Cited by 29

Evaluating the sufficiency of protected lands for maintaining wildlife population connectivity in the U.S. northern Rocky Mountains

Cushman, Samuel A., Landguth, Erin L., Flather, Curtis H.·2012·Diversity and Distributions

Abstract

Aim The goal of this study was to evaluate the sufficiency of the network of protected lands in the U.S. northern Rocky Mountains in providing protection for habitat connectivity for 105 hypothetical organisms. A large proportion of the landscape falls into one of several categories of protected lands. However, protected lands in the region are primarily higher elevation forest and mountain habitats. Little is known about how the network of protected lands may maintain connectivity for a broad spectrum of species expressing different habitat requirements and dispersal abilities. Location The study was conducted across the states of Montana and northern Idaho, USA, comprising an area of 30.2 million hectares. Methods We used resistant kernel modelling to map the extent of the study area predicted to be connected by dispersal for each of 35 species groups with different ecological associations. We evaluated the effect of vagility on protected area sufficiency by varying dispersal ability across three levels for each species group. We evaluated the degree of vulnerability of each of the 105 hypothetical species (35 species groups × 3 dispersal abilities) in terms of the extent of the total study area predicted to be connected by dispersal. We defined nine categories of risk as the combination of species vulnerability because of the extent of connected habitat and the degree to which that habitat was protected. Results We found high variation in the vulnerability of species because of the extent of connected habitat, and the extent to which connected habitat overlapped protected lands. Species associated with high elevations and species associated with lower elevations were predicted to have limited extent of connected habitat. Species associated with high elevations were predicted to have the vast majority of their connected habitat protected by federal Forest Service and National Park Service lands. In contrast, species associated with lower elevations were poorly protected by the existing network of protected lands. Main conclusions Low elevation and non‐forest habitats are at highest risk of human‐induced habitat loss and fragmentation in the study area. Conservation efforts in the region may be most effective if they focus on expanding the network of lower elevation protected lands in such a way that maximizes connectivity across the landscape.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1472-4642.2012.00895.x

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 49

  1. Beier P., 2008, Do habitat corridors provide connectivity?, Conservation Biology, 12, 1241, 10.1111/j.1523-1739.1998.98036.x · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1890/08-1898.1 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1016/S0006-3207(01)00123-9 · DOI
  4. 10.1890/03-5220 · DOI
  5. 10.1046/j.1461-0248.2003.00475.x · DOI
  6. 10.1890/1051-0761(2001)011[0961:CAFSFC]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  7. Chambers N., 2010, Remarkable beyond borders: people and landscapes in the Crown of the Continent
  8. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.01.016 · DOI
  9. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00674.x · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1007/s10980-010-9467-0 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1086/506976 · DOI
  12. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01111.x · DOI
  13. 10.1007/978-4-431-87771-4_19 · DOI
  14. 10.1007/978-4-431-87771-4_20 · DOI
  15. Cushman S.A., 2011, Climate change and connectivity: assessing landscape and species vulnerability
  16. Cushman S.A., Biological corridors. Conservation in theory and practice
  17. 10.1016/0006-3207(75)90052-X · DOI
  18. 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132419 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.29.1.207 · DOI
  20. 10.1093/aob/mcf222 · DOI
  21. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.02.004 · DOI
  22. 10.1890/05-1108 · DOI
  23. 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00545.x · DOI
  24. 10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0151:ECACOD]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  25. 10.1890/05-5221 · DOI
  26. 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00342.x · DOI
  27. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.1988.tb00202.x · DOI
  28. 10.1890/03-5281 · DOI
  29. Jarvis L.A.(2008)Residential development patterns in Flathead County Montana.MS Thesis.University of Montana Missoula MT.
  30. MacArthur R.H., 1967, The theory of island biogeography
  31. Mackun P., 2011, Population distribution and change: 2000 to 2010
  32. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01558.x · DOI
  33. Murphy D.D., 1992, Global warming and biological diversity, 355
  34. National Atlas of the United States, 2006, Federal lands of the United States
  35. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00369.x · DOI
  36. 10.2307/1309350 · DOI
  37. 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10040949.x · DOI
  38. 10.1111/j.1095-8312.1986.tb01749.x · DOI
  39. 10.1086/284880 · DOI
  40. 10.1111/j.1472-4642.2007.00447.x · DOI
  41. 10.1890/08-1287.1 · DOI · Paper page
  42. 10.1890/1051-0761(2001)011[0999:NRDTCT]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  43. 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2010.04745.x · DOI · Paper page
  44. 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2010.04657.x · DOI · Paper page
  45. 10.2307/3808148 · DOI
  46. 10.1007/s10980-010-9525-7 · DOI
  47. 10.1007/s10980-011-9653-8 · DOI
  48. 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10040964.x · DOI
  49. 10.1086/284386 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cushman, S. A., Landguth, E. L., & Flather, C. H.
Venue
Diversity and Distributions
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-03-21
Volume
18
Issue
9
Pages
873-884
ISSN
  • 1366-9516
  • 1472-4642
Cited by
29
References
0
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review