A guide to calculating habitat‐quality metrics to inform conservation of highly mobile species

Abstract

Many metrics exist for quantifying the relative value of habitats and pathways used by highly mobile species. Properly selecting and applying such metrics requires substantial background in mathematics and understanding the relevant management arena. To address this multidimensional challenge, we demonstrate and compare three measurements of habitat quality: graph‐, occupancy‐, and demographic‐based metrics. Each metric provides insights into system dynamics, at the expense of increasing amounts and complexity of data and models. Our descriptions and comparisons of diverse habitat‐quality metrics provide means for practitioners to overcome the modeling challenges associated with management or conservation of such highly mobile species. Whereas previous guidance for applying habitat‐quality metrics has been scattered in diversified tracks of literature, we have brought this information together into an approachable format including accessible descriptions and a modeling case study for a typical example that conservation professionals can adapt for their own decision contexts and focal populations. Considerations for Resource Managers Management objectives, proposed actions, data availability and quality, and model assumptions are all relevant considerations when applying and interpreting habitat‐quality metrics. Graph‐based metrics answer questions related to habitat centrality and connectivity, are suitable for populations with any movement pattern, quantify basic spatial and temporal patterns of occupancy and movement, and require the least data. Occupancy‐based metrics answer questions about likelihood of persistence or colonization, are suitable for populations that undergo localized extinctions, quantify spatial and temporal patterns of occupancy and movement, and require a moderate amount of data. Demographic‐based metrics answer questions about relative or absolute population size, are suitable for populations with any movement pattern, quantify demographic processes and population dynamics, and require the most data. More real‐world examples applying occupancy‐based, agent‐based, and continuous‐based metrics to seasonally migratory species are needed to better understand challenges and opportunities for applying these metrics more broadly.

Multi‐species, multi‐country analysis reveals North Americans are willing to pay for transborder migratory species conservation

“…Although user‐financed biodiversity/habitat PES programmes have not scaled as well as other PES programs (Salzman et al, 2018), programmes financed by the users of a service have proved to be generally more successful than government‐financed programmes (Wunder et al, 2008). Paired with new approaches to estimating the ecological importance of habitat for migratory species (Bieri et al, 2018; Sample et al, 2020) and quantifying net spatial flows of ecosystem services from migratory species (Bagstad et al, 2019; López‐Hoffman, Chester, et al, 2017; Semmens et al, 2018), the feasibility of applying PES to migratory species is growing rapidly.…”

A network approach to prioritize conservation efforts for migratory birds

“…; Bieri et al. ). Recent resolutions emphasize the importance of considering ecological networks and the connectivity of migratory species when addressing conservation of migratory species (UNEP ).…”

“…Although such evaluation is straightforward, it does not account for relationships among different sites or the site's context within a network (e.g., the availability of alternative sites along the migration flyway) (Merken et al 2015). Previous studies demonstrate that network-level metrics (e.g., habitat centrality) are more suitable for evaluating habitat importance for species with a movement pattern and should thus be included in management decisions (Nicol et al 2016;Dhanjal-Adams et al 2017;Bieri et al 2018). Recent resolutions emphasize the importance of considering ecological networks and the connectivity of migratory species when addressing conservation of migratory species (UNEP 2017).…”