial uncertainty associated with climate change, considering the conservation status for all species, including those currently considered common, is warranted.

Incorporating Established Conservation Networks into Freshwater Conservation Planning Results in More Workable Prioritizations

“…In many areas around the globe stream fishes are lacking representation within protected areas (Cooper et al, 2019). All 133 stream fish species found in wadeable streams in Missouri were predicted to be represented within the TPA network.…”

“…Identifying the most critical areas within the network can facilitate conservation by prioritizing the allocation of limited resources to the areas most likely to have the greatest returns for conservation (Iojaa et al, 2010;Watson et al, 2014;Maire et al, 2016). Prioritizing areas outside of the network is also important, particularly since species sometimes lack representation within established networks (Rodrigues et al, 2004;Nel et al, 2007;Hermoso et al, 2015b;Jenkins et al, 2015;Raghavan et al, 2016;Cooper et al, 2019). Conservation networks are sometimes expanded (Jenkins and Joppa, 2009), and targeting locations for expansion which complement already protected lands is a valuable way for rare and underrepresented species to gain protection (Nel et al, 2009a).…”

Prioritizing native migratory fish passage restoration while limiting the spread of invasive species: A case study in the Upper Mississippi River

“…For both SDM approaches (BRT and MaxEnt), models were built using data across their entire native ranges, including data occurring outside the study area (Figure S1). In all, 22 predictors variables representing both natural and anthropogenic landscape conditions frequently utilized in fluvial fish SDMs were included (Table S1; Cooper et al, 2019, Yu et al, 2020.…”

Identifying gaps in protected areas to expand integrated riverine ecosystem conservation

“…To expand WSRA application, identifying gaps in watersheds where protected areas are lacking among otherwise favorable conditions for conservation is a necessary step, especially given that few analyses have examined gaps in waterway protections (Cooper et al, 2019). In addition, understanding the amount and level of habitat protected for species of concern versus the unprotected amount can aid assessments of whether further protection would benefit said species (USGS, 2016).…”

“…Implementing conservation strategies that utilize the best available science can be an effective approach to inform active management for biodiversity and ecosystem services for climate change adaptation (Marvier & Kareiva, 2015). Protected areas that integrate terrestrial and aquatic conservation planning can have the most benefit for biodiversity in freshwater ecosystems (Abell & Harrison, 2020;Leal, Lennox, Ferraz, Ferreira, et al, 2020), though such strategies are rare (Cooper et al, 2019). The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) (1968), however, provides one such conservation tool that integrates terrestrial and aquatic conservation for the protection of free-flowing riverine ecosystems.…”