Search

Although a plethora of habitat-connectivity plans exists, protecting and restoring connectivity through on-the-ground action has been slow. We identified challenges to and opportunities for connectivity conservation through a literature review of project implementation, a workshop with scientists and conservation practitioners, 3 case studies of connectivity projects, and interviews with conservation professionals. Connectivity challenges and solutions tended to be context specific, dependent on land-ownership patterns, socioeconomic factors, and the policy framework. Successful connectivity implementation tended to be associated with development and promotion of a common vision among diverse sets of stakeholders, including nontraditional conservation actors, such as water districts and recreation departments, and with communication with partners and the public. Other factors that lead to successful implementation included undertaking empirical studies to prioritize and validate corridors and the identification of related co-benefits of corridor projects. Engaging partners involved in land management and planning, such as nongovernmental conservation organizations, public agencies, and private landowners, is critical to effective strategy implementation. A clear regulatory framework, including unambiguous connectivity conservation mandates, would increase public resource allocation, and incentive programs are needed to promote private sector engagement. Connectivity conservation must move more rapidly from planning to implementation. We provide an evidence-based solution composed of key elements for successful on-the-ground connectivity implementation. We identified the social processes necessary to advance habitat connectivity for biodiversity conservation and resilient landscapes under climate change.

In a rapidly changing climate, conservation practitioners could better use geodiversity in a broad range of conservation decisions. We explored selected avenues through which this integration might improve decision making and organized them within the adaptive management cycle of assessment, planning, implementation, and monitoring. Geodiversity is seldom referenced in predominant environmental law and policy. With most natural resource agencies mandated to conserve certain categories of species, agency personnel are challenged to find ways to practically implement new directives aimed at coping with climate change while retaining their species-centered mandate. Ecoregions and ecological classifications provide clear mechanisms to consider geodiversity in plans or decisions, the inclusion of which will help foster the resilience of conservation to climate change. Methods for biodiversity assessment, such as gap analysis, climate change vulnerability analysis, and ecological process modeling, can readily accommodate inclusion of a geophysical component. We adapted others' approaches for characterizing landscapes along a continuum of climate change vulnerability for the biota they support from resistant, to resilient, to susceptible, and to sensitive and then summarized options for integrating geodiversity into planning in each landscape type. In landscapes that are relatively resistant to climate change, options exist to fully represent geodiversity while ensuring that dynamic ecological processes can change over time. In more susceptible landscapes, strategies aiming to maintain or restore ecosystem resilience and connectivity are paramount. Implementing actions on the ground requires understanding of geophysical constraints on species and an increasingly nimble approach to establishing management and restoration goals. Because decisions that are implemented today will be revisited and amended into the future, increasingly sophisticated forms of monitoring and adaptation will be required to ensure that conservation efforts fully consider the value of geodiversity for supporting biodiversity in the face of a changing climate.

Most conservation planning to date has focused on protecting today's biodiversity with the assumption that it will be tomorrow's biodiversity. However, modern climate change has already resulted in distributional shifts of some species and is projected to result in many more shifts in the coming decades. As species redistribute and biotic communities reorganize, conservation plans based on current patterns of biodiversity may fail to adequately protect species in the future. One approach for addressing this issue is to focus on conserving a range of abiotic conditions in the conservation-planning process. By doing so, it may be possible to conserve an abiotically diverse "stage" upon which evolution will play out and support many actors (biodiversity). We reviewed the fundamental underpinnings of the concept of conserving the abiotic stage, starting with the early observations of von Humboldt, who mapped the concordance of abiotic conditions and vegetation, and progressing to the concept of the ecological niche. We discuss challenges posed by issues of spatial and temporal scale, the role of biotic drivers of species distributions, and latitudinal and topographic variation in relationships between climate and landform. For example, abiotic conditions are not static, but change through time-albeit at different and often relatively slow rates. In some places, biotic interactions play a substantial role in structuring patterns of biodiversity, meaning that patterns of biodiversity may be less tightly linked to the abiotic stage. Furthermore, abiotic drivers of biodiversity can change with latitude and topographic position, meaning that the abiotic stage may need to be defined differently in different places. We conclude that protecting a diversity of abiotic conditions will likely best conserve biodiversity into the future in places where abiotic drivers of species distributions are strong relative to biotic drivers, where the diversity of abiotic settings will be conserved through time, and where connectivity allows for movement among areas providing different abiotic conditions.

Conservation goals at the start of the 21st century reflect a combination of contrasting ideas. Ideal nature is something that is historically intact but also futuristically flexible. Ideal nature is independent from humans, but also, because of the pervasiveness of human impacts, only able to reach expression through human management. These tensions emerge in current management rationales because scientists and managers are struggling to accommodate old and new scientific and cultural thinking, while also maintaining legal mandates from the past and commitments to preservation of individual species in particular places under the stresses of global change. Common management goals (such as integrity, wilderness, resilience), whether they are forward looking and focused on sustainability and change, or backward looking and focused on the persistence and restoration of historic states, tend to create essentialisms about how ecosystems should be. These essentialisms limit the options of managers to accommodate the dynamic, and often novel, response of ecosystems to global change. Essentialisms emerge because there is a tight conceptual coupling of place and historical species composition as an indicator of naturalness (e.g., normal, healthy, independent from humans). Given that change is increasingly the norm and ecosystems evolve in response, the focus on idealized ecosystem states is increasingly unwise and unattainable. To provide more open-ended goals, we propose greater attention be paid to the characteristics of management intervention. We suggest that the way we interact with other species in management and the extent to which those interactions reflect the interactions among other biotic organisms, and also reflect our conservation virtues (e.g., humility, respect), influences our ability to cultivate naturalness on the landscape. We call this goal a natural practice (NP) and propose it as a framework for prioritizing and formulating how, when, and where to intervene in this period of rapid change. Desarrollo de una Practica Natural para Adaptar Objetivos de Conservacion al Cambio Global Resumen Los objetivos de conservacion al inicio del siglo XXI reflejan una combinacion de ideas contrastantes. La naturaleza ideal es algo que esta intacto historicamente y que es flexible futuristicamente. La naturaleza ideal es independiente del humano, pero por causa de la dominacion del impacto humano, solo puede expresarse por medio del manejo humano. Estas tensiones emergen en el actual razonamiento de manejo porque los cientificos y los administradores luchan por acomodar el pensamiento cientifico y cultural viejo y nuevo bajo el estres del cambio global, mientras mantienen los mandatos legales del pasado y los compromisos de preservacion de especies individuales en lugares particulares. Los objetivos comunes de manejo (como la integridad, lo silvestre del terreno, la capacidad de recuperacion), ya sea que miren hacia el frente y esten enfocados en la sustentabilidad y el cambio, o miren hacia atras y esten enfocados en la persistencia y restauracion de los estados historicos, tienden a crear esencialismos sobre como deben ser los ecosistemas que limitan las opciones de los administradores para acomodar la respuesta dinamica, y comunmente novedosa, de los ecosistemas hacia el cambio global. Esto es porque hay un emparejamiento conceptual entre el lugar y la composicion historica de especies como indicador de la naturalidad (p. ej.: normal, sana, independiente del humano) que esta grabado en las metas. Dado que el cambio es cada vez m´s la norma y los ecosistemas evolucionan en respuesta, el enfoque sobre los estados idealizados de los ecosistemas es imprudente e inalcanzable. Para proporcionar mas objetivos sin restricciones, proponemos que se ponga mayor atencion a las caracteristicas de la intervencion del manejo. Sugerimos que el modo en el que interactuamos con otras especies en el manejo y la extension a la cual esas interacciones son similares a las interacciones de otros organismos bioticos y como reflejan nuestras virtudes de conservacion (p. ej.: humildad, respeto) influye sobre nuestra habilidad para cultivar la naturalidad en el paisaje. A esto lo llamamos practica natural y sugerimos que puede contribuir a un marco de trabajo para priorizar y formular, como, cuando y donde intervenir en este periodo de cambio rapido.