Literature DB >> 21797924

Toward best practices for developing regional connectivity maps.

Paul Beier1, Wayne Spencer, Robert F Baldwin, Brad H McRae.   

Abstract

To conserve ecological connectivity (the ability to support animal movement, gene flow, range shifts, and other ecological and evolutionary processes that require large areas), conservation professionals need coarse-grained maps to serve as decision-support tools or vision statements and fine-grained maps to prescribe site-specific interventions. To date, research has focused primarily on fine-grained maps (linkage designs) covering small areas. In contrast, we devised 7 steps to coarsely map dozens to hundreds of linkages over a large area, such as a nation, province, or ecoregion. We provide recommendations on how to perform each step on the basis of our experiences with 6 projects: California Missing Linkages (2001), Arizona Wildlife Linkage Assessment (2006), California Essential Habitat Connectivity (2010), Two Countries, One Forest (northeastern United States and southeastern Canada) (2010), Washington State Connected Landscapes (2010), and the Bhutan Biological Corridor Complex (2010). The 2 most difficult steps are mapping natural landscape blocks (areas whose conservation value derives from the species and ecological processes within them) and determining which pairs of blocks can feasibly be connected in a way that promotes conservation. Decision rules for mapping natural landscape blocks and determining which pairs of blocks to connect must reflect not only technical criteria, but also the values and priorities of stakeholders. We recommend blocks be mapped on the basis of a combination of naturalness, protection status, linear barriers, and habitat quality for selected species. We describe manual and automated procedures to identify currently functioning or restorable linkages. Once pairs of blocks have been identified, linkage polygons can be mapped by least-cost modeling, other approaches from graph theory, or individual-based movement models. The approaches we outline make assumptions explicit, have outputs that can be improved as underlying data are improved, and help implementers focus strictly on ecological connectivity. ©2011 Society for Conservation Biology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21797924     DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01716.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Conserv Biol        ISSN: 0888-8892            Impact factor:   6.560


  17 in total

1.  Enhancing ecosystem restoration efficiency through spatial and temporal coordination.

Authors:  Thomas M Neeson; Michael C Ferris; Matthew W Diebel; Patrick J Doran; Jesse R O'Hanley; Peter B McIntyre
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-04-27       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Planning for the Maintenance of Floristic Diversity in the Face of Land Cover and Climate Change.

Authors:  Debbie Jewitt; Peter S Goodman; Barend F N Erasmus; Timothy G O'Connor; Ed T F Witkowski
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2017-02-04       Impact factor: 3.266

3.  A model for habitat selection and species distribution derived from central place foraging theory.

Authors:  Ola Olsson; Arvid Bolin
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2014-04-03       Impact factor: 3.225

Review 4.  Circuit-theory applications to connectivity science and conservation.

Authors:  Brett G Dickson; Christine M Albano; Ranjan Anantharaman; Paul Beier; Joe Fargione; Tabitha A Graves; Miranda E Gray; Kimberly R Hall; Josh J Lawler; Paul B Leonard; Caitlin E Littlefield; Meredith L McClure; John Novembre; Carrie A Schloss; Nathan H Schumaker; Viral B Shah; David M Theobald
Journal:  Conserv Biol       Date:  2018-11-27       Impact factor: 7.563

5.  An individual-based modelling approach to estimate landscape connectivity for bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis).

Authors:  Corrie H Allen; Lael Parrott; Catherine Kyle
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2016-05-05       Impact factor: 2.984

6.  Identifying Corridors among Large Protected Areas in the United States.

Authors:  R Travis Belote; Matthew S Dietz; Brad H McRae; David M Theobald; Meredith L McClure; G Hugh Irwin; Peter S McKinley; Josh A Gage; Gregory H Aplet
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-04-22       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Where to restore ecological connectivity? Detecting barriers and quantifying restoration benefits.

Authors:  Brad H McRae; Sonia A Hall; Paul Beier; David M Theobald
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-12-27       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Conservation in the context of climate change: practical guidelines for land protection at local scales.

Authors:  Kevin Ruddock; Peter V August; Christopher Damon; Charles Labash; Pamela Rubinoff; Donald Robadue
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-11-20       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Applying circuit theory for corridor expansion and management at regional scales: tiling, pinch points, and omnidirectional connectivity.

Authors:  David Pelletier; Melissa Clark; Mark G Anderson; Bronwyn Rayfield; Michael A Wulder; Jeffrey A Cardille
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-01-30       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Models of regional habitat quality and connectivity for pumas (Puma concolor) in the southwestern United States.

Authors:  Brett G Dickson; Gary W Roemer; Brad H McRae; Jill M Rundall
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-12-18       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.