Comparing Linkage Designs Based on Land Facets to Linkage Designs Based on Focal Species

Brian M. Brost, Paul Beier

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

19 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Least-cost modeling for focal species is the most widely used method for designing conservation corridors and linkages. However, these designs depend on today's land covers, which will be altered by climate change. We recently proposed an alternative approach based on land facets (recurring landscape units of relatively uniform topography and soils). The rationale is that corridors with high continuity of individual land facets will facilitate movement of species associated with each facet today and in the future. Conservation practitioners might like to know whether a linkage design based on land facets is likely to provide continuity of modeled breeding habitat for species needing connectivity today, and whether a linkage for focal species provides continuity and interspersion of land facets. To address these questions, we compared linkages designed for focal species and land facets in three landscapes in Arizona, USA. We used two variables to measure linkage utility, namely distances between patches of modeled breeding habitat for 5-16 focal species in each linkage, and resistance profiles for focal species and land facets between patches connected by the linkage. Compared to focal species designs, linkage designs based on land facets provided as much or more modeled habitat connectivity for 25 of 28 species-landscape combinations, failing only for the three species with the most narrowly distributed habitat. Compared to land facets designs, focal species linkages provided lower connectivity for about half the land facets in two landscapes. In areas where a focal species approach to linkage design is not possible, our results suggest that conservation practitioners may be able to implement a land facets approach with some confidence that the linkage design would serve most potential focal species. In areas where focal species designs are possible, we recommend using the land facet approach to complement, rather than replace, focal species approaches.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numbere48965
JournalPLoS One
Volume7
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 12 2012

Fingerprint

Ecosystem
Breeding
Conservation
Climate Change
Soil
breeding sites
Costs and Cost Analysis
Climate change
Topography
habitats
land cover
Soils
topography
complement
climate change
Costs

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all)
  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Comparing Linkage Designs Based on Land Facets to Linkage Designs Based on Focal Species. / Brost, Brian M.; Beier, Paul.

In: PLoS One, Vol. 7, No. 11, e48965, 12.11.2012.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{50da93f443f5436bb1e3e051f520f801,
title = "Comparing Linkage Designs Based on Land Facets to Linkage Designs Based on Focal Species",
abstract = "Least-cost modeling for focal species is the most widely used method for designing conservation corridors and linkages. However, these designs depend on today's land covers, which will be altered by climate change. We recently proposed an alternative approach based on land facets (recurring landscape units of relatively uniform topography and soils). The rationale is that corridors with high continuity of individual land facets will facilitate movement of species associated with each facet today and in the future. Conservation practitioners might like to know whether a linkage design based on land facets is likely to provide continuity of modeled breeding habitat for species needing connectivity today, and whether a linkage for focal species provides continuity and interspersion of land facets. To address these questions, we compared linkages designed for focal species and land facets in three landscapes in Arizona, USA. We used two variables to measure linkage utility, namely distances between patches of modeled breeding habitat for 5-16 focal species in each linkage, and resistance profiles for focal species and land facets between patches connected by the linkage. Compared to focal species designs, linkage designs based on land facets provided as much or more modeled habitat connectivity for 25 of 28 species-landscape combinations, failing only for the three species with the most narrowly distributed habitat. Compared to land facets designs, focal species linkages provided lower connectivity for about half the land facets in two landscapes. In areas where a focal species approach to linkage design is not possible, our results suggest that conservation practitioners may be able to implement a land facets approach with some confidence that the linkage design would serve most potential focal species. In areas where focal species designs are possible, we recommend using the land facet approach to complement, rather than replace, focal species approaches.",
author = "Brost, {Brian M.} and Paul Beier",
year = "2012",
month = "11",
day = "12",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0048965",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "7",
journal = "PLoS One",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparing Linkage Designs Based on Land Facets to Linkage Designs Based on Focal Species

AU - Brost, Brian M.

AU - Beier, Paul

PY - 2012/11/12

Y1 - 2012/11/12

N2 - Least-cost modeling for focal species is the most widely used method for designing conservation corridors and linkages. However, these designs depend on today's land covers, which will be altered by climate change. We recently proposed an alternative approach based on land facets (recurring landscape units of relatively uniform topography and soils). The rationale is that corridors with high continuity of individual land facets will facilitate movement of species associated with each facet today and in the future. Conservation practitioners might like to know whether a linkage design based on land facets is likely to provide continuity of modeled breeding habitat for species needing connectivity today, and whether a linkage for focal species provides continuity and interspersion of land facets. To address these questions, we compared linkages designed for focal species and land facets in three landscapes in Arizona, USA. We used two variables to measure linkage utility, namely distances between patches of modeled breeding habitat for 5-16 focal species in each linkage, and resistance profiles for focal species and land facets between patches connected by the linkage. Compared to focal species designs, linkage designs based on land facets provided as much or more modeled habitat connectivity for 25 of 28 species-landscape combinations, failing only for the three species with the most narrowly distributed habitat. Compared to land facets designs, focal species linkages provided lower connectivity for about half the land facets in two landscapes. In areas where a focal species approach to linkage design is not possible, our results suggest that conservation practitioners may be able to implement a land facets approach with some confidence that the linkage design would serve most potential focal species. In areas where focal species designs are possible, we recommend using the land facet approach to complement, rather than replace, focal species approaches.

AB - Least-cost modeling for focal species is the most widely used method for designing conservation corridors and linkages. However, these designs depend on today's land covers, which will be altered by climate change. We recently proposed an alternative approach based on land facets (recurring landscape units of relatively uniform topography and soils). The rationale is that corridors with high continuity of individual land facets will facilitate movement of species associated with each facet today and in the future. Conservation practitioners might like to know whether a linkage design based on land facets is likely to provide continuity of modeled breeding habitat for species needing connectivity today, and whether a linkage for focal species provides continuity and interspersion of land facets. To address these questions, we compared linkages designed for focal species and land facets in three landscapes in Arizona, USA. We used two variables to measure linkage utility, namely distances between patches of modeled breeding habitat for 5-16 focal species in each linkage, and resistance profiles for focal species and land facets between patches connected by the linkage. Compared to focal species designs, linkage designs based on land facets provided as much or more modeled habitat connectivity for 25 of 28 species-landscape combinations, failing only for the three species with the most narrowly distributed habitat. Compared to land facets designs, focal species linkages provided lower connectivity for about half the land facets in two landscapes. In areas where a focal species approach to linkage design is not possible, our results suggest that conservation practitioners may be able to implement a land facets approach with some confidence that the linkage design would serve most potential focal species. In areas where focal species designs are possible, we recommend using the land facet approach to complement, rather than replace, focal species approaches.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84869046668&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84869046668&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0048965

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0048965

M3 - Article

C2 - 23152831

AN - SCOPUS:84869046668

VL - 7

JO - PLoS One

JF - PLoS One

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 11

M1 - e48965

ER -