Conservation Science and Practice Series

Managing and DesigningLandscapes for Conservation:Moving from Perspectives toPrinciples

Edited by

David B. Lindenmayer

Richard J. Hobbs

Managing and Designing Landscapes for Conservation

Conservation Science and Practice Series

Published in association with the Zoological Society of London

Blackwell Publishing and the Zoological Society of London are proud to present our new

Conservation Science and Practice volume series. Each book in the series reviews a key issue in

conservation today. We are particularly keen to publish books that address the multidisciplinary

aspects of conservation, looking at how biological scientists and ecologists are interacting with

social scientists to effect long-term, sustainable conservation measures.

Books in the series can be single or multi-authored and proposals should be sent to:

Ward Cooper, Senior Commissioning Editor, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road,

Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK. Email: ward.cooper@oxon.blackwellpublishing.com

Each book proposal will be assessed by independent academic referees, as well as our Series

Editorial Panel. Members of the Panel include:

Richard Cowling, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan, Port Elizazbeth, South Africa

John Gittleman, Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia, USA

Andrew Knight, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan, Port Elizazbeth, South Africa

Georgina Mace, Imperial College London, Silwood Park, UK

Daniel Pauly, University of British Columbia, Canada

Stuart Pimm, Duke University, USA

Hugh Possingham, University of Queensland, Australia

Peter Raven, Missouri Botanical Gardens, USA

Michael Samways, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa

Nigel Stork, University of Melbourne, Australia

Rosie Woodroffe, University of California, Davis, USA

Conservation Science and Practice Series

Managing and DesigningLandscapes for Conservation:Moving from Perspectives toPrinciples

Edited by

David B. Lindenmayer

Richard J. Hobbs

© 2007 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING

350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148-5020, USA9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK 550 Swanston Street, Carlton, Victoria 3053, Australia

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988, without theprior permission of the publisher.

First published 2007 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd

1 2007

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Landscapes for conservation: moving from perspectives to principles / edited by David B. Lindenmayer, Richard J. Hobbs.

p. cm. – (Conservation science and practice series)“Published in association with the Zoological Society of London.”Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 978-1-4051-5914-2 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Ecological landscape design. 2. Landscape

protection. I. Lindenmayer, David. II. Hobbs, R. J. (Richard J.) III. Zoological Society of London.

SB472.45.L363 2008712–dc22

2007016681

A catalogue record for this title is available from the British Library.

Set in 10.5/12.4 Minionby Newgen Imaging Systems, Chennai.Printed and bound in Singaporeby Fabulous Printers Pte Ltd

The publisher’s policy is to use permanent paper from mills that operate a sustainable forestry policy, and which has been manufactured from pulp processed using acid-free and elementary chlorine-free practices. Furthermore, the publisher ensures that the text paper and cover board usedhave met acceptable environmental accreditation standards.

For further information onBlackwell Publishing, visit our website:www.blackwellpublishing.com

Contents

Foreword: Landscapes in Peril xi

1 Introduction 1David B. Lindenmayer and Richard J. Hobbs

Section 1: Classification of Landscapes and Terminology 7

2 The Whole Elephant: Classification and Terminology as Tools for Achieving Generality in Landscape Ecology 9S. McIntyre

3 Enacting Landscape Design: from Specific Cases to General Principles 22Yrjö Haila

4 Landscape Models for Use in Studies of Landscape Change and Habitat Fragmentation 35David B. Lindenmayer and J. Fischer

5 Synthesis: Landscape Classification 49David. B. Lindenmayer and Richard J. Hobbs

Section 2: Habitat, Habitat Loss and Patch Sizes 53

6 Remnant Geometry, Landscape Morphology, and Principles andProcedures for Landscape Design 55Ralph Mac Nally

7 Estimating Minimum Habitat for Population Persistence 64Lenore Fahrig

8 Habitat and Landscape Design: Concepts,Constraints and Opportunities 81James R. Miller

9 Synthesis: Habitat, Habitat Loss and Patch Sizes 96David. B. Lindenmayer and Richard J. Hobbs

Section 3: Structure, Degradation and Condition 99

10 Nature’s Infinite Variety: Conservation Choice and Management for Dynamic Ecological Systems 101J.C.Z. Woinarski

11 The Diverse Impacts of Grazing, Fire and Weeds: How EcologicalTheory Can Inform Conservation Management 111Don A. Driscoll

12 Forest Landscape Structure, Degradation and Condition: SomeCommentary and Fundamental Principles 131Jerry F. Franklin and Mark E. Swanson

13 Synthesis: Structure, Degradation and Condition 146David. B. Lindenmayer and Richard J. Hobbs

Section 4: Edge Effects 149

14 Incorporating Edge Effects into Landscape Design and Management 151Thomas D. Sisk

15 Edge Effects 165David B. Lindenmayer and J. Fischer

16 Edges: Where Landscape Elements Meet 179Gary W. Luck

17 Synthesis: Edge Effects 195David. B. Lindenmayer and Richard J. Hobbs

Section 5: Total Vegetation Cover, Pattern, Patch Content 199

18 Emergent Properties of Land Mosaics: Implications for LandManagement and Biodiversity Conservation 201Andrew F. Bennett and James Q. Radford

19 Assessing the Biodiversity Value of Stands and Patches in a Landscape Context 215Philip Gibbons, S.V. Briggs, Andre Zerger, Danielle Ayers,Julian Seddon and Stuart Doyle

20 Avoiding Irreversible Change: Considerations for Vegetation Cover, Vegetation Structure and Species Composition 229Joern Fischer and David B. Lindenmayer

Contentsvi

21 Synthesis: Total Vegetation Cover, Pattern and Patch Content 245David. B. Lindenmayer and Richard J. Hobbs

Section 6: Connectivity, Corridors, Stepping Stones 249

22 Corridors, Connectivity and Biological Conservation 251F.K.A. Schmiegelow

23 Focal Species for Determining Connectivity Requirements in Conservation Planning 263Reed F. Noss

24 Connectivity, Corridors and Stepping Stones 280Denis A. Saunders

25 Synthesis: Corridors, Connectivity and Stepping Stones 290David. B. Lindenmayer and Richard J. Hobbs

Section 7: Individual Species Management – Threatened Taxa and 293Invasive Species

26 Individual Species Management:Threatened Taxa and Invasive Species 295Daniel Simberloff

27 Managing Landscapes for Vulnerable, Invasive and Disease Species 311Erika Zavaleta and Jae Ryan Pasari

28 Tools for Conserving Managing Individual Plant Species in Dynamic Landscapes 330Mark Burgman, Jane Elith, Emma Gorrod and Bonnie Wintle

29 Synthesis: Individual Species Management – Threatened Taxa and Invasive Species 343David. B. Lindenmayer and Richard J. Hobbs

Section 8: Ecosystems and Ecosystem Processes 347

30 Ecosystems, Ecosystem Processes and Global Change:Implications for Landscape Design 349Adrian D. Manning

31 The Costs of Losing and of Restoring Ecosystem Services 365H.A. Mooney

Contents . vii

32 Managing Disturbance Across Scales: An Essential Consideration for Landscape Management and Design 376Viki A. Cramer

33 Synthesis: Ecosystems and Ecosystem Processes 390David. B. Lindenmayer and Richard J. Hobbs

Section 9: Disturbance, Resilience and Recovery 393

34 Disturbance, Resilience and Recovery: A Resilience Perspective on Landscape Dynamics 395Brian Walker

35 Core Principles for Using Natural Disturbance Regimes to Inform Landscape Management 408Malcolm L. Hunter Jr.

36 Synthesis: Disturbance, Resilience and Recovery 423David. B. Lindenmayer and Richard J. Hobbs

Section 10: Aquatic Ecosystems and Integrity 427

37 Principles for Conserving Wetlands in Managed Landscapes 429Aram J.K. Calhoun

38 Flowing Waters in the Landscape 445P.S. Lake

39 Water in the Landscape: The Coupling of Aquatic Ecosystems and their Catchments 458Peter Cullen

40 Synthesis: Aquatic Ecosystems and Integrity 473David. B. Lindenmayer and Richard J. Hobbs

Section 11: Bringing It All Together 477

41 Does Conservation Need Landscape Ecology? A Perspective from Both Sides of the Divide 479John A. Wiens

42 What Are We Conserving? Establishing Multiscale Conservation Goals and Objectives in the Face of Global Threats 494J. Michael Scott and Timothy H. Tear

Contentsviii

43 Goals, Targets and Priorities for Landscape-Scale Restoration 511Richard J. Hobbs

44 A Contribution to the Development of a Conceptual Framework for Landscape Management: A Landscape State and Transition Model 527Peter Cale

45 Principles of Landscape Design that Emerge from a Formal Problem-Solving Approach 546Hugh P. Possingham and Emily Nicholson

46 From Perspectives to Principles: Where to From Here? 561Richard J. Hobbs and David. B. Lindenmayer

Index 569

Contents . ix

Foreword: Landscapes in Peril

Paul R. Ehrlich

While many environmental scientists and some politicians are focused on climate change as a major threat to both biodiversity and the supply of crucialecosystem services to humanity, a connected and likely equally daunting chal-lenge is runaway land-use change. Indeed, the future of biodiversity greatlydepends on the future of agricultural production for food and, increasingly,fuel. Ecologists know this, and it has spurred the development of fields calledlandscape ecology, conservation biology, countryside biogeography, andrestoration ecology, which deal with how human activities are changing bothterrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, what the consequences are for both biodi-versity and ecosystem services, and what can be done to ameliorate deleteri-ous changes. Accelerating anthropogenic climate change adds a dynamicurgency to all of these disciplines (e.g., Parmesan, 2006).

Sadly, despite the supreme importance of these fields, precious few gener-alizations have emerged from these scientific efforts, beyond the knowledgethat spatial issues are extremely important to conservation, and that human-dominated landscapes can be managed in ways that will enhance their hospi-tality to biodiversity and their ability to deliver services. For example, evenareas that were once tropical forest but are now mixed agricultural countrysidescan, under certain conditions, maintain substantial portions of the original for-est biota (e.g., Daily et al. 2003; Sekercioglu et al. 2007). In addition, there areguidelines for action that can be of immediate and direct use to managers.

Managing and Designing Landscapes for Conservation is a first attempt atidentifying further principles from what environmental scientists have learnedabout these issues – revealing a rich lode of distilled knowledge. But inextracting the sorts of principles that can serve as actual guides for managers,it is clear there are no easy answers. So much is contingent on the nature andhistory of the ecosystem, the organisms or ecosystem processes to be sus-tained, and the socio–economic–political context that finding the equivalentof a Boyle’s Law for landscape ecology seems highly unlikely.

For example, the ecological value of corridors – a classic topic in conserva-tion science – turns out to be fiendishly complex and context-dependent.

Corridors often appear necessary to provide connectivity for animals withlarge home ranges, and to provide flexibility in the face of climate change. Butthey can also facilitate the spread of diseases such as the cancer now decimat-ing Tasmanian devils (Bostanci, 2005) or the pernicious advance of myriadinvasive organisms now threatening biodiversity in general (for overview seeBaskin, 2002). Corridors can even create problems with native fauna, such asallowing the abundant and extremely aggressive edge-inhabiting passerinebird, the Noisy Miner, to reach habitat patches in which endangered birdsthrive in the Miners’ absence (Hastings and Beattie, 2006).

It is also clear that limiting the intensification of agriculture can benefitbiodiversity and enhance ecosystem services (Ricketts et al. 2004). Sparingsome areas of a Costa Rican coffee plantation by leaving them as forest patchesactually increased coffee production above what would be achieved by clear-ing and cultivating those patches, because the actions of forest-dwelling pol-linators resulted in a larger – and higher-quality – coffee harvest. But whencoffee was replaced by pineapple, the forests no longer delivered the agricul-tural pollination service that had yielded the farm ~$US60,000 per year (Chanet al. 2007). Other, less easily monetized, ecosystem services were also suppliedby the forest patches, but that example and the general complexity of bee dis-tributions over the Costa Rican countryside (e.g., Brosi et al. 2007) demon-strate some of the problems of countryside management in a world whereboth biophysical and socioeconomic factors are continually changing thelandscape (Chan et al. 2007, Fischer et al. 2007).

In the face of this complexity, what is a manager to do? The first thing is toread Managing and Designing Landscapes for Conservation, both to understandthe complexity and to pick up, from the diversity of views presented, usefulinsights into the unique management situation he or she confronts. Anotheris to join with other scientists and managers to promote large-scale rewildingefforts (e.g., Soulé 1999, Soulé et al. 2004) such as the Wildlands Project, whosegoal is to reconnect vast areas of land to create areas that will maintain viablepopulations of the large animals (especially top predators) that are critical toecosystem functioning. The project hopes to do this on a continental scale,creating what are called “MegaLinkages.” For instance, the absence of wolvesin Yellowstone National Park in the United States for most of the twentiethcentury had severe impacts on the local ecosystem. Without the wolves, elkpopulations boomed and reduced stands of cottonwoods, the aspens and willows (e.g., Beschta, 2003). Lacking aspens to make lodges and dams, and

Forewordxii

willows to eat, the beavers disappeared, and with them the entire wetlandecosystems that the beavers created. Now that wolves have been reintroducedinto the Park, some of these ecological patterns have begun to return to theirformer dynamics (Smith et al. 2003).

The goal of the Wildlands project and other rewilding projects is to createconnected areas where large animals can run free and help maintain ecosys-tems in less-developed areas that people value for wilderness and recreationaluses. One technique is to create wildlife bridges and underpasses (“ecoducts”)across and beneath highways to keep the highways from dividing areas intohabitat fragments too small to maintain large animals. Connectivity of areasis the key Wildlands principle – which, of course, can lead to the same sorts ofproblems as corridors between smaller habitat patches.

Notwithstanding these issues, lack of connectivity can produce quite gen-eral problems for conservation efforts. For example, in the San Diego area ofCalifornia, patches of chaparral that are too isolated for coyotes to reach themhave fewer birds than those with coyotes. The reason is that coyotes suppressfoxes, raccoons, and especially cats, which are deadly predators of birds(Crooks and Soule, 1999). Areas of Australia with more dingoes also havemore substantial populations of small native marsupials that are endangeredelsewhere, because dingoes reduce the populations of feral cats, which aredeadly to the marsupials (e.g., Johnson et al. 2006). The degree to which thesewild dogs are excluded by lack of connectivity from areas where they wouldbe ecologically beneficial is not clear.

In the above cases, predators such as wolves, coyotes, and dingoes can beconsidered “keystone species,” ones whose impacts on their communities orecosystems are disproportionately large relative to their abundance. Largemammalian herbivores, where they still exist, can play similar functional roles(Pringle et al. 2007), and they often require similar conditions to persist. Forthese reasons, creating expansive and highly connected habitats that supportlarge keystone species is an important element of the Wildlands campaign.

Another promising project for managers to become familiar with is theNatural Capital Project (http://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/about.html).It was launched by an agreement among Stanford University, The NatureConservancy, the World Wildlife Fund, and members of financial communi-ties, with the hope of bringing in many other institutions and groups. Thegoal is to develop new scientific methods, new financial instruments, and newcorporate and governmental policies to make preservation of natural capital

Foreword . xiii

as conventional as preservation of human and human-made capital is now.It recognizes, for example, that some of the goals of landscape management(e.g., preservation of biodiversity and of ecosystem services) may be partiallyincompatible (e.g., Chan et al, 2006, 2007). The project is taking the sensiblescientific approach of sampling nature, focusing its initial efforts on threemodel systems: the Upper Yangtze Basin of China, the Eastern Arc Mountainsof Tanzania, and the Sierra Nevada of California. In each case, efforts will becentered on developing new tools to incorporate ecosystem service values intolandscape decision making. Elements of natural capital and the services flow-ing from them will be mapped, with the twin goals of motivating and enablingthe public and policy makers to value and preserve them. Approaches, includ-ing the development of markets, will be explored to finance the necessaryoperations. The model systems, and subsidiary ones, will be used as test bedsto see if and how natural capital and ecosystem services can be made a stan-dard feature of land-use and investment decisions. All will involve great effortsto directly involve decision makers and managers, ranging from local peopleto financial professionals and government officials. This project is a grandexperiment. It may not work, but it seems to have incredibly promisingprospects for slowing or stopping the steady destruction of humanity’s life-support systems.

The ultimate issue in managing landscapes is dealing with the drivers that are rapidly making conservation increasingly difficult. A good currentexample is the widespread and environmentally dangerous notion that theagricultural enterprise can be duplicated for the production of biofuels. Thedrivers, of course, are the Three Horseman of the I=PAT equation – humanPopulation size and growth, Affluence (i.e., overconsumption by the rich), andthe use of environmentally faulty Technologies and socio–political–economicarrangements (Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 2005). The latter are in large part caused bya maldistribution of political and economic power. No matter how many prin-ciples of landscape ecology, conservation biology, countryside biogeography,and restoration ecology are developed by environmental scientists, their effortswill be fruitless in the end if those critical drivers are not addressed effectively,rapidly, and with much attention paid to the needs of poor people who dependdirectly and heavily on the landscapes of concern. It therefore behooves allenvironmental scientists and environmental managers to devote some portionof their time to educating the public and generating political action on thoseissues. Otherwise, they are just trying to bail back a tsunami with thimbles.

Forewordxiv

But while we are necessarily wielding our thimbles, Managing and DesigningLandscapes for Conservation can make an important contribution to enlargingtheir capacity and teaching us to bail more efficiently. Consider, for example,my colleague Harold Mooney’s guidelines (Chapter 31) and the conclusionwith which he accompanies them:

Landscape Principles

Protect what works since not only is it difficult to replace but also consid-erable economic losses can be incurred from its destruction as well as inattempts at restoration.

Don’t sell low when trading ecosystem services in development, for exam-ple, shrimp for coastal protection.

Quantify, as completely as possible, all of the benefits derived from the servicesprovided by any given ecosystem for which alterations are being proposed.

When rehabilitating, incorporate an ecosystem approach in design thatincorporates the ecosystem service paradigm and considers the range ofservices that can be restored, their value and their comparative costs forrehabilitation. Some services are very costly and difficult to replace whereasother valuable services may be less expensive and more likely to becomeself-sustaining.

In either conservation or restoration or rehabilitation, prepare for a veryuncertain future:

A world of rapid change in climate and vegetationA world of increasing extreme eventsA world of weeds and diseasesA world of regime shiftsA world of rising seas and an acidifying oceanA world that has been diced and replumbedA world of increasing nitrogen and phosphorus redistribution

To which I would add “a world of fewer people leading lives of the sort towhich the poorest third of today’s population is condemned.”

Lindenmayer and Hobbs are to be congratulated on this excellent effort tomake a key area of conservation science available to other environmental scien-tists and accessible to managers. Both the breadth and the depth of the coverageare extraordinary, and time will certainly show the great value of their enterprise.

Foreword . xv

References

Baskin, Y. (2002) A Plague of Rats and Rubber Vines: The Growing Threat of SpeciesInvasions. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Beschta, R.L. (2003) Cottonwoods, elk, and wolves in the Lamar Valley of YellowstoneNational Park. Ecological Applications 13, 1295–1309.

Bostanci, A. (2005) A devil of a disease. Science 307, 1035.Brosi, B.J., Daily, G.C., & Ehrlich, P.R. (2007) Bee community shifts with landscape

context in a tropical countryside. Ecological Applications, in press.Chan, K.M.A., Shaw, M.R., Cameron, D.R., Underwood, E.C. & Daily, G.C. (2006)

Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PLoS Biology 4, 2138–2152.Chan, K.M.A., Pringle, R.M., Ranganathan, J., Boggs, C.L., Chan, Y.L., Ehrlich, P.R.,

Haff, P.K., Heller, N.E., Al-Khafaji, K. & MacMynowski, D.P. When agendas collide: Human welfare and biological conservation. Conservation Biology, in press.

Crooks, K.R. & Soule, M.E. (1999) Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions ina fragmented system. Nature 400, 563–566.

Daily, G.C., Ceballos, G., Pacheco, J., Suzán, G. & Sánchez-Azofeifa, G.A. (2003)Countryside biogeography of Neotropical mammals: Conservation opportuni-ties in agricultural landscapes of Costa Rica. Conservation Biology 17, 1814–1826.

Ehrlich, P.R. & Ehrlich, A.H. (2005) One with Nineveh: Politics, Consumption, and theHuman Future (with new afterword). Island Press, Washington, DC.

Fischer, J., Brosi, B., Daily, G.C., Ehrlich, P.R., Goldman, R., Goldstein, J., Manning,A. D., Mooney, H.A., Pejchar, L., Ranganathan, J. & Tallis, H. (2007) Should agri-cultural policies encourage land-sparing or wildlife-friendly farming? Submittedto Science.

Hastings, R.A. & Beattie, A.J. (2006) Stop the bullying in the corridors: Can includingshrubs make your revegetation more Noisy Miner free? Ecological Managementand Restoration 7, 105–112.

Johnson et al. 2006, Proc.Roy.Soc.BParmesan, C. (2006) Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change.

Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 37, 637–669.Pringle, R.M., Young, T.P., Rubenstein, D.I. & McCauley, D.J. (2007) Herbivore-

initiated interaction cascades and their modulation by productivity in an Africansavanna. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States ofAmerica, in press.

Ricketts, T.H., Daily, G.C., Ehrlich, P.R. & Michener, C.D. (2004) Economic value oftropical forest to coffee production. Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciences of the United States of America 101, 12579–12582.

Sekercioglu, Ç.H., Loarie, S.R., Ruiz-Gutierrez, V., Oviedo Brenes, F., Daily, G.C. &Ehrlich, P.R. (2007) Persistence of forest birds in tropical countryside.Conservation Biology, in press.

Forewordxvi

Smith, D.W., Peterson, R.O. & Houston, D.B. (1996) Yellowstone after Wolves.BioScience 53, 330–340.

Soulé, M.E. (1999) An unflinching vision: Networks of people for networks ofwildlands. Wildlands 9, 38–46.

Soulé, M.E., Mackey, G., Recher, H.F., Williams, J.E., Woinarski, J.C.Z., Driscoll, D.,Dennison, W.C. & Jones, M. (2004) Continental connectivity: Its role in Australianconservation. Pacific Conservation Biology 10,266–279.

Foreword . xvii

1

Introduction

David B. Lindenmayer and Richard J. Hobbs

Landscape ecology, conservation biology and restoration ecology are fields ofstudy whose history of academic pursuit stretches back several decades ormore. They are truly applied disciplines in that they attempt to generateinsights that will promote better management of natural resources and biodi-versity. All also are characterized by a large and rapidly expanding publishedliterature. But are there any general principles that can be gleaned from thebody of work to date? What can we say that is useful to guide the managementof landscapes for conservation, and beyond that the ecological design (orredesign) of landscapes to achieve conservation goals? A meeting held atCraigieburn Resort, Bowral, in southeastern Australia in March 2006attempted to determine if this was the case. Specifically, a group of leading andemerging researchers in landscape ecology and conservation biology was askedto appraise a given topic in landscape research and identify 5–10 general prin-ciples. This was by no means an easy task, especially because each essay had a~4,000 word limit. The meeting covered 10 major themes, with an additionalfinal theme of ‘Bringing it all together’. Each theme was tackled by three authorsworking independently. We sought to gather together a highly diverse groupof people to explore how truly general some of the proposed ‘general principles’really are. Some authors have expertise in forest ecosystems, others in wood-lands or grasslands. Many have worked in numerous different ecosystems. Wemade a deliberate effort to include aquatic ecosystems and streamscapes inthis book on landscapes. This was because terrestrial and aquatic systems havefor too long been treated as independent of one another, when clearly theystrongly interact and have many similar properties (patchiness, connectivity,etc.). We also attempted to bring together a mix of people mostly concernedwith traditional conservation biology issues such as species and habitat man-agement and others more involved with ecosystem processes: too often thesedifferent groups do not interact.

To explore further the generality of principles, we selected participantsfrom different continents and who have worked in different countries, states,regions and ecosystems within those continents. Of course there is a distinctAustralian bias among the authors, but this was simply because of budget con-straints and a desire to keep the size of the workshop small enough to fosterinsightful discussion. However, wherever possible, we pushed all authors to‘internationalize’ their essays and consider the application of general principlesto ecosystems beyond those in which they have worked. Finally, perspectiveson general principles can be strongly shaped by research and managementexperience and world views. Therefore, the authors in each theme are a mix of‘old farts’ and ‘young turks’ – those with prolonged research experience andthose with potentially different perspectives through having relatively recentlycommenced their research careers. We leave the readers to decide who is which.

We make a final observation on the number and composition of the par-ticipants at the meeting. Time and logistical constraints limited the number ofpeople that could attend the workshop. We acknowledge that it was not possibleto invite all the leading workers in landscape ecology and conservation biol-ogy, all of whom we know could have made a major contribution to the meet-ing and to this book. At the same time, we could not afford to sponsor theirparticipation and keep the dynamics of the group manageable and productive.One of us (DBL) received a barrage of email traffic from colleagues angeredby their omission from the guest list. We sincerely apologize for any angst thismay have caused and hope that one day we might be forgiven. Of course we fullyunderstand that we may well not be invited to other people’s workshops.

Each author completed a draft version of their essay before the meeting. Theywere then asked to make a short (five minute) presentation at Bowral basedon the content of their essay. The three presentations on each topic then pro-vided the basis for workshop discussions that aimed to pull together the gen-eralities arising from the three talks. This proved a challenging enterprise, andsome discussion sessions ‘flew’ while others ‘flagged’. The chair of each discus-sion session was provided with ‘axe’ and ‘barrow’ cards. If any participant wasperceived to be grinding his or her particular axe or pushing his or her par-ticular barrow, they could be issued with the relevant card. Collection of twocards in any one session excluded the recipient from the workshop wine supplyfor that evening: fortunately, no participant had to be subjected to this fate.Nevertheless, towards the end of the workshop we perceived that the discus-sion sessions were not achieving the goal of deriving generalizable principles,and we reorganized the timing so that participants had the opportunity for

David B. Lindenmayer and Richard J. Hobbs2

some independent study and reflection time, from which they were asked toprovide their top five principles from what they had heard in the workshop asa whole. This process produced a wealth of thoughtful and incisive materialfrom which we pulled together a more prosaic summary for an extendedall-of-workshop discussion. The final chapter of the book represents our dis-tillation and interpretation of this material.

Authors were then given six weeks after the close of the meeting to revisetheir essays based on initial review and the extensive group discussions atBowral. These revised essays were again reviewed by the editors. This volumeof edited chapters is the product of that process. The book is set out in the11 key sections reflecting the major themes of the meeting. We have written ashort synthesis to conclude each theme. The synthesis is not simply a regurgi-tation of the material presented in the essays. Rather, we have attempted notonly to extract the key points from the three essays, but also to supplement itwith insights from group discussions conducted after the presentations oneach theme. Of course we have also added our own perspectives and biases.

An initial external review of the book proposal highlighted concerns aboutoverlap and duplication among the two to three essays on each topic. We hadsimilar early concerns, but they proved to be ill founded. There was remarkabledissimilarity in the material covered by each of the authors in almost all of thekey themes. An example is the theme on ‘Connectivity, Corridors and SteppingStones’. The three essays were not only highly insightful, but also extraordi-narily diverse. The first by Fiona Schmiegelow highlighted the importance ofmatrix management for connectivity and how it can surpass the establishmentof physical corridors in contributing to connectivity. The second (from ReedNoss) highlighted how in heavily cleared landscapes, physical corridors ratherthan matrix management can be critical in providing connectivity for partic-ular species. Noss’s chapter outlines what kinds of species might be the bestones to use as target taxa around which to design particular managementactions that promote connectivity. The third by Denis Saunders was aninstructive discussion about the objectives of establishing corridors and whichlandscape strategies might best contribute to connectivity.

The diversity of perspectives that characterizes the theme of ‘Connectivity,Corridors and Stepping Stones’ is replicated in all the other themes covered inthis book. Indeed, we believe that the diversity of perspectives on each topic isa strength of this book. An appreciation of such a diversity of perspectives iscritical for researchers, students and resource managers alike and an impor-tant antidote to the dangers of introspection. To this end, as the organizers of

Introduction . 3

the Bowral meeting, we have not subjected any of the essays to heavy editingfor style or content (apart from aiming for consistency of format and adherenceto length restrictions). Rather, we have left them as thought-provoking (andsometimes quite provocative) explorations of key topics – unshackled by thehighly sanitizing and homogenizing constraints that typify the publication ofmodern journal articles. This has left us with writing styles and approaches totopics as diverse as the authors and their different perspectives on particularissues. Some will perceive this as laziness on our part, but we believe thatopportunities for considered ‘thought pieces’ are all too rare in modern scien-tific publishing and this book provided an important opportunity to counterthis. Rather than squeeze the different individual approaches into a straight-jacketed formula, we have retained the individual quirkiness and tried tocounterbalance that with the synthesis pieces in which we aimed for a degreeof consistency of approach.

Of course in any meeting (and subsequent book of this type), there areimportant topics that could not be covered. There are limits to the size of aworkshop consistent with sensible and productive dialogue and interaction.Also, there are budget constraints. Some important topics simply had to beleft out for these reasons. For example, we did not touch upon such key topicsas landscape genetics, spatial statistics or the socioeconomic dimensions oflandscape management. We also did not cover marine ecosystems. Some willsee these as major oversights, but there are limits to the length of a book.

As workshop coordinators, we also annoyed several participants from theoutset by requesting that we restrict discussions to the scientific aspects of theproblem, rather than bringing in socioeconomic considerations. We are fullyaware, as were most of the workshop participants, that these issues are oftenof overriding importance in terms of what actually happens on the groundand in policy and planning. However, we felt that there is still plenty to beironed out in the ecological arena and that the workshop should focus on thisrather than dilute its efforts trying to cover the whole ‘shooting match’ ofissues relating to landscape management and conservation. Various chaptersin this book inevitably include discussion of some of the social, policy andeconomic issues that provide the broader context in which these ecologicalissues sit: however, a comprehensive treatment is again beyond the scope ofthis book.

Finally, we are of course also fully aware that attempts to identify ‘generalprinciples’ can only be ‘work in progress’. It is a massive challenge to find gen-eral principles that are not so general that they are truisms that make no

David B. Lindenmayer and Richard J. Hobbs4

advance, but yet are appropriate for conversion to on-ground prescriptions.The title of the book reflects our attempt to move from the individual perspec-tives provided by the diverse array of people attending the workshop towardsa set of principles that may then be useful in practice. Notably, we did notattempt to apply any principles to any real-life landscapes at this meeting: thatis a task for the next iteration of this process. Hence ‘when it is all said anddone there will be much more to be said and done’. Nevertheless, we hope thatreaders will find useful insights in the chapters in this book.

Acknowledgements

The workshop at Bowral (southern New South Wales, southeastern Australia)was funded by grants from Land and Water Australia and the AustralianResearch Council Kendall Foundation. The workshop was excellently organ-ized by Dr Rebecca Montague-Drake. Notes from the Discussion sessions atthe meeting in Bowral were expertly minuted by Mr Chris MacGregor and Dr Rebecca Montague-Drake. The staff at Craigieburn ensured that the workshop logistics and catering were smoothly and effectively taken care of.The Bowral meeting and the book concept were initially the brainchild ofJason Alexander, formerly of Land and Water Australia. Professor Will Steffen(Director of the Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies at theAustralian National University) and Andrew Campbell (Land and WaterAustralia) were strong supporters of this project and made particular effortsto take part in discussions at Bowral. We thank Dr Martin Fortescue, Dr NickDexter (Department of Environment and Heritage) and Chris MacGregorand Darren Brown for coordinating a wonderful trip to Booderee NationalPark. Finally, we greatly appreciate the provision of heavily subsidized butnevertheless excellent wine by Jim and Diana Viggers that undoubtedly contributed to many fascinating and informative discussions!

Introduction . 5

Section 1Classification of Landscapes and

Terminology

2

The Whole Elephant: Classification andTerminology as Tools for Achieving

Generality in Landscape Ecology

S. McIntyre

Abstract

The development of principles to guide land uses for conser-vation on landscapes requires us to negotiate between the haz-ards of oversimplification and too much complexity. Theterminology and classification that we use to describe andinvestigate landscape processes are crucial to this process.I argue that we need to maintain breadth in the range of bio-physical situations, land uses and organisms that are consid-ered by landscape ecologists. Only then will it be possible toidentify the important elements required to achieve manage-ment outcomes. These points are illustrated through a historyof research in Australian eucalypt woodland landscapes. Guide-lines for the development of landscape design principles areproposed. Concepts that are crucial to conservation at land-scape scales include the consideration of all land uses thatoccur on landscapes. These land uses need to be linked to theireffects on organisms through their disturbance characteristicsand whether these represent exogenous and/or endogenousdisturbances to the biotic communities. Through this under-standing, it will be possible to develop principles regarding thetypes, amount and location of land uses that are compatiblewith the persistence of organisms on landscapes.

S. McIntyre10

Keywords: endogenous disturbance; exogenous disturbance; land use;research models.

Introduction

It is a truth universally acknowledged that a landscape ecologist in possessionof some good insights must be in want of general design principles. It is alsotrue that as ecologists, we struggle with the constant tension between the questfor simple theoretical and management principles, and making sense of theoverwhelming complexity of ecosystems. The way that individual researchersresolve this is as much a product of their personality, as it is a product of thescientific method. The tension is apparent among taxonomists, among whomthe terms ‘splitter’ and ‘lumper’ have been coined to discriminate betweenpeople who prefer to highlight nature’s complexity, and those who wouldrather allocate it to very large boxes. I possess the tendencies of a ‘lumper’,which has resulted in a display of general principles (McIntyre et al. 2002a).However, it is the purpose of this chapter to temper generalist tendenciesappropriately with sufficient attention to variation within and between land-scapes. How can we optimize the degree of detail in our depiction of land-scapes while communicating with other landscape ecologists and a wideraudience?

I argue that there is a need to consider the full range of environments,human actions and the biota that are associated with our landscapes. In doingso it is necessary to classify these elements and therefore identify the variablesthat will be most important for achieving desired management outcomes.This approach to the conceptualization of landscapes will therefore result inidentification of the key hypothesized factors and thus creates useful simplifi-cations that can subsequently be tested. I use the example of Australia’s eucalyptgrassy woodlands to illustrate some of these points. This ecosystem has beenof interest to Australian landscape ecologists for some decades, and from it weare slowly learning to put our assumptions aside and consider the entire land-scape, all of its land uses and the range of organisms inhabiting it.

Viewing the range of landscapes

There is a long and rich tradition of landscape classification, drawing on arange of biophysical and human-related variables by a range of disciplines, for