An assessment of vulnerable wildlife, their habitats, and protected areas in the contiguous United States

Dietz, Matt S; Belote, R. Travis; Gage, Josh; Hahn, Beth

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108646

Cited by 19 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1.37 m). Areas not likely to provide timber were adjusted using the Protected Areas Database 2.0 [ 62 ], which revealed national parks, wilderness areas, research natural areas, nature reserves, and other protected areas. Areas excluded from timber harvest were those determined to have Gap Analysis Program (GAP) [ 63 ] Status 1 or 2.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A quantitative wildfire risk assessment using a modular approach of geostatistical clustering and regionally distinct valuations of assets—A case study in Oregon

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The intensity and scale of wildfires has increased throughout the Pacific Northwest in recent decades, especially within the last decade, destroying vast amounts of valuable resources and assets. This trend is predicted to remain or even magnify due climate change, growing population, increased housing density. Furthermore, the associated stress of prolonged droughts and change in land cover/land use puts more population at risk. We present results of a multi-phase Extension Fire Program Initiative combining fire model results based on worst-case meteorological conditions recorded at 50 weather stations across Oregon with spatially distinct valuations of resources and assets based on regional ecological and socio-economic conditions. Our study focuses on six different Fire Service Areas covering the state of Oregon. We used a geostatistical approach to find weather stations that provide worst-case meteorological input data on record for representative sub-domains. The results provide regionally distinct assessments of potential value loss by wildfire and show that, depending on the region, 12% to 52% of the highest relative risk areas are on private land. This underscores the need to unite strategies and efforts on the landscape scale by including different landowners, managers, and stakeholders of public land and private land efficiently address wildfire damage protection and mitigation. Our risk assessments closely agreed with risks identified during landscape-scale ground projects.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A quantitative wildfire risk assessment using a modular approach of geostatistical clustering and regionally distinct valuations of assets—A case study in Oregon

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Others may choose to change or supplement this list for their particular applications. For example, the recent analysis of habitat suitability for species of concern by Dietz et al (2020) may also be highly relevant for prioritizing lands for conservation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Informing conservation decisions to target private lands of highest ecological value and risk of loss

Hansen

Mullan

Theobald³

et al. 2022

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Natural habitats on private lands are potentially important components of national biodiversity conservation strategies, yet they are being rapidly lost to development. Conservation easements and other means of protecting these habitats have expanded in use and will be most effective if they target private lands of highest biodiversity value and risk of loss. We developed a Biodiversity Conservation Priority Index (BCPI) based on ecological value and risk of habitat loss for remaining areas of natural vegetation cover (NVC) in the northwestern United States and addressed two questions: (1) Which remaining NVC on private lands is the highest priority for biodiversity conservation based on ecological value and risk of development? And (2) are conservation easements in NVC placed preferentially in

show abstract

“…Various methods for prioritizing areas for conservation have been used in spatial assessments (Belote et al 2021), such as identifying areas with high species richness or threatened species (Myers et al 2000, Dietz et al 2020). In a climate change context, one prioritization strategy that has recently gained momentum involves the identification of climate change refugia (Barrows et al 2020, Morelli et al 2020, Stralberg et al 2020a, Balantic et al 2021), or regions of relative stability for multiple species under climate change (Ashcroft 2010, Keppel et al 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Choice of prioritization method impacts recommendations for climate‐informed bird conservation in the United States

Taylor

Saunders

et al. 2022

Ecography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate‐informed spatial planning is urgently needed to guide initiatives aimed at both conserving biodiversity as a whole (e.g. protection of 30% of lands and waters by 2030) and recovering North American avifauna in particular. Various methods for prioritizing conservation areas exist, yet alternative methods may direct managers to different lands for protection, and thus varying recommendations for meeting area‐based targets. Here, we used bird species distribution models and landcover projections to systematically evaluate two widely used methods for prioritizing areas most likely to facilitate the persistence of multiple species under climate change: 1) in situ macrorefugia, identified as areas of high predicted species retention; and 2) complementarity‐based optimizations, identified using the Zonation conservation planning software. For 17 biogeographical groups in the continental United States, we compared priority areas for bird conservation derived from these two alternatives with respect to their spatial distributions and consensus (i.e. overlap), expected conservation outcomes (e.g. species and functional diversity), predicted climate change exposure, habitat characteristics, landscape configurations and degree of formal protection. Spatial distributions of priority areas differed by biogeographical group and method, with 40.5% consensus on average across groups. Consensus was extensive within mountainous and coastal regions, and limited at high latitudes (e.g. Alaska) and in flat, interior regions (e.g. grasslands). As expected, complementarity‐based optimizations more efficiently represented species than retention‐based in situ macrorefugia, especially for forest groups, and had greater overall biodiversity value and better habitat condition. Conversely, in situ macrorefugia encompassed higher elevations and larger contiguous patches and were expected to experience less winter‐season warming. Formal protection averaged < 50% across biogeographical groups, regardless of prioritization method. Our findings illustrate the value of complementarity‐based optimizations for bird conservation under climate change. More broadly, comparing approaches for prioritizing areas for long‐term species persistence can reveal critical trade‐offs in recommendations for climate‐informed protected area planning.

show abstract

An assessment of vulnerable wildlife, their habitats, and protected areas in the contiguous United States

Cited by 19 publications

References 25 publications

A quantitative wildfire risk assessment using a modular approach of geostatistical clustering and regionally distinct valuations of assets—A case study in Oregon

A quantitative wildfire risk assessment using a modular approach of geostatistical clustering and regionally distinct valuations of assets—A case study in Oregon

Informing conservation decisions to target private lands of highest ecological value and risk of loss

Choice of prioritization method impacts recommendations for climate‐informed bird conservation in the United States

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About