Guidelines for conserving connectivity through ecological networks and corridors

Hilty, Jodi A.; Worboys, Graeme L.; Keeley, Annika T. H.; Woodley, Stephen; Lausche, Barbara J.; Locke, Harvey; Carr, Mark H.; Pulsford, Ian; Pittock, Jamie; White, J. Wilson; Theobald, David M.; Levine, Jay F.; Reuling, Melly; Watson, James E.M.; Ament, Rob; Groves, Craig; Tabor, Gary M.

doi:10.2305/iucn.ch.2020.pag.30.en

Cited by 163 publications

(139 citation statements)

References 96 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

132

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is generally agreed that avoiding degradation of existing habitat is a better strategy than restoration, as the latter implies increased costs and is unlikely to lead to full recovery 78,82 ; corridors generally imply substantial financial efforts and, as a result, their implementation has been met with resistance throughout Europe 83 . Human-modified landscapes could be included within the network in a stepping-stone manner 84 , but this would require a case-by-case analysis and consultations with the stakeholders, both of which are beyond the scope of this manuscript.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecological corridors for the amphibians and reptiles in the Natura 2000 sites of Romania

Sahlean

Papeş

Strugariu

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Landscape heterogeneity and fragmentation are key challenges for biodiversity conservation. As Earth’s landscape is increasingly dominated by anthropogenic land use, it is clear that broad-scale systems of nature reserves connected by corridors are needed to enable the dispersal of flora and fauna. The European Union currently supports a continent-wide network of protected areas, the Natura 2000 program, but this program lacks the necessary connectivity component. To examine whether a comprehensive network could be built in order to protect amphibians and reptiles, two taxonomic groups sensitive to environmental changes due to their physiological constrains and low dispersal capacity, we used species’ distribution maps, the sites of community interest (SCIs) in Romania, and landscape resistance rasters. Except Vipera ursinii rakosiensis, all amphibians and reptiles had corridors mapped that, when assembled, provided linkages for up to 27 species. Natura 2000 species were not good candidates for umbrella species as these linkages covered only 17% of the corridors for all species. Important Areas for Connectivity were identified in the Carpathian Mountains and along the Danube River, further confirming these regions as hot spots for biodiversity in Europe, where successful linkages are most likely. In the end, while such corridors may not be created just for amphibians and reptiles, they can easily be incorporated into more complex linkages with corridors for more charismatic species, therefore enhancing the corridors’ value in terms of quality and structure.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecological corridors for the amphibians and reptiles in the Natura 2000 sites of Romania

Sahlean

Papeş

Strugariu

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Connectivity conservation is a subset of conservation planning in which inclusive and collaborative efforts are particularly necessary, as it aims to address the conservation of public and private lands and Indigenous territories between protected areas [5,[94][95][96]. The broader landscape is often highly contested space, with multiple demands and claims over a limited land base.…”

Section: Conservation Planning and Local Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The broader landscape is often highly contested space, with multiple demands and claims over a limited land base. Nonetheless, it is important to maintain and restore connectivity across human-dominated landscapes because habitat fragmentation is a key cause of wildlife decline [5]. Linear human developments such as roads are increasingly recognized as predominant impediments to habitat connectivity [97][98][99][100][101].…”

Section: Conservation Planning and Local Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Connected systems of effectively protected and conserved areas are considered critical to addressing both biodiversity and climate crises [1][2][3][4][5]. Ecological connectivity allows for genetic flow and is imperative to maintaining natural ecosystem processes [6,7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Given the importance of connectivity, and on-going threats to it, conservation measures are warranted to maintain and restore key ecological corridors [2,5,23]. With competing demands on a limited land base, however, any plans for additional protected or conserved areas need to be grounded in rigorous evidence and supported by local people [24][25][26][27].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Accessing Local Tacit Knowledge as a Means of Knowledge Co-Production for Effective Wildlife Corridor Planning in the Chignecto Isthmus, Canada

Needham

Beazley

Papuga

2020

Land

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inclusive knowledge systems that engage local perspectives and social and natural sciences are difficult to generate and infuse into decision-making processes but are critical for conservation planning. This paper explores local tacit knowledge application to identify wildlife locations, movement patterns and heightened opportunities and barriers for connectivity conservation planning in a critical linkage area known as the Chignecto Isthmus in the eastern Canadian provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Thirty-four local hunters, loggers, farmers and others with strong tacit knowledge of wildlife and the land participated in individual interviews and group workshops, both of which engaged participatory mapping. Individuals’ data were digitised, analysed and compiled into thematic series of maps, which were refined through participatory, consensus-based workshops. Locations of key populations and movement patterns for several species were delineated, predominantly for terrestrial mammals and migratory birds. When comparing local tacit-knowledge-based maps with those derived from formal-natural-science models, key differences and strong overlap were apparent. Local participants provided rich explanatory and complementary data. Their engagement in the process fostered knowledge transfer within the group and increased confidence in their experiential knowledge and its value for decision making. Benefits derived from our study for conservation planning in the region include enhanced spatial data on key locations of wildlife populations and movement pathways and local insights into wildlife changes over time. Identified contributing factors primarily relate to habitat degradation and fragmentation from human activities (i.e., land use and cover changes caused by roads and forestry practices), thereby supporting the need for conservation measures. The generated knowledge is important for consideration in local planning initiatives; it addresses gaps in existing formal-science data and validates or ground truths the outputs of existing computer-based models of wildlife habitat and movement pathways within the context of the complex social-ecological systems of the place and local people. Critically, awareness of the need for conservation and the value of the participants’ shared knowledge has been enhanced, with potential influence in fostering local engagement in wildlife conservation and other planning initiatives. Consistent with other studies, engagement of local people and their tacit knowledge was found to (i) provide important insights, knowledge translation, and dissemination to complement formal, natural science, (ii) help build a more inclusive knowledge system grounded in the people and place, and (iii) lend support to conservation action for connectivity planning and human-wildlife co-existence. More broadly, our methods demonstrate an effective approach for representing differences and consensus among participants’ spatial indications of wildlife and habitat as a means of co-producing knowledge in participatory mapping for conservation planning.

show abstract

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

Aycrigg

McCarley

Belote³

et al. 2021

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wilderness areas are not immune to changes in land use, land cover, and/or climate. Future changes will intensify the balancing act of maintaining ecological conditions and untrammeled character within wilderness areas. We assessed the quantitative and spatial changes in land use, land cover, and climate predicted to occur in and around wilderness areas by (1) quantifying projected changes in land use and land cover around wilderness areas; (2) evaluating if public lands surrounding wilderness areas can buffer future land‐use change; (3) quantifying future climate conditions in and around wilderness areas; and (4) identifying wilderness areas expected to experience the most change in land use, land cover, and climate. We used projections of land use (four variables), land cover (five variables), and climate (nine variables) to assess changes for 707 wilderness areas in the contiguous United States by mid‐21st century under two scenarios (medium‐low and high). We ranked all wilderness areas relative to each other by summing and ranking decile values for each land use, land cover, and climate variable and calculating a multivariate metric of future change. All wilderness areas were projected to experience some level of change by mid‐century. The greatest land‐use changes were associated with increases in agriculture, clear cutting, and developed land, while the greatest land cover changes were observed for grassland, forest, and shrubland. In 51.6% and 73.8% of wilderness areas, core area of natural vegetation surrounding wilderness was projected to decrease for the medium‐low and high scenarios, respectfully. Presence of public land did not mitigate the influence of land‐use change around wilderness areas. Geographically, projected changes occurred throughout the contiguous U.S., with areas in the northeast and upper Midwest projected to have the greatest land‐use and climate change and the southwestern U.S. projected to undergo the greatest land cover and climate change. Our results provide insights into potential future threats to wilderness areas and the challenges associated with wilderness stewardship and climate adaptation. Despite the high degree of protection and remoteness of wilderness areas, effective management and preservation of these lands must consider future changes in land use, land cover, and climate.

show abstract

Guidelines for conserving connectivity through ecological networks and corridors

Cited by 163 publications

References 96 publications

Ecological corridors for the amphibians and reptiles in the Natura 2000 sites of Romania

Ecological corridors for the amphibians and reptiles in the Natura 2000 sites of Romania

Accessing Local Tacit Knowledge as a Means of Knowledge Co-Production for Effective Wildlife Corridor Planning in the Chignecto Isthmus, Canada

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About