Forks in the road: Choices in procedures for designing wildland linkages

Paul Beier, Daniel R. Majka, Wayne D. Spencer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

259 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)836-851
Number of pages16
JournalConservation Biology
Volume22
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2008

Fingerprint

linkage (genetics)
roads
road
Genes
stakeholders
wildlife
stakeholder
Uncertainty analysis
resource selection
Climate change
uncertainty analysis
model uncertainty
matrix
Conservation
Animals
native species
translation (genetics)
gene flow
chromosome mapping
genetic distance

Keywords

  • Connectivity
  • Linkage
  • Reserve design
  • Uncertainty analysis
  • Wildlife corridor

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ecology
  • Environmental Science(all)
  • Environmental Chemistry
  • Nature and Landscape Conservation

Cite this

Forks in the road : Choices in procedures for designing wildland linkages. / Beier, Paul; Majka, Daniel R.; Spencer, Wayne D.

In: Conservation Biology, Vol. 22, No. 4, 08.2008, p. 836-851.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Beier, Paul ; Majka, Daniel R. ; Spencer, Wayne D. / Forks in the road : Choices in procedures for designing wildland linkages. In: Conservation Biology. 2008 ; Vol. 22, No. 4. pp. 836-851.
@article{ec89217413c44832bd027bc42730de7c,
title = "Forks in the road: Choices in procedures for designing wildland linkages",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "Connectivity, Linkage, Reserve design, Uncertainty analysis, Wildlife corridor",
author = "Paul Beier and Majka, {Daniel R.} and Spencer, {Wayne D.}",
year = "2008",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00942.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "22",
pages = "836--851",
journal = "Conservation Biology",
issn = "0888-8892",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Forks in the road

T2 - Choices in procedures for designing wildland linkages

AU - Beier, Paul

AU - Majka, Daniel R.

AU - Spencer, Wayne D.

PY - 2008/8

Y1 - 2008/8

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Connectivity

KW - Linkage

KW - Reserve design

KW - Uncertainty analysis

KW - Wildlife corridor

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=48749087107&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=48749087107&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00942.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00942.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 18544090

AN - SCOPUS:48749087107

VL - 22

SP - 836

EP - 851

JO - Conservation Biology

JF - Conservation Biology

SN - 0888-8892

IS - 4

ER -