Search

Purpose The University of Michigan (U-M) is planning its course toward carbon neutrality. A key component in U-M carbon accounting is the calculation of carbon sinks via estimation of carbon storage and biosequestration on U-M landholdings. Here, this paper aims to compare multiple remote sensing methods across U-M natural lands and urban campuses to determine the accurate and efficient protocol for land assessment and ecosystem service valuation that other institutions may scale as relevant. Design/methodology/approach This paper tested three remote sensing methods to determine land use and land cover (LULC), namely, unsupervised classification, supervised classification and supervised classification incorporating delineated wetlands. Using confusion matrices, this paper tested remote sensing approaches to ground-truthed data, the paper obtained via field-based vegetation surveys across a subset of U-M landholdings. Findings In natural areas, supervised classification incorporating delineated wetlands was the most accurate and efficient approach. In urban settings, maps incorporating institutional knowledge and campus tree surveys better estimated LULC. Using LULC and literature-based carbon data, this paper estimated that U-M lands store 1.37–3.68 million metric tons of carbon and sequester 45,000–86,000 Mt CO2e/yr, valued at $2.2m–$4.3m annually ($50/metric ton, social cost of carbon). Originality/value This paper compared methods to identify an efficient and accurate remote sensing methodology to identify LULC and estimate carbon storage, biosequestration rates and economic values of ecosystem services provided.

The coronavirus pandemic is more fully exposing ubiquitous economic and social inequities that pervade conservation science. In this time of prolonged stress on members of the research community, primary investigators or project leaders (PLs) have a unique opportunity to adapt their programs to jointly create more equitable and productive research environments for their teams. Institutional guidance for PLs pursuing field and laboratory work centers on the physical safety of individuals while in the lab or field, but largely ignores the vast differences in how team members may be experiencing the pandemic. Strains on mental, physical, and emotional health; racial trauma; familial responsibilities; and compulsory productivity resources, such as high-speed internet, quiet work spaces, and support are unequally distributed across team members. The goal of this paper is to summarize the shifting dynamics of leadership and mentorship during the coronavirus pandemic and highlight opportunities for increasing equity in conservation research at the scale of the project team. Here, we (1) describe how the pandemic differentially manifests inequity on project teams, particularly for groups that have been structurally excluded from conservation science, (2) consider equitable career advancement during the coronavirus pandemic, and (3) offer suggestions for PLs to provide mentorship that prioritizes equity and wellbeing during and beyond the pandemic. We aim to support PLs who have power and flexibility in how they manage research, teaching, mentoring, consulting, outreach, and extension activities so that individual team members' needs are met with compassion and attention to equity.

Pollinator conservation is of increasing interest in the light of managed honeybee (Apis mellifera) declines, and declines in some species of wild bees. Much work has gone into understanding the effects of habitat enhancements in agricultural systems on wild bee abundance, richness and pollination services. However, the effects of ecological restoration targeting “natural” ecological endpoints (e.g. restoring former agricultural fields to historic vegetation types or improving degraded natural lands) on wild bees have received relatively little attention, despite their potential importance for countering habitat loss. We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the effects of ecological restoration on wild bee abundance and richness, focusing on unmanaged bee communities in lands restored and managed to increase habitat availability and quality. Specifically, we assessed bee abundance and/or richness across studies comparing restored vs. unrestored treatments and studies investigating effects of specific habitat restoration techniques, such as burning, grazing, invasive plant removal and seeding. We analysed 28 studies that met our selection criteria: these represented 11 habitat types and 7 restoration techniques. Nearly all restorations associated with these studies were performed without explicit consideration of habitat needs for bees or other pollinators. The majority of restorations targeted plant community goals, which could potentially have ancillary benefits for bees. Restoration had overall positive effects on wild bee abundance and richness across multiple habitat types. Specific restoration actions, tested independently, also tended to have positive effects on wild bee richness and abundance. Synthesis and applications. We found strong evidence that ecological restoration advances wild bee conservation. This is important given that habitat loss is recognized as a leading factor in pollinator decline. Pollinator responses to land management are rarely evaluated in non-agricultural settings and so support for wild bees may be an underappreciated benefit of botanically focused management. Future restoration projects that explicitly consider the needs of wild bees could be more effective at providing nesting, foraging and other habitat resources. We encourage land managers to design and evaluate restoration projects with the habitat needs of wild bee species in mind.