Applying systematic conservation planning principles to palustrine and inland saline wetlands of New Zealand
Article first published online: 19 APR 2010
© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Special Issue: FRESHWATER CONSERVATION PLANNING
Volume 56, Issue 1, pages 142–161, January 2011
How to Cite
AUSSEIL, A.-G. E., LINDSAY CHADDERTON, W., GERBEAUX, P., THEO STEPHENS, R.T. and LEATHWICK, J. R. (2011), Applying systematic conservation planning principles to palustrine and inland saline wetlands of New Zealand. Freshwater Biology, 56: 142–161. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2010.02412.x
- Issue published online: 19 APR 2010
- Article first published online: 19 APR 2010
- (Manuscript accepted 19 January 2010)
- inland saline wetland;
- palustrine wetland;
- systematic conservation planning;
- wetland condition
1. Previous attempts to identify nationally important wetlands for biodiversity in New Zealand were based on expert panel opinions because quantitative approaches were hampered by a lack of data. We apply principles of systematic conservation planning to remote sensing data within a geographical information system (GIS) to identify nationally important palustrine and inland saline wetlands.
2. A catchment-based classification was used to divide New Zealand into 29 biogeographic units. To meet representation goals, all wetland classes need to be protected within each unit.
3. We mapped current and historic wetlands down to a minimum size of 0.5 ha. Over 7000 current wetlands were mapped using standardised satellite imagery and a collection of point or polygon data. Historical extent was estimated from soil information refined using a digital elevation model. The current extent of wetlands is 10% of the historic extent, which is consistent with previous estimates.
4. A classification was produced using fuzzy expert rules within a GIS to identify seven wetland classes: bog, fen, swamp, marsh, pakihi/gumland, seepage and inland saline. Swamps and pakihi/gumland are the most common, but the former has sustained the greatest reduction in area with only 6% of its historical extent remaining. A preliminary field assessment of classification accuracy in the Otago region found only 60% agreement, mainly because of the misclassification of marshes into swamps.
5. Wetland condition was estimated using six measures of human disturbance (natural cover, human-made impervious cover, introduced fish, woody weeds, artificial drainage and nitrate leaching risk) applied at three spatial scales: the wetland’s catchment, a 30-m buffer around the wetland and the wetland itself. Measures were transformed and combined into a single condition index. More than 60% of remaining wetlands had condition indices <0.5, probably indicating moderate to severe degradation and loss of native biodiversity.
6. Sites were ranked within each biogeographic unit using the wetland classification to ensure a representative set of wetland diversity. Rankings were determined by combining condition and complementarity to calculate conservation effectiveness that was then weighted by irreplaceability. Highest ranked sites in each biogeographic unit were usually the largest remaining wetlands that contained multiple wetland classes. This reflects their potential to protect a diverse range of wetland classes and a high proportion of the remaining habitat.