Focal species and landscape “naturalness” corridor models offer complementary approaches for connectivity conservation planning
- 1.1k Downloads
The dual threats of habitat fragmentation and climate change have led to a proliferation of approaches for connectivity conservation planning. Corridor analyses have traditionally taken a focal species approach, but the landscape “naturalness” approach of modeling connectivity among areas of low human modification has gained popularity as a less analytically intensive alternative.
We compared focal species and naturalness-based corridor networks to ask whether they identify similar areas, whether a naturalness-based approach is in fact more analytically efficient, and whether agreement between the two approaches varies with focal species vagility.
We compared focal-species and naturalness-based connectivity models at two nested spatial extents: greater Washington State, USA, and, within it, the Columbia Plateau ecoregion. We assessed complementarity between the two approaches by examining the spatial overlap of predicted corridors, and regressing organism traits against the amount of modeled corridor overlap.
A single naturalness-based corridor network represented connectivity for a large (>10) number of focal species as effectively as a group of between 3 and 4 randomly selected focal species. The naturalness-based approach showed only moderate spatial agreement with composite corridor networks for large numbers of focal species, and better agreed with corridor networks of large-bodied, far-dispersing species in the larger scale analysis.
Naturalness-based corridor models may offer an efficient proxy for focal species models, but a multi-focal species approach may better represent the movement needs of diverse taxa. Consideration of trade-offs between the two approaches may enhance the effectiveness of their application to connectivity conservation planning.
KeywordsCoarse-filter Connectivity Corridors Fine-filter Focal-species Landscape integrity
We would like to acknowledge the full membership of the Washington Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Working Group, especially the modelers and species leads who completed the connectivity models used in our analysis. MK received support for this analysis from the Wilburforce Foundation. The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
- AmphibiaWeb: Information on amphibian biology and conservation (2015) Berkeley, California: AmphibiaWeb. Available:http://amphibiaweb.org/
- Boisvert JH, Hoffman RW, Reese KP (2005) Home range and seasonal movements of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse associated with conservation reserve program and mine reclamation. West N Am Nat 65:36–44Google Scholar
- Comer PJ, Hak J (2009) NatureServe Landscape Condition Model. Internal documentation for NatureServe Vista decision support software engineering, prepared by NatureServe, Boulder COGoogle Scholar
- Comer PJ, Hak J (2012) Landscape condition in the conterminous United States. Spatial Model Summary. NatureServe, BoulderCOGoogle Scholar
- Fielder PC, Keesee BG (1988) Results of a mountain goat transplant along Lake Chelan, Washington. Northw Sci 62:218–222Google Scholar
- Gomez LM (2007) Habitat use and movement patterns of the Northern Pacific Rattlesnake (Crotalus o. oreganus) in British Columbia. Master‘s thesis. University of Victoria, Victoria, British ColumbiaGoogle Scholar
- Grant JC (1987) Ecology of the black-tailed jackrabbit near a solid radioactive waste disposal site in southeastern Idaho. Master‘s thesis. University of Montana, Missoula, MontanaGoogle Scholar
- Hilty JA, Lidicker WZ, Merenlender AM (2006) Corridor ecology: The science and practice of linking landscapes for biodiversity conservation. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Hupp JW, Braun CE (1991) Geographic variation among sage grouse in Colorado. Wilson Bull 103:255–261Google Scholar
- Jones LLC, Raphael MG (2000) Diel patterns of surface activity and microhabitat use by stream-dwelling amphibians in the Olympic Peninsula. Northwest Nat 81:78Google Scholar
- Klein KJ (2005) Dispersal patterns of Washington ground squirrels in Oregon. M.S. thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OregonGoogle Scholar
- Lofroth EC (1993) Scale dependent analyses of habitat selection by marten in the sub-boreal spruce biogeoclimatic zone, British Columbia. Thesis. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British ColumbiaGoogle Scholar
- McRae BH, Kavanagh DM (2011) Linkage mapper connectivity analysis software. The Nature Conservancy, Seattle WA. Available at: https://code.google.com/p/linkage-mapper/
- Messick JP, Hornocker MG (1981) Ecology of the badger in southwestern Idaho. Wildl Mono N-76Google Scholar
- R Development Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available from http://www.R-project.org
- Rogers LL (1987) Factors influencing dispersal in the black bear. Mammalian dispersal patterns: the effects of social structure on population genetics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 75–84Google Scholar
- Rogers KB (2009) Gape Width: an alternative to snout-vent length for characterizing anuran size. Herpetol Rev 40:416–418Google Scholar
- Shirk A (2011) HCA toolkit user guide. Available from http://waconnected.org/habitat-connectivity-mapping-tools/
- Singleton PH, Gaines WL, Lehmkuhl JF (2002) Landscape permeability for large carnivores in Washington: a geographic information system weighted-distance and least- cost corridor assessment. Research Paper N-549. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, PortlandGoogle Scholar
- Smith WP, Person DK, Pyare S, Liu J, Hill V, Morzillo AT, Wiens, JA (2011) Source-sinks, metapopulations, and forest reserves: conserving northern flying squirrels in the temperate rainforests of Southeast Alaska. Sources, sinks and sustainability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 399–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Soulé ME, Orians GE (2001) Conservation biology: research priorities for the next decade. Island Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
- Spencer WD, Beier P, Penrod K, Winters K, Paulman C, Rustigian-Romsos H, Strittholt J, Parisi M, Pettler A (2010) California essential habitat connectivity project: a strategy for conserving a connected California. Prepared for California Department of Transportation, California Department of Fish and Game, and Federal Highways Administration. Statewide Analysis. Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife, and Transportation, OlympiaGoogle Scholar
- Squires JR, Laurion T. (2000) Lynx home range and movements in Montana and Wyoming: preliminary results. Pages 337–349 in Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States. General Technical Report N-30WWW. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort CollinsGoogle Scholar
- WHCWG (Washington Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Working Group) (2010) Washington Connected Landscapes Project: statewide Analysis. Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife, and Transportation, Olympia, Washington. Available at http://waconnected.org/statewide-analysis/
- WHCWG (Washington Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Working Group) (2012) Washington Connected Landscapes Project: analysis of the Columbia Plateau Ecoregion. Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife, and Transportation. Olympia. Available at http://waconnected.org/columbia-plateau-ecoregion/