Preface to the Princeton Landmarks in Biology Edition vii Preface xi Symbols Used xiii 1. The Importance of Islands 3 2. Area and Number of Speicies 8 3. Further Explanations of the Area-Diversity Pattern 19 4. The Strategy of Colonization 68 5. Invasibility and the Variable Niche 94 6. Stepping Stones and Biotic Exchange 123 7. Evolutionary Changes Following Colonization 145 8. Prospect 181 Glossary 185 References 193 Index 201

The Theory of Island Biogeography

Resistance surfaces are often used to fill gaps in our knowledge surrounding animal movement and are frequently the basis for modeling connectivity associated with conservation initiatives. However, the methods for quantifying resistance surfaces are varied and there is no general consensus on the appropriate choice of environmental data or analytical approaches. We provide a comprehensive review of the literature on this topic to highlight methods used and identify knowledge gaps. Our review includes 96 papers that parameterized resistance surfaces (sometimes using multiple approaches) for a variety of taxa. Data types used included expert opinion (n = 76), detection (n = 23), relocation (n = 8), pathway (n = 2), and genetic (n = 28). We organized the papers into three main analytical approaches; one-stage expert opinion, one-stage empirical, and two-stage empirical, each of which was represented by 43, 22, and 36 papers, respectively. We further organized the empir- ical approaches into five main resource selection functions; point (n = 16), matrix (n = 38), home range (n = 3), step (n = 1), and pathway (n = 1). We found a general lack of justification for choice of environmental variables and their thematic and spatial representation, a heavy reliance on expert opinion and detection data, and a tendency to confound movement behavior and resource use. Future research needs include comparative analyses on the choice of envi- ronmental variables and their spatial and thematic scales, and on the various biological data types used to estimate resistance. Comparative analyses amongst analytical processes is also needed, as well as trans- parency in reporting on uncertainty in parameter estimates and sensitivity of final resistance surfaces, especially if the resistance surfaces are to be used for conservation and planning purposes.

Estimating landscape resistance to movement: a review

Summary 1. I synthesize the understanding of the relationship between landscape structure and animal movement in human-modified landscapes. 2. The variety of landscape structures is first classified into four categories: continuous habitat, patchy habitat with high-quality matrix, patchy habitat with low-quality matrix, and patchy, ephemeral habitat. Using this simplification I group the range of evolved movement parameters into four categories or movement types. I then discuss how these movement types interact with current human-caused landscape changes, and how this often results in non-optimal movement. 3. From this synthesis I develop a hypothesis that predicts the relative importance of the different population-level consequences of these non-optimal movements, for the four movement types. 4. Populations of species that have inhabited landscapes with high habitat cover or patchy landscapes with low-risk matrix should have evolved low boundary responses and moderate to high movement probabilities. These species are predicted to be highly susceptible to increased movement mortality resulting from habitat loss and reduced matrix quality. 5. In contrast, populations of species that evolved in patchy landscapes with high-risk matrix or dynamic patchy landscapes are predicted to be highly susceptible to decreased immigration and colonization success, due to the increasing patch isolation that results from habitat loss. 6. Finally, I discuss three implications of this synthesis: (i) ‘least cost path’ analysis should not be used for land management decisions without data on actual movement paths and movement risks in the landscape; (ii) ‘dispersal ability’ is not simply an attribute of a species, but varies strongly with landscape structure such that the relative rankings of species’ dispersal abilities can change following landscape alteration; and (iii) the assumption that more mobile species are more resilient to human-caused landscape change is not generally true, but depends on the structure of the landscape where the species evolved.

Non‐optimal animal movement in human‐altered landscapes

/pdf/planning-for-biodiversity-conservation-putting-conservation-1pruas474n.pdf

Planning for Biodiversity Conservation: Putting Conservation Science into Practice

Nature Conservation 2: The Role of Corridors

https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/urban_wildlands/pdfs/Kautz_et_al_2006_BiolCons.pdf

How much is enough? Landscape-scale conservation for the Florida panther

Privately owned lands support a large portion of the biodiversity in some areas, but procedures for identifying those private lands critical to the maintenance of biodiversity vary tremendously. We used habitat-based distribution maps in combination with population conservation goals to help identify strategic habitats on private lands in Florida. We used a vegetation map, occurrence data, and published life-history information to create habitat-based distribution maps for 179 rare taxa. We estimated the security of 130 of the taxa by overlaying public land boundaries on habitat maps and then estimating whether conservation lands satisfied a population goal of supporting at least 10 populations of approximately 200 breeding adults. The remaining taxa were evaluated in terms of number of occurrence records on conservation lands. Of the 179 taxa evaluated, existing conservation lands did not adequately protect 56. We then identified habitats on private lands that could best satisfy the minimum conservation goal or else significantly enhance the survival potential of inadequately protected taxa. Strategic habitats included a mix of large and small sites, incorporated some corridor or stepping-stone connections among habitat patches, and protected multiple species. Additional strategic habitats were identified for shorebirds, four natural plant communities, and 105 globally rare plants. The strategic habitats identified in Florida cover 1.65 million ha (12% of the land area) and would cost $8.2 billion (about 15% of Florida's annual state budget) to purchase and $122 million per year to manage. Existing conservation lands account for 3.07 million ha (22% of the land area).




Resumen: Las tierras de propiedad privada albergan una porcion grande de la biodiversidad en algunas areas, pero los procedimientos para identificar aquellas tierras privadas criticas para el mantenimiento de la biodiversidad varia tremendamente. Nosotros utilizamos mapas de distribucion basados en habitats, en combinacion con metas de conservacion poblacional que ayudan a identificar habitats estrategicos en tierras privadas en Florida. Usamos un mapa de vegetacion, datos de ocurrencia e informacion publicada sobre historias de vida para crear mapas de distribucion basados en habitats de 179 taxones raros. La seguridad de 130 de los taxones fue estimada al sobreponer limites de tierras publicas en mapas de habitat y estimando si las tierras para conservacion satisfacian las metas poblacionales de albergar por lo menos a 10 poblaciones de aproximadamente 200 adultos reproductores. Los taxones restantes fueron evaluados con base en el numero de registros de ocurrencias en tierras de conservacion. De los 179 taxones evaluados, las tierras para conservacion existentes no fueron adecuadas para proteger a 56 de ellas. Se identificaron los habitats en tierras privadas que podrian satisfacer de mejor manera la meta minima de conservacion o por lo menos mejorar significativamente el potencial de supervivencia de taxones protegidos inadecuadamente. Los habitats estrategicos incluyeron una mezcla de sitios grandes y pequenos, incorporando algo de corredor o conexiones clave entre los parches de habitat y protegiendo multiples especies. Habitats estrategicos adicionales fueron identificados para aves playeras, cuatro comunidades naturales de plantas y 105 plantas mundialmente raras. Los habitats estrategicos identificados en Florida cubren 1.65 millones de ha (12% del area terrestre) y costarian 8.2 mil millones de dolares (cerca del 15% del presupuesto estatal anual para Florida) para comprar y 122 millones de dolares por ano para manejar. Las tierras para conservacion existentes involucran 3.07 millones de ha (22% del area terrestre).

Strategic Habitats for Biodiversity Conservation in Florida

Florida’s population growth and tourism have created a demand for highway improvements that can seriously impact important habitat resources and fish and wildlife populations. This paper presents results of a cooperative effort by the authors agency in prioritizing the importance ranking of black bear roadkill areas for use by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) in siting wildlife underpasses on a statewide basis, and for impact avoidance and mitigation. The authors agency documented 729 known locations of black bear roadkills in Florida from 1976 through 1999. A geographic information system (GIS) analysis revealed that approximately 34 percent of the roadkills were clustered at 15 chronic problem areas located in seven counties. The authors prioritized these problem areas by analyzing and evaluating the density, sex and age, and current history of bear roadkills. Landscape level habitat quality also was measured by creating a new statewide bear habitat map that represents a composite score for various GIS data layers depicting public lands, land cover types, habitat composition within large roadless areas, proximity to existing conservation areas, and habitat diversity. The roadkill problem area highway segments were digitized, and a 30-km-wide buffer zone was created and overlaid on the habitat map to determine a mean score. The values for the seven roadkill and habitat parameters were normalized and a total score was determined to compare and rank the 15 roadway segments. State Road 46 in Lake County was ranked as the highest priority in the state for the placement of a wildlife underpass, followed by SR-40 in Marion County in the Ocala National Forest, and US-98 in Jefferson County near the Aucilla River in North Florida’s Big Bend region.

Prioritization of Statewide Black Bear Roadkill Problem Areas in Florida

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission is responsible for performing environmental reviews of major land developments in Florida that impact fish and wildlife resources and their habitat. In an effort to improve the efficiency and accuracy of these assessments, and to improve the coordination between agencies, the FWC developed a GIS-based habitat model that incorporates a wide variety of land cover, and wildlife species data. The Integrated Wildlife Habitat Ranking System ranks the Florida landscape based upon the needs of wildlife as a way to identify ecologically significant lands in the state, and to assess the potential impacts of land development projects. The IWHRS is provided as an ArcView (ESRI, Redlands, CA) project on a compact disc, which includes the results of the model, all of the data layers that went into the model, a wide variety of wildlife species location data, and a Florida landcover image. By using the capabilities of GIS, users can perform specific queries and investigations of the model results, the data layers that comprise the model, and the additional data provided on the CD, enhancing the utility of the model.

/pdf/environmental-planning-in-florida-mapping-wildlife-needs-in-t6ubezi86l.pdf

Environmental planning in Florida: Mapping wildlife needs in Florida: the integrated wildlife habitat ranking system - eScholarship

/pdf/environmental-planning-in-florida-mapping-wildlife-needs-in-3r5bk53sy3.pdf

Randy Kautz

Papers

How much is enough? Landscape-scale conservation for the Florida panther

Strategic Habitats for Biodiversity Conservation in Florida

Prioritization of Statewide Black Bear Roadkill Problem Areas in Florida

Environmental planning in Florida: Mapping wildlife needs in Florida: the integrated wildlife habitat ranking system - eScholarship

Environmental planning in florida: mapping wildlife needs in florida: the integrated wildlife habitat ranking system