Over the past few centuries, widespread disturbance of native forests of the conterminous United States has dramatically altered the composition, structure, extent, and spatial pattern of forestlands (Curtis 1956, Whitney 1994). These forests have been either permanently replaced by other land uses or degraded to varying degrees by unsustainable forestry practices, forest fragmentation, exotic species introduction, or alteration of natural disturbance regimes.
Habitat fragmentation is generally defined as the process of subdividing a continuous habitat type into smaller patches, which results in the loss of original habitat, reduction in patch size, and increasing isolation of patches (Andrén 1994). Habitat fragmentation is considered to be one of the single most important factors leading to loss of native species (especially in forested landscapes) and one of the primary causes of the present extinction crisis (Wilcox and Murphy 1985). Although it is true that natural disturbances such as fire and disease fragment native forests, human activities are by far the most extensive agents of forest fragmentation (Burgess and Sharpe 1981). For example, during a 20-year period in the Klamath–Siskiyou ecoregion, fire was responsible for 6% of forest loss, while clear-cut logging was responsible for 94% (Staus et al. 2001). Depending on the severity of the fragmentation process and sensitivity of the ecosystems affected, native plants, animals, and many natural ecosystem processes (e.g., nutrient cycling, pollination, predator–prey interactions, and natural disturbance regimes) are compromised or fundamentally altered. For many species, migration between suitable habitat patches becomes more difficult, leading to smaller population sizes, decreased gene flow, and possible local extinctions (Wilcove 1987, Vermeulen 1993).
Models are commonly used to identify lands that will best maintain the ability of wildlife to move between wildland blocks through matrix lands after the remaining matrix has become incompatible with wildlife movement. We offer a roadmap of 16 choices and assumptions that arise in designing linkages to facilitate movement or gene flow of focal species between 2 or more predefined wildland blocks. We recommend designing linkages to serve multiple (rather than one) focal species likely to serve as a collective umbrella for all native species and ecological processes, explicitly acknowledging untested assumptions, and using uncertainty analysis to illustrate potential effects of model uncertainty. Such uncertainty is best displayed to stakeholders as maps of modeled linkages under different assumptions. We also recommend modeling corridor dwellers (species that require more than one generation to move their genes between wildland blocks) differently from passage species (for which an individual can move between wildland blocks within a few weeks). We identify a problem, which we call the subjective translation problem, that arises because the analyst must subjectively decide how to translate measurements of resource selection into resistance. This problem can be overcome by estimating resistance from observations of animal movement, genetic distances, or interpatch movements. There is room for substantial improvement in the procedures used to design linkages robust to climate change and in tools that allow stakeholders to compare an optimal linkage design to alternative designs that minimize costs or achieve other conservation goals.
This paper represents a collaboration by conservation practitioners, ecologists, and climate change scientists to provide specific guidance on local and regional adaptation strategies to climate change for conservation planning and restoration activities. Our geographic focus is the Willamette Valley-Puget Trough-Georgia Basin (WPG) ecoregion, comprised of valley lowlands formerly dominated by now-threatened prairies and oak savannas. We review climate model strengths and limitations, and summarize climate change projections and potential impacts on WPG prairies and oak savannas. We identify a set of six climate-smart strategies that do not require abandoning past management approaches but rather reorienting them towards a dynamic and uncertain future. These strategies focus on linking local and regional landscape characteristics to the emerging needs of species, including potentially novel species assemblages, so that prairies and savannas are maintained in locations and conditions that remain well-suited to their persistence. At the regional scale, planning should use the full range of biological and environmental variability. At the local scale, habitat heterogeneity can be used to support species persistence by identifying key refugia. Climate change may marginalize sites currently used for agriculture and forestry, which may become good candidates for restoration. Native grasslands may increasingly provide ecosystem services that may support broader societal needs exacerbated by climate change. Judicious monitoring can help identify biological thresholds and restoration opportunities. To prepare for both future challenges and opportunities brought about by climate change, land managers must incorporate climate change projections and uncertainties into their long-term planning.
One of the biggest threats to the survival of many plant and animal species is the destruction or fragmentation of their natural habitats. The conservation of landscape connections, where animals, plants, and ecological processes can move freely from one habitat to another, is therefore an essential part of any new conservation or environmental protection plan. In practice, however, maintaining, creating, and protecting connectivity in our increasingly dissected world is a daunting challenge. This fascinating volume provides a synthesis on the current status and literature of connectivity conservation research and implementation. It shows the challenges involved in applying existing knowledge to real-world examples and highlights areas in need of further study. Containing contributions from leading scientists and practitioners, this topical and thought-provoking volume will be essential reading for graduate students, researchers, and practitioners working in conservation biology and natural resource management.
The Forest Treatment Planner was developed to provide forest managers a platform for exploring the potential consequences of different forest management alternatives in both the short and long-term, examine the resource-based trade-offs inherent in any proposed vegetation management action, and clearly substantiate the rationale behind management planning. Originally envisioned as a means to help balance fisher habitat conservation with fuel reduction efforts, the Treatment Planner provides a dynamic link between GIS, the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) modeling software, and any resource model (e.g. habitat, hydrology, fuel, economic) that uses the EEMS (Environmental Evaluation Modeling System) modeling environment. As such, the Treatment Planner is not a model per-se, but a system of communication between existing software that, when used together, can facilitate spatially-explicit comparisons and project refinement. By exporting an FVS output directly into the EEMS modeling environment, this framework allows for a transparent evaluation of the impacts to multiple resource values and a straightforward process for communicating these impacts to stakeholders.
The Treatment Planner supports an iterative process of treatment project simulation, adaptive management, and outcomes analysis, the steps in what we refer to as the “4-Box” decision making framework. The 4-Box model is a conceptual representation of a process designed to help predict future landscape conditions based on simulated management actions and change over time (see Figure). In this process, the forest manager first examines the current conditions of the landscape through the lens of a particular question or management objective (e.g., where is there a need for protection or restoration?). They can then explore the predicted effects of various simulated management alternatives (e.g., thin from above, or thin from below), to see how they would affect the stand structure (e.g., stand density, basal area, and average DBH) over time, both immediately and into the future. Finally, the manager can examine how those new conditions would then affect a particular phenomenon of interest such as, severe fire risk, or wildlife habitat suitability. This process is then repeated under a different set of treatment options (scenarios) to inform the development of an effective management strategy.
Figure 1. The 4-Box model represents a process for evaluating future conditions based on simulated treatments and change over time.
You can check out the detailed steps to use the treatment planner using the document on the file tab. The relevant code for the treatment planner is available at github, click here to download.
CBI worked closely with the Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC) to integrate relevant spatial datasets to map areas of high value from the standpoint of carbon storage and sequestration, terrestrial ecological value, and aquatic value in support of several NRDC programs, including their 30X30 campaign to protect 30% of nature in the nation by 2030. Click here to learn more about the 30×30 initiative.
Using CBI’s online modeling software called Environmental Evaluation Modeling System (or EEMS), team members were able to construct, review, and modify the models in a rigorous and highly transparent fashion from their individual remote locations. The resulting “living” models can then be used alone or together and in combination with other spatial data (e.g., existing protected areas) to add further context and insight using Data Basin. Data Basin and EEMS were effectively used to help guide NRDC’s important conservation mission.
Landscape connectivity is critical for species dispersal and population resilience. This project is part of the collaborative Landscape Conservation Design (LCD) for the Pacific Northwest coastal ecoregion and conducted in partnership with the North Pacific Landscape Conservation Cooperative. The goal is to identify connectivity pathways and prioritize corridors for 2-4 focal species West of the Cascades in Oregon and Washington. In Oregon, we will work closely with the members of the Oregon Habitat Connectivity Consortium (OHCC) for both the coastal and Willamette valley ecoregions of the state. The methods tested and refined in this project will feed into future Oregon-wide connectivity mapping.
To learn more and explore related maps and datasets, please visit the Data Basin gallery, “Connectivity of Naturalness in Western Washington“. The gallery includes outputs showing the structural connectivity (i.e. naturalness connectivity) for Western Washington.
These data can be used to help guide connectivity conservation efforts. They are the results from the pilot project comparing Omniscape (coreless) and Linkage Mapper (core areas) modeling methods. Extra attention was made to the data inputs and the rigor of the analyses so that the results can be applied, in addition to answering the driving research question.
Supported by the California Wildlife Conservation Board, CBI will be working closely with the Strategic Growth Council, UC Davis, and other agency staff to conduct a Regional Conservation Assessment (RCA) for two pilot areas in the state – Mojave Desert and Modoc Plateau – and build an easy-to-use, online assessment tool to evaluate potential conservation investments based on a set of standards developed by the Integrated Regional Conservation and Development program (IRCAD). RCAs are designed to provide a standardized and current assessment of the biological values and ecological conditions within each ecoregion in California serving as the important context to carry out more effective and ecologically sensitive development in the state. This project builds upon existing investment through the California Energy Commission’s statewide renewable energy planning efforts.
The Coyote Valley is a last chance landscape. The Valley, located within one of the world’s top 25 most important biodiversity hotspots, occurs on the south side of San Jose, California and is situated between the Santa Cruz Mountains and Diablo Range. The Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority, in partnership with CBI, assembled a team of local and regional scientists with the goal of integrating existing scientific information and knowledge to develop a vision and practical plan for achieving a fully functional landscape linkage through the Valley to avoid isolating the two mountain ranges while protecting extremely important valley floor species and habitats. The plan includes restoration of important wetland and uplands habitats, support for numerous rare and sensitive species, and protection of important water and agricultural resources.
*Click here for the full report.