Literature DB >> 23003217

Effects of weighting schemes on the identification of wildlife corridors generated with least-cost methods.

Sean A Parks1, Kevin S McKelvey, Michael K Schwartz.   

Abstract

The importance of movement corridors for maintaining connectivity within metapopulations of wild animals is a cornerstone of conservation. One common approach for determining corridor locations is least-cost corridor (LCC) modeling, which uses algorithms within a geographic information system to search for routes with the lowest cumulative resistance between target locations on a landscape. However, the presentation of multiple LCCs that connect multiple locations generally assumes all corridors contribute equally to connectivity, regardless of the likelihood that animals will use them. Thus, LCCs may overemphasize seldom-used longer routes and underemphasize more frequently used shorter routes. We hypothesize that, depending on conservation objectives and available biological information, weighting individual corridors on the basis of species-specific movement, dispersal, or gene flow data may better identify effective corridors. We tested whether locations of key connectivity areas, defined as the highest 75th and 90th percentile cumulative weighted value of approximately 155,000 corridors, shift under different weighting scenarios. In addition, we quantified the amount and location of private land that intersect key connectivity areas under each weighting scheme. Some areas that appeared well connected when analyzed with unweighted corridors exhibited much less connectivity compared with weighting schemes that discount corridors with large effective distances. Furthermore, the amount and location of key connectivity areas that intersected private land varied among weighting schemes. We believe biological assumptions and conservation objectives should be explicitly incorporated to weight corridors when assessing landscape connectivity. These results are highly relevant to conservation planning because on the basis of recent interest by government agencies and nongovernmental organizations in maintaining and enhancing wildlife corridors, connectivity will likely be an important criterion for prioritization of land purchases and swaps. ©2012 Society for Conservation Biology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23003217     DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01929.x

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


  7 in total

1.  Expert-based versus habitat-suitability models to develop resistance surfaces in landscape genetics.

Authors:  Pietro Milanesi; R Holderegger; R Caniglia; E Fabbri; M Galaverni; E Randi
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2016-10-11       Impact factor: 3.225

2.  Mapping the functional connectivity of ecosystem services supply across a regional landscape.

Authors:  Rachel D Field; Lael Parrott
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2022-02-17       Impact factor: 8.140

3.  Climate change velocity underestimates climate change exposure in mountainous regions.

Authors:  Solomon Z Dobrowski; Sean A Parks
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2016-08-01       Impact factor: 14.919

4.  Using niche-modelling and species-specific cost analyses to determine a multispecies corridor in a fragmented landscape.

Authors:  Karen E DeMatteo; Miguel A Rinas; Juan Pablo Zurano; Nicole Selleski; Rosio G Schneider; Carina F Argüelles
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-08-25       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Multiscale landscape genetics of American marten at their southern range periphery.

Authors:  Cody M Aylward; James D Murdoch; C William Kilpatrick
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2020-01-28       Impact factor: 3.821

6.  Modeling habitat connectivity in support of multiobjective species movement: An application to amphibian habitat systems.

Authors:  Timothy C Matisziw; Ashkan Gholamialam; Kathleen M Trauth
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2020-12-28       Impact factor: 4.475

Review 7.  The trajectory of dispersal research in conservation biology. Systematic review.

Authors:  Don A Driscoll; Sam C Banks; Philip S Barton; Karen Ikin; Pia Lentini; David B Lindenmayer; Annabel L Smith; Laurence E Berry; Emma L Burns; Amanda Edworthy; Maldwyn J Evans; Rebecca Gibson; Rob Heinsohn; Brett Howland; Geoff Kay; Nicola Munro; Ben C Scheele; Ingrid Stirnemann; Dejan Stojanovic; Nici Sweaney; Nélida R Villaseñor; Martin J Westgate
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-04-17       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.