Terrestrial Buffer Zones and Wetland Conservation: A Case Study of Freshwater Turtles in a Carolina Bay

Burke, Vincent J.; Gibbons, J. Whitfield

doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1995.09061365.x

Cited by 170 publications

(103 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, our estimates are generally larger than previously published values. For example, Burke and Gibbons (1995) suggested that a 73 m zone was necessary to protect 90% of nesting and hibernation sites used by three turtle species in a single Carolina Bay in South Carolina; however, our continent-wide study suggests a 4). Our results further corroborate the 150 m zone suggested by Bodie (2001) to protect riparian areas used by riverine turtles.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

“…Organisms with biphasic natural histories complicate protected area development because they require both aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Specifically, core habitats of semi-aquatic species, including many amphibians (Semlitsch 1998;Pope et al, 2000;Porej et al, 2004), snakes (Roe et al, 2003), turtles (Burke and Gibbons, 1995), mammals (Kruchek, 2004), birds (Naugle et al, 1999), and insects (Bried and Ervin, 2006), encompass terrestrial uplands that are critical for conservation measures aimed at maintaining biodiversity (Semlitsch and Jensen, 2001). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Terrestrial habitat requirements of nesting freshwater turtles

Steen

Gibbs

Buhlmann

et al. 2012

Biological Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Because particular life history traits affect species vulnerability to development pressures, cross-species summaries of life history traits are useful for generating management guidelines. Conservation of aquatic turtles, many members of which are regionally or globally imperiled, requires knowing the extent of upland habitat used for nesting. Therefore, we compiled distances that nests and gravid females had been observed from wetlands. Based on records of > 8000 nests and gravid female records compiled for 31 species in the United States and Canada, the distances that encompass 95% of nests vary dramatically among genera and populations, from just 8 m forMalaclemys to nearly 1400 m for Trachemys. Widths of core areas to encompass varying fractions of nesting populations (based on mean maxima across all genera) were estimated as: 50% coverage = 93 m, 75% = 154 m, 90% = 198 m, 95% = 232 m, 100% = 942 m. Approximately 6-98 m is required to encompass each consecutive 10% segment of a nesting population up to 90% coverage; thereafter, ca. 424 m is required to encompass the remaining 10%. Many genera require modest terrestrial areas (zones) for 95% nest coverage (Actinemys, Apalone, Chelydra, Chrysemys, Clemmys,Glyptemys, Graptemys, Macrochelys, Malaclemys, Pseudemys, Sternotherus), whereas other genera require larger zones (Deirochelys, Emydoidea, Kinosternon, Trachemys). Our results represent planning targets for conserving sufficient areas of uplands around wetlands to ensure protection of turtle nesting sites, migrating adult female turtles, and dispersing turtle hatchlings. Our results represent planning targets for conserving sufficient areas of uplands around wetlands to ensure protection of turtle nesting sites, migrating adult female turtles, and dispersing turtle hatchlings.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Terrestrial habitat requirements of nesting freshwater turtles

Steen

Gibbs

Buhlmann

et al. 2012

Biological Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In our case study area, ecosystem management requires actors to negotiate to apply ecological criteria. These criteria depend for example on the protection of the buffer zone that will deliver multiple benefits to the wetland such as provision of habitat, and corridors to assist the movement of wildlife and reduce disturbance [66,67]; however, this action is currently not being implemented due to a fragmented institutional framework. Local level actors require state or national level endorsement when jurisdictional and institutional mismatches occur [68].…”

Section: Temporal and Spatial Arrangements Applied To Ecosystem Consementioning

confidence: 99%

Matching Ecosystem Functions with Adaptive Ecosystem Management: Decision Pathways to Overcome Institutional Barriers

Nanda

Rijke

Beesley

et al. 2018

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Environmental management strategies aim to protect or repair ecological assets (ecosystems, species) so that their ecological and social values can be preserved. However, creating an effective strategy is difficult because multiple government departments are involved and because water and land use legislation and policy instruments are often fragmented. A key obstacle that is often overlooked is the spatial mismatch between ecological processes and institutional organisation (i.e., legislative framework and government departments). Successful management depends on the ability to cultivate resilient ecosystems through institutional reforms that take into account the complexity of ecosystems while supporting cross-sectoral and scale-dependent decision-making within the science-policy interface. Here, we use a case study approach to illustrate how collective strategic decisions can be made to manage a valued ecosystem situated within an urban matrix. We used a three-step framework to guide our approach and commenced by identifying a range of adaptation measures (i.e., management interventions) and the actors responsible. For each adaptation measure, we then investigated (i) mismatches among ecosystem and institution scales and levels; (ii) institutional barriers; and (iii) the role of actors in decision making. We use this information to identify 'decision pathways': i.e., a flexible decision-making platform that assists stakeholders to make strategic short-and long-term decisions. Key insights included the discussion of policy and practical experiences for ecosystem management at different levels and the necessary conditions to provide better alignment between jurisdictional an ecosystem scale to guide decision makers accordingly. We detail the institutional and jurisdictional changes that must be implemented across all levels of governance to protect and support the resilience of environmental assets. 'Short-term' decision pathways were preferred among actors and cross-level cooperation at jurisdictional level provided an adequate fit with the ecosystem scale. 'Long-term' decisions require substantial change of the institutional framework to enable the implementation of adaptive management. Although challenges at institutional and jurisdictional scales remain, decision pathways promote adaptive ecosystem management through a better fit of jurisdictional and institutional roles/policy and ecosystem-scale processes.

show abstract

“…Most of these turtles chose an older live oak and pine forest, with fewer choosing an adjacent 5-year-old clearcut. Even the most stringent wetland protection laws do not protect more than 100 ft (30.5 m) of adjacent uplands (Burke and Gibbons 1995).…”

Section: 3mentioning

confidence: 99%