Assessing the gap between conservation need and protection status for select rare ecosystems in Alaska

Abstract

Rare ecosystems support unique assemblages of flora and fauna within a small geographic area. As such, their conservation represents an effective method of biodiversity protection. The description, mapping, and assessment of rare ecosystems is a necessary and initial conservation action, yet this has not been completed for Alaska.Here, we provide the first comprehensive treatment of rare terrestrial ecosystems for the state. Thirty-five rare systems, representing different levels of ecological organization and geographic scale, are presented. In addition, a gap analysis was conducted to evaluate the systems' current level of land management protection relative to their conservation need. Eleven of the mapped ecosystems are considered adequately protected, two are moderately protected, and 22 are less protected. Conservation ranks are incongruously aligned with land management protection levels such that the rarest systems are often not well protected and the less-imperiled systems are often well protected. On the ecoregion scale, systems with arctic distributions are less protected than are those with boreal and maritime distributions. This rare ecosystem assessment complements species-and landscape-scale conservation studies previously completed for Alaska. Collectively, the recommendations from these assessments provide a science-based strategy for biological conservation in a vulnerable region of the world.

Conservation status, threats, and information needs of small mammals in Alaska

“…Compared to most other U.S. states, criteria used in the NatureServe ranking system such as area of occupancy and percentage of area of high ecological integrity may not be as relevant in Alaska, which has a limited anthropogenic footprint (Reynolds et al, 2018). Flagstad et al (2019) noted that the NatureServe ranking system may lead to a bias of lower conservation need for species and ecological systems in Alaska.…”

“…The first four questions assessed the effects of a possible threat on a species' distribution (scope) and population size (severity), the expected timing of the threat, and uncertainty regarding the magnitude of its impacts (Table 2). The questions assessing threats were adapted from the NatureServe Conservation Status Assessment (Master et al, 2012), which has been widely adopted by scientists and conservation practitioners (e.g., Flagstad et al, 2019; Johnson et al, 2013; Tuberville et al, 2015) and is part of an international effort by the conservation community to standardize threat assessments (Salafsky et al, 2008). We identified seven threats and adapted them to what we thought was relevant to Alaska's small mammals.…”

“…The first four questions assessed the effects of a possible T A B L E 1 The Alaska species ranking system assesses the conservation priority of each taxon by: (a) classifying status, biological, and action scores as high (H), unknown (U), or low (L); (b) performing logical operations on these classifications; and (c) assigning each taxon to one of nine numerical ranks and one of four color categories Least concern threat on a species' distribution (scope) and population size (severity), the expected timing of the threat, and uncertainty regarding the magnitude of its impacts (Table 2). The questions assessing threats were adapted from the NatureServe Conservation Status Assessment (Master et al, 2012), which has been widely adopted by scientists and conservation practitioners (e.g., Flagstad et al, 2019;Johnson et al, 2013;Tuberville et al, 2015) and is part of an international effort by the conservation community to standardize threat assessments (Salafsky et al, 2008). We identified seven threats and adapted them to what we thought was relevant to Alaska's small mammals.…”

Vegetation classification for northwestern Arctic Alaska using an EcoVeg approach: tussock tundra and low and tall willow groups and alliances

“…Faber-Langendoen et al ( 2020) recognized that Arctic inland dunes are distinct from coastal dunes and should therefore be placed in the context of tundra. Arctic inland dunes are considered rare ecosystems in Alaska, provide habitat for several rare and sensitive plant taxa, such as Mertensia drummondii, and are of high importance for conservation (Cortés-Burns et al 2009;Boggs et al 2019;Flagstad et al 2019;ACCS 2021). However, a complete discussion regarding the placement of Arctic inland dunes within the USNVC hierarchy was beyond the scope of the 2017 Alaska USNVC working session.…”

Airborne Hyperspectral Data Acquisition and Processing in the Arctic: A Pilot Study Using the Hyspex Imaging Spectrometer for Wetland Mapping

“…In Alaska, wetlands cover twenty-two percent of the state's area, according to the most recent survey carried out by [1]. However, over the past 200 years Alaska has lost less than one percent of its wetland area compared to an estimated fifty-three percent loss in other states in the US [2].…”