Wildlife Corridors and Developed Landscapes

Chapter

Abstract

An obvious consequence of exurban land development is fragmentation of natural areas. Fragmentation leaves patches of habitat of various sizes, which can become increasingly isolated as development continues. A compelling approach to mitigation is the creation of corridors. Corridors in their simplest form are strips of habitat that connect patches and allow for wildlife movements. Intuitively, corridors make sense and land planners and managers often find them useful in land conservation. However, do wildlife corridors perform as expected? Do they work for all species? and How should they be configured (e.g., width, length, placement)? This chapter addresses these and other questions related to wildlife corridors and exurban land development.

References

  1. Aresco, M. J. 2005. Mitigation measures to reduce highway mortality of turtles and other herpetofauna at a north Florida lake. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:549–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beier, P., and Loe, S. 1992. A checklist for evaluating impacts to wildlife movement corridors. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20:434–440.Google Scholar
  3. Beier, P., and Noss, R. F. 1998. Do habitat corridors provide connectivity? Conservation Biology 12:1241–1252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bender, D. J., Contreras, T. A., and Fahrig, L. 1998. Habitat loss and population decline: a meta-analysis of the patch size effect. Ecology 79:517–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clevenger, A. P., Chruszcz, B., and Gunson, K. 2001. Drainage culverts as habitat linkages and factors affecting passage by mammals. Journal of Applied Ecology 38:1340–1349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Crooks, K. R., and Sanjayan, M. 2006. Connectivity conservation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Damschen, E. I., Haddad, N. M., Orrock, J. L., Tewksbury, J. J., and Levy, D. J. 2006. Corridors increase plant species richness at large scales. Science 313:1284–1286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DeStefano, S., and DeGraaf, R. M. 2003. Exploring the ecology of suburban wildlife. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1:95–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DeStefano, S., and Johnson, E. A. 2005. Species that benefit from sprawl. In Nature in Fragments: the Legacy of Sprawl, eds. E. A. Johnson and M. W. Klemens, pp. 206–235. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Diamond, J. M. 1975. The island dilemma: lessons of modern biogeographic studies for the design of natural reserves. Biological Conservation 7:129–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fleury, A. M., and Brown, R. D. 1997. A framework for the design of wildlife conservation corridors with specific application to southwestern Ontario. Landscape and Urban Planning 37:163–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Forman, R. T. T., Sperling, D., Bissonette, J. A., Clevenger, A. P., Cutshall, C. D., Dale,V. H., Fahrig, L., France, R., Goldman, C. R., Heanue, K., Jones, J. A., Swanson, F. J., Turrentine, T., and Winter, T. C. 2003. Road Ecology, Science and Solutions. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gilpin, M. E., and Soulé, M. E. 1986. Minimum viable populations: processes of species extinction. In Conservation Biology: the Science of Scarcity and Diversity, ed. M. E. Soulé, pp. 19–34. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  14. Hanski, I. A., and Gilpin, M. E. 1997. Metapopulation Biology: Ecology, Genetics, and Evolution. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hanski, I., and Simberloff, D. 1997. The metapopulation approach, its history, conceptual domain, and application to conservation. In Metapopulation Biology: Ecology, Genetics, and Evolution, eds. A. Hanski and M. E. Gilpin, pp. 5–26. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  16. Heimlich, R. E., and Anderson, W. D. 2001. Development at the urban fringe and beyond: impacts on agriculture and rural land. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Economic Report No. 803.Google Scholar
  17. Hilty, J. A., Lidicker, W. Z. Jr., and Merenlender, A. M. 2006. Corridor Ecology: the Science and Practice of Linking Landscapes for Biodiversity Conservation. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.Google Scholar
  18. Johnson, E. A., and Klemens, M. W. 2005. Nature in Fragments: the Legacy of Sprawl. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Knight, R. L., and Cosimo, J. Y. 1993. Responses of raven and red-tailed hawk populations to linear right-of-ways. Journal of Wildlife Management 57:266–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leopold, A. 1933. Game management. New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons.Google Scholar
  21. Leopold, A. 1993. Round River. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Lindenmayer, D. B., and Fischer, J. 2006. Habitat Fragmentation and Landscape Change: an Ecological and Fragmentation Synthesis. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.Google Scholar
  23. MacArthur, R. H., and Wilson, E. O. 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Marzluff, J. M., Bowman, R., and Donnelly, R. 2001. Avian Ecology and Conservation in an Urbanizing World. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McPherson, G. R., and DeStefano. S. 2003. Applied Ecology and Natural Resource Management. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Mech, S. G., and Hallett, J. G. 2001. Evaluating the effectiveness of corridors: a genetic approach. Conservation Biology 15:467–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Meffe, G. K., and Carroll, C. R. 1997. Genetics: conservation of diversity within species. In Principles of Conservation Biology, eds. G. K. Meffe and C. R. Carroll, pp. 161–201. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  28. Morrison, M. L., Marcot, B. G., and Mannan, R. W. 1998. Wildlife–Habitat Relationships, Concepts and Applications. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  29. Myers, N. 1997. Global biodiversity II: losses and threats. In Principles of Conservation Biology, eds. G. K. Meffe and C. R. Carroll, pp. 123–158. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  30. Reice, S. R. 2005. Ecosystems, disturbance, and the impact of sprawl. In Nature in Fragments: the Legacy of Sprawl, eds. E. A. Johnson and M. W. Klemens, pp. 90–108. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Rosenberg, D. K., Noon, B. R., and Meslow, E. C. 1997. Biological corridors: form, function, and efficacy. BioScience 47:677–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sanjayan, M. A., and Crooks, K. R. 2005. Maintaining connectivity in urbanizing landscapes. In Nature in Fragments: the Legacy of Sprawl, eds. E. A. Johnson and M. W. Klemens, pp. 239–262. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Simberloff, D. S., and Abele, L. G. 1976. Island biogeography theory and conservation practice. Science 191:285–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Simberloff, D. S., and Abele, L. G. 1982. Refuge design and island biogeographic theory: effects of fragmentation. American Naturalist 120:41–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Simberloff, D. S., Farr, J. A., Cox, J., and Mehlman, D. W. 1992. Movement corridors: conservation bargains or poor investments? Conservation Biology 6:493–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Whithers, M. A., Palmer, M. W., Wade, G. L., White, P. S., and Neal, P. R. 1998. Changing patterns in the number of species in North American floras. In Perspectives on the Land use History of North America: a Context for Understanding our Changing Environment, ed. T. D. Sisk, pp. 23–31. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Geological Survey.Google Scholar
  37. Wilcove D. S., Rothstein, D., Bubow, J., Phillips, A., and Losos, E. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. BioScience 48:607–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wilson, E. O., and Peter, F. M. 1988. Biodiversity. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  39. Yoakum, J., and Dasmann, W. 1971. Habitat manipulation practices. In Wildlife Management Techniques, ed. R. H. Giles, pp. 173–232. Washington, D.C: The Wildlife Society.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.USGS Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of MassachusettsAmherstUSA

Personalised recommendations