Literature DB >> 29920775

Making habitat connectivity a reality.

Annika T H Keeley1, Galli Basson2, D Richard Cameron3, Nicole E Heller4, Patrick R Huber5, Carrie A Schloss3, James H Thorne6, Adina M Merenlender1.   

Abstract

Although a plethora of habitat-connectivity plans exists, protecting and restoring connectivity through on-the-ground action has been slow. We identified challenges to and opportunities for connectivity conservation through a literature review of project implementation, a workshop with scientists and conservation practitioners, 3 case studies of connectivity projects, and interviews with conservation professionals. Connectivity challenges and solutions tended to be context specific, dependent on land-ownership patterns, socioeconomic factors, and the policy framework. Successful connectivity implementation tended to be associated with development and promotion of a common vision among diverse sets of stakeholders, including nontraditional conservation actors, such as water districts and recreation departments, and with communication with partners and the public. Other factors that lead to successful implementation included undertaking empirical studies to prioritize and validate corridors and the identification of related co-benefits of corridor projects. Engaging partners involved in land management and planning, such as nongovernmental conservation organizations, public agencies, and private landowners, is critical to effective strategy implementation. A clear regulatory framework, including unambiguous connectivity conservation mandates, would increase public resource allocation, and incentive programs are needed to promote private sector engagement. Connectivity conservation must move more rapidly from planning to implementation. We provide an evidence-based solution composed of key elements for successful on-the-ground connectivity implementation. We identified the social processes necessary to advance habitat connectivity for biodiversity conservation and resilient landscapes under climate change.
© 2018 Society for Conservation Biology.

Entities:  

Keywords:  case studies; corredores de fauna; estudios de caso; framework; lecciones aprendidas; lessons learned; marco de trabajo; planning-implementation gap; vacío en la implementación de la planeación; wildlife corridors; 框架; 案例分析; 经验教训; 规划-实施的差距; 野生生物廊道

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29920775     DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13158

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


  6 in total

1.  Wilderness areas in a changing landscape: changes in land use, land cover, and climate.

Authors:  Jocelyn L Aycrigg; T Ryan Mccarley; R Travis Belote; Sebastian Martinuzzi
Journal:  Ecol Appl       Date:  2021-11-08       Impact factor: 6.105

2.  Targeting restoration sites to improve connectivity in a tiger conservation landscape in India.

Authors:  Trishna Dutta; Sandeep Sharma; Ruth DeFries
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2018-10-02       Impact factor: 2.984

3.  Towards the restoration of the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor for large mammals in Panama: comparing multi-species occupancy to movement models.

Authors:  Ninon F V Meyer; Ricardo Moreno; Rafael Reyna-Hurtado; Johannes Signer; Niko Balkenhol
Journal:  Mov Ecol       Date:  2020-01-09       Impact factor: 3.600

4.  Climate-change refugia: biodiversity in the slow lane.

Authors:  Toni Lyn Morelli; Cameron W Barrows; Aaron R Ramirez; Jennifer M Cartwright; David D Ackerly; Tatiana D Eaves; Joseph L Ebersole; Meg A Krawchuk; Benjamin H Letcher; Mary F Mahalovich; Garrett W Meigs; Julia L Michalak; Constance I Millar; Rebecca M Quiñones; Diana Stralberg; James H Thorne
Journal:  Front Ecol Environ       Date:  2020-06-01       Impact factor: 11.123

Review 5.  Actions to halt biodiversity loss generally benefit the climate.

Authors:  Yunne-Jai Shin; Guy F Midgley; Emma R M Archer; Almut Arneth; David K A Barnes; Lena Chan; Shizuka Hashimoto; Ove Hoegh-Guldberg; Gregory Insarov; Paul Leadley; Lisa A Levin; Hien T Ngo; Ram Pandit; Aliny P F Pires; Hans-Otto Pörtner; Alex D Rogers; Robert J Scholes; Josef Settele; Pete Smith
Journal:  Glob Chang Biol       Date:  2022-02-27       Impact factor: 13.211

6.  Woodpeckers can act as dispersal vectors for fungi, plants, and microorganisms.

Authors:  Niko R Johansson; Ulla Kaasalainen; Jouko Rikkinen
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2021-05-13       Impact factor: 2.912

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.