Getting the most connectivity per conservation dollar

Torrubia, Sara; McRae, Brad H.; Lawler, Joshua J.; Hall, Sonia A.; Halabisky, Meghan; Langdon, Jesse G. R.; Case, Michael J.

doi:10.1890/130136

Cited by 34 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Landscape connectivity is increasingly seen as a key conservation and restoration goal, particularly as a strategy to allow biotic movement in response to changing environments (Roever et al 2013, Tambosi et al 2014, Okin et al 2015. Deciding what and where to restore is a key challenge for future landscapescale restoration efforts (McRae et al 2012, Torrubia et al 2014. Decisions may be aided by technological advances around, for instance, the application of climate velocity models in conjunction with more traditional ecological models to ascertain areas of potential future habitat suitability as targets for restoration efforts (Hamann et al 2015).…”

Section: Magnitude Of Environmental Changes Requires Restoration At Smentioning

confidence: 99%

Advances in restoration ecology: rising to the challenges of the coming decades

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Simultaneous environmental changes challenge biodiversity persistence and human wellbeing. The science and practice of restoration ecology, in collaboration with other disciplines, can contribute to overcoming these challenges. This endeavor requires a solid conceptual foundation based in empirical research which confronts, tests and influences theoretical developments. We review conceptual developments in restoration ecology over the last 30 years. We frame our review in the context of changing restoration goals which reflect increased societal awareness of the scale of environmental degradation and the recognition that inter-disciplinary approaches are needed to tackle environmental problems. Restoration ecology now encompasses facilitative interactions and network dynamics, trophic cascades, and above-and belowground linkages. It operates in a non-equilibrium, alternative states framework, at the landscape scale, and in response to changing environmental, economic and social conditions. Progress has been marked by conceptual advances in the fields of trait-environment relationships, community assembly, and understanding the links between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Conceptual and practical advances have been enhanced by applying evolving technologies, including treatments to increase seed germination and overcome recruitment bottlenecks, high throughput DNA sequencing to elucidate soil community structure and function, and advances in satellite technology and GPS tracking to monitor habitat use. The synthesis of these technologies with systematic reviews of context dependencies in restoration success, model based analyses and consideration of complex socioecological systems will allow generalizations to inform evidence based interventions. Ongoing challenges include setting realistic, socially acceptable goals for restoration under changing environmental conditions, and prioritizing actions in an increasingly space-competitive world. Ethical questions also surround the use of genetically modified material, translocations, taxon substitutions, and de-extinction, in restoration ecology. Addressing these issues, as the Ecological Society of America looks to its next century, will require current and future generations of researchers and practitioners, including economists, engineers, philosophers, landscape architects, social scientists and restoration ecologists, to work together with communities and governments to rise to the environmental challenges of the coming decades.

show abstract

Section: Magnitude Of Environmental Changes Requires Restoration At Smentioning

confidence: 99%

Advances in restoration ecology: rising to the challenges of the coming decades

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…; Torrubia et al. ). In the United States in 2011, the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology recommended that “federal agencies that implement biodiversity and ecosystem conservation programs should prioritize expenditures based on their cost‐effectiveness” (PCAST ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…All models are based on the assumption that a path of higher total resistance cost corresponds to a more difficult or less likely route for the animals to take Rayfield et al 2010;Parks et al 2013). In all cases, the resulting resistance surface underlies all approaches for corridor design (Spear et al 2010), which include evaluation of network properties (Garroway et al 2011), algorithms that delineate the least-cost paths or corridors (Adriaensen et al 2003), simulations of animal movements that identify most likely paths, and algorithms evaluating connectivity-restoration opportunities (Dilkina et al 2011;Torrubia et al 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trade‐offs and efficiencies in optimal budget‐constrained multispecies corridor networks

Dilkina

Houtman

Gomes

et al. 2016

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conservation biologists recognize that a system of isolated protected areas will be necessary but insufficient to meet biodiversity objectives. Current approaches to connecting core conservation areas through corridors consider optimal corridor placement based on a single optimization goal: commonly, maximizing the movement for a target species across a network of protected areas. We show that designing corridors for single species based on purely ecological criteria leads to extremely expensive linkages that are suboptimal for multispecies connectivity objectives. Similarly, acquiring the least-expensive linkages leads to ecologically poor solutions. We developed algorithms for optimizing corridors for multispecies use given a specific budget. We applied our approach in western Montana to demonstrate how the solutions may be used to evaluate trade-offs in connectivity for 2 species with different habitat requirements, different core areas, and different conservation values under different budgets. We evaluated corridors that were optimal for each species individually and for both species jointly. Incorporating a budget constraint and jointly optimizing for both species resulted in corridors that were close to the individual species movement-potential optima but with substantial cost savings. Our approach produced corridors that were within 14% and 11% of the best possible corridor connectivity for grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) and wolverines (Gulo gulo), respectively, and saved 75% of the cost. Similarly, joint optimization under a combined budget resulted in improved connectivity for both species relative to splitting the budget in 2 to optimize for each species individually. Our results demonstrate economies of scale and complementarities conservation planners can achieve by optimizing corridor designs for financial costs and for multiple species connectivity jointly. We believe that our approach will facilitate corridor conservation by reducing acquisition costs and by allowing derived corridors to more closely reflect conservation priorities.

show abstract

“…Deciding where to carry out restoration to achieve all target goals is a key challenge in large-scale restoration (Torrubia et al 2014). Without prioritization planning, resource allocation is likely to be made in an ad hoc manner and this might affect the restoration success (Wilson et al 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Restoration planning for climate change mitigation and adaptation in the city of Durban, South Africa

Mugwedi

Ray‐Mukherjee

Roy

et al. 2018

International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Servic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effective planning of a large-scale restoration project is challenging, because of the range of factors that need to be considered (e.g. restoration of multiple habitats with varying degradation levels, multiple restoration goals and limited conservation resources). Ecological restoration planning studies typically focus on biodiversity and ecosystem services, rather than employment and other co-benefits. Robust Offsetting (RobOff), a restoration planning tool, was used in a forest restoration project in Durban, South Africa, to plan forest restoration considering a mosaic of habitats with varying levels of degradation, diverse restoration actions, a limited budget and multiple (biodiversity, carbon stock and employment) goals. To achieve this, the restoration action currently being implemented (= current action) was compared to three restoration alternatives. The three restoration alternatives included (1) natural regeneration action; (2) carbon action; and (3) biodiversity action. The results supported biodiversity action as most beneficial in terms of maximizing biodiversity, carbon storage and job creation. Results showed that investing in biodiversity action is preferable to the status quo. RobOff ensured optimal allocation of limited resources to actions and habitats that have a potential to achieve higher biodiversity, carbon storage and job creation. ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

Getting the most connectivity per conservation dollar

Cited by 34 publications

References 18 publications

Advances in restoration ecology: rising to the challenges of the coming decades

Advances in restoration ecology: rising to the challenges of the coming decades

Trade‐offs and efficiencies in optimal budget‐constrained multispecies corridor networks

Restoration planning for climate change mitigation and adaptation in the city of Durban, South Africa

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About