Evaluating the intersection of a regional wildlife connectivity network with highways

Movement Ecology

Erin L Landguth¹  Jesse S Lewis²  Samuel A Cushman³ 

[1] Division of Biological Sciences, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812, USA;Graduate Degree Program in Ecology, Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA;U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 2500 S Pine Knoll Dr., Flagstaff, AZ 86001, USA

关键词: UNICOR;    Road effects;    Northern Rocky Mountains;    Highways;    Crossing structures;    Corridor;    Connectivity;    American black bear;   

Others  :  802668
DOI  :  10.1186/2051-3933-1-12

 received in 2013-08-14, accepted in 2013-10-11,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Reliable predictions of regional-scale population connectivity are needed to prioritize conservation actions. However, there have been few examples of regional connectivity models that are empirically derived and validated. The central goals of this paper were to (1) evaluate the effectiveness of factorial least cost path corridor mapping on an empirical resistance surface in reflecting the frequency of highway crossings by American black bear, (2) predict the location and predicted intensity of use of movement corridors for American black bear, and (3) identify where these corridors cross major highways and rank the intensity of these crossings.

Results

We used factorial least cost path modeling coupled with resistant kernel analysis to predict a network of movement corridors across a 30.2 million hectare analysis area in Montana and Idaho, USA. Factorial least cost path corridor mapping was associated with the locations of actual bear highway crossings. We identified corridor-highway intersections and ranked these based on corridor strength. We found that a major wildlife crossing overpass structure was located close to one of the most intense predicted corridors, and that the vast majority of the predicted corridor network was “protected” under federal management. However, narrow, linear corridors connecting the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem to the rest of the analysis area had limited protection by federal ownership, making these additionally vulnerable to habitat loss and fragmentation.

Conclusions

Factorial least cost path modeling coupled with resistant kernel analysis provides detailed, synoptic information about connectivity across populations that vary in distribution and density in complex landscapes. Specifically, our results could be used to quantify the structure of the connectivity network, identify critical linkage nodes and core areas, map potential barriers and fracture zones, and prioritize locations for mitigation, restoration and conservation actions.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Cushman et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Fahrig F: Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 2003, 34:487-515.
• [2]Crooks KR, Sanjayan M: Connectivity Conservation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2006.
• [3]Cushman SA: Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on amphibians: a review and prospectus. Biol Conserv 2006, 128:231-240.
• [4]Heller NE, Zavaleta ES: Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: a review of 22 years of recommendations. Biological conservation 2009, 142:14-32.
• [5]Noss RF: A regional landscape approach to maintain biodiversity. Bioscience 1983, 33:700-706.
• [6]Beier P: Noss RF:Do habitat corridors provide connectivity? Conserv Biol 1998, 12:1241-1252.
• [7]Beier P, Majka DR, Spencer WD: Forks in the road: Choices in procedulres for designing wildland linkages. Conserv Biol 2008, 22:836-851.
• [8]Forman RTT: Estimate of the area affected ecologically by the road system in the United States. Conserv Biol 1995, 14:31-35.
• [9]Forman RTT, Alexander LE: Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual Review in Ecology and Systematics 1998, 8:629-644.
• [10]Trombulak SC, Frissell CA: Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conserv Biol 2000, 14:8-30.
• [11]McLellan BN, Shackleton DM: Grizzly bears and resource-extraction industries: effects of roads on behavior, habitat use and demography. J Appl Ecol 1988, 25:451-460.
• [12]Nielsen SE, Stenhouse GB, Boyce MS: A habitat-based framework for grizzly bear conservation in Alberta. Biol Conserv 2006, 130:217.
• [13]Irwin LL, Peek JM: Elk habitat use relative to forest succession in Idaho. J Wild Manage 1983, 47:664-672.
• [14]Lyon LJ: Road density models for describing habitat effectiveness for elk. J For 1983, 81:592-595.
• [15]Cole EK, Pope DM, Anthony RG: Effects of road management on movements and survival of Roosevelt elk. J. Wild.Manage. 1997, 61:1115-1126.
• [16]Thiel RP: Relationship between road densities and wolf habitat suitability in Wisconsin. Am Midl Nat 1985, 113:404-407.
• [17]Fuller TK: Population dynamics of wolves in north-central Minnesota. Wildl Monogr 1989., 105
• [18]Mladenoff DJ, Sickley TA, Wydeven AD: Predicting gray wolf landscape recolonization: logistic regression models vs. new field data. Ecol Appl 1999, 9:37-44.
• [19]Eisenberg JE: The density and biomass of trpical mammals. In Conservation Biology: an Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective. Edited by Soule ME, Wilcox BA. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates Inc.; 1980:35-55.
• [20]East R: Species-area curves and populations of large mammals in African savanna reserves. Biol Conserv 1981, 21:111-126.
• [21]Soule ME: Viable populations for conservation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1987.
• [22]Peterson RO: The pit or the pendulum: issues in large carnivore management in natural ecosystems. Edited by Agee JK, Johnson DR. University of Washington, Seattle: Ecosystem management for parks and wilderness; 1988:105-117.
• [23]Shafer CL: Nature reserves: Island Theory and Conservation Practice. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution; 1990.
• [24]Noss RF, Quigley HB, Hornocker MG, Merrill T, Paquet PC: Conservation biology and carnivore conservation in the Rocky Mountains. Conserv Biol 1996, 10:949-963.
• [25]Harris LD, Gallagher PB: New initiatives for wildlife conservation: the need for movement corridors. In Defense of Wildlife: Preserving Communities and Corridors. Edited by Mackintosh G. Washington D.C.: Defenders of Wildlife; 1989.
• [26]Beier P, Loe S: In my experience: a checklist for evaluating impacts to wildlife movement corridors. Wildl Soc Bull 1992, 20:434-440.
• [27]Harrison S, Bruna E: Habitat fragmentation and large‒scale conservation: what do we know for sure? Ecography 1999, 22:225-232.
• [28]Hobbs RJ: The role of corridors in conservation: solution or bandwagon. Trends Ecol Evol 1992, 7:389-392.
• [29]Simberloff D, Farr JA, Cox J, Mehlman DW: Movement corridors: conservation bargains or poor investments? Conserv Biol 1992, 6:493-504.
• [30]Rosenberg DK, Noon BR, Meslow EC: Biological corridors: form, function, and efficacy. Bioscience 1997, 47:677-687.
• [31]Theobald DM, Reed SE, Fields K, Soule M: Connecting natural landscapes using a landscape permeability model to prioritize conservation activities in the US. Conserv Lett 2012, 5:123-133.
• [32]Cushman SA, McKelvey KS, Schwartz MK: Use of empirically derived source‒destination models to map regional conservation corridors. Conserv Biol 2009, 23:368-376.
• [33]Cushman SA, McRae B, Adriaensen F, Beier P, Shirley M, Zeller K: Biological corridors and connectivity. Key Topics in Conservation Biology 2013a, 2:384-404.
• [34]Spear SF, Peterson CR, Matocq MD, Storfer A: Landscape genetics of the blotched tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum melanostictum). Mol Ecol 2005, 14:2553-2564.
• [35]Cushman SA, Landguth EL, Flather CH: Evaluating the sufficiency of protected lands for maintaining wildlife population connectivity in the US northern Rocky Mountains. Divers Distrib 2012a, 18:873-884.
• [36]Zeller KA, McGarigal K, Whiteley AR: Estimating landscape resistance to movement: a review. Landscape Ecol 2012, 27:777-797.
• [37]Spear SF, Balkenhol N, Fortin M-J, McRae BH, Scribner KIM: Use of resistance surfaces for landscape genetic studies: considerations for parameterization and analysis. Mol Ecol 2010, 19:3576-3591.
• [38]Cushman SA, Lewis JS: Movement behavior explains genetic differentiation in American black bears. Landscape ecology 2010, 25:1613-1625.
• [39]Short Bull RA, Cushman SA, Mace R, Chilton T, Kendall KC, Landguth EL, Schwartz MK, McKelvey KS, Allendorf FW, Luikart G: Why replication is important in landscape genetics: American black bear in the Rocky Mountains. Mol Ecol 2011, 20:1092-1107.
• [40]Cushman SA, McKelvey KS, Hayden J, Schwartz MK: Gene flow in complex landscapes: testing multiple hypotheses with causal modeling. Am Nat 2006, 168:486-499.
• [41]Cushman SA, Landguth EL: Spurious correlations and inferences in landscape genetics. Mol Ecol 2010, 19:3592-3602.
• [42]Cushman SA, Landguth EL, Shirk AS: Re-evaluating causal modeling with mantel tests in landscape genetics. Divers 2013, 5:51-72. doi:10.3390/d501005
• [43]Adriaensen F, Chardon JP, De Blust G, Swinnen E, Villalba S, Gulinck H, Matthysen E: The application of ‘least-cost’modelling as a functional landscape model. Landscape and urban planning 2003, 64:233-247.
• [44]Singleton PH, Gaines WL, Lehmkuhl JH: Landscape permeability for large carnivores in Washington: a geographic information system weighted-distance and least-cost corridor assessment. Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station; 2002.
• [45]Spencer WD, Beier P, Penrod K, Parisi M, Pettler A, Winters K, Strittholt J, Paulman C, Rustigian-Romsos H: California essential habitat connectivity Project: a strategy for conserving a connected California. Report prepared for California Department of Transportation and California Department of Fish & Game 2010. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/habcon/connectivity/ webcite
• [46]Washington Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Working Group (WHCWG): Washington Connected Landscapes Project: Statewide Analysis. Olympia, WA: Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife, and Transportation; 2010.
• [47]Clevenger AP, Chruszcz B, Gunson KE: Highway mitigation fencing reduces wildlife-vehicle collisions. Wildl Soc Bull 2001, 29:646-653.
• [48]Barnum S: Identifying the best locations to provide safe highway crossing opportunities for wildlife. UC Davis: Road Ecology Center; 2003. Retrieved from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/6ts509wb webcite
• [49]Huijser MP, Allen TDH, Camel W: US 93 Post-Construction Wildlife-Vehicle Collision and Wildlife Crossing Monitoring and Research on the Flathead Indian Reservation between Evaro and Polson, Montana. Annual Report 2010. Bozeman, MT, USA: Western Transportation Institute (WTI-MSU), Montana State University; 2010:34. Available from the internet: http://www.mdt.mt.gov/research/projects/env/wildlife_crossing.shtml webcite
• [50]McDonald W, St Clair CC: Elements that promote highway crossing structure use by small mammals in Banff National Park. J Appl Ecol 2004, 41:82-93.
• [51]Alexander SM, Waters MN: The effects of highway transportation corridors on wildlife: a case study of Banff National Park. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 2000, 1:307-320.
• [52]Lewis JS, Rachlow JL, Horne JS, Garton EO, Wakkinen WL, Hayden J, Zager P: Identifying habitat characteristics to predict highway crossing areas for black bears in a human-modified landscape. Landsc Urban Plan 2011, 101:99-107.
• [53]Cushman SA, Landguth EL: Multi-taxa population connectivity in the Northern Rocky Mountains. Ecol Model 2012b, 231:101-112.
• [54]Hill CJ: Linear strips of rainforest vegetation as potential dispersal corridors for rainforest insects. Conserv Biol 1995, 9:1559-1566.
• [55]Castellon TD, Sieving KE: An experimental test of matrix permeability and corridor use by an endemic understory bird. Conserv Biol 2006, 20:135-145.
• [56]Berggren A, Birath B, Kindvall O: Effect of corridors and habitat edges on dispersal behavior, movement rates, and movement angles in Roesel’s Bush‒Cricket (Metrioptera roeseli). Conserv Biol 2002, 16:1562-1569.
• [57]Haddad NM, Bowne DR, Cunningham A, Danielson BJ, Levey DJ, Sargent S, Spira T: Corridor use by diverse taxa. Ecology 2003, 84:609-615.
• [58]Balkenhol N, Gugerli F, Cushman SA, Waits LP, Coulon A, Arntzen JW, Holderegger R, Wagner HH: Identifying future research needs in landscape genetics: where to from here? Landsc Ecol 2009, 24:455-463.
• [59]Segelbacher G, Cushman SA, Epperson BK, Fortin M-J, Francois O, Hardy DJ, Holderegger R, Taberlet P, Waits LP, Manel S: Applications of landscape genetics in conservation biology: concepts and challenges. Conserv Genet 2010. doi: 10.1007/s10592-009-0044-5
• [60]Landguth EL, Hand BK, Glassy J, Cushman SA, Sawaya MA: UNICOR: a species connectivity and corridor network simulator. Ecography 2011, 34:001-006-14.
• [61]Dijkstra EW: A note on two problems in connexion with graphs. Numerische Mathematik 1959, 1:269-271.
• [62]Compton BW, McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Gamble LR: A resistant-kernel model of connectivity for amphibians that breed in vernal pools. Conserv Biol 2007, 21:788-799.
• [63]Johnson KG, Pelton MR: Prebaiting and snaring techniques for black bears. The Wildlife Society Bulletin 1980, 8:46-54.
• [64]Fortin M-J, Dale MRT: Spatial Analysis: A Guide for Ecologists. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2005.