Search

As both plant and animal species shift their ranges in response to a changing climate, maintaining connectivity between present habitat and suitable habitat in the future will become increasingly important to ensure lasting protection for biodiversity. Because the temporal period commensurate with planning for mid-century change is multi-generational for most species, connectivity designed to facilitate climate adaptation requires pathways with 'stepping-stones' between current and future habitat. These areas should have habitats suitable not only for dispersal, but for all aspects of species lifecycles. We integrated present-day land use, topographic diversity, and projections of shifting climate regimes into a single connectivity modeling approach to identify pathways for mid-century shifts in species ranges. Using Omniscape we identified climate linkages, or areas important for climate change-driven movement, as the areas with more current flow than would be expected in the absence of climate considerations. This approach identified connectivity potential between natural lands in the present climate and natural lands with future analogous climate following topo-climatically diverse routes. We then translated the model output into a strategic framework to improve interpretation and to facilitate a more direct connection with conservation action. Across modified landscapes, pathways important to climate-driven movement were highly coincident with the last remaining present-day linkages, reinforcing their importance. Across unfragmented lands, the presence of climate-adapted pathways helped inform the prioritization of conservation actions in areas where multiple connectivity options still exist. Many climate linkages follow major watercourses along elevational gradients, highlighting the importance of protecting or managing for these natural linear pathways that provide movement routes for climate adaptation. By integrating enduring landscape features with climate projections and present-day land uses, our approach reveals "no-regrets" pathways to plan for a connected landscape in an uncertain future., (© 2021 The Nature Conservancy. Ecological Applications published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The Ecological Society of America.)

As they have in response to past climatic changes, many species will shift their distributions in response to modern climate change. However, due to the unprecedented rapidity of projected climatic changes, some species may not be able to move their ranges fast enough to track shifts in suitable climates and associated habitats. Here, we investigate the ability of 493 mammals to keep pace with projected climatic changes in the Western Hemisphere. We modeled the velocities at which species will likely need to move to keep pace with projected changes in suitable climates. We compared these velocities with the velocities at which species are able to move as a function of dispersal distances and dispersal frequencies. Across the Western Hemisphere, on average, 9.2% of mammals at a given location will likely be unable to keep pace with climate change. In some places, up to 39% of mammals may be unable to track shifts in suitable climates. Eighty-seven percent of mammalian species are expected to experience reductions in range size and 20% of these range reductions will likely be due to limited dispersal abilities as opposed to reductions in the area of suitable climate. Because climate change will likely outpace the response capacity of many mammals, mammalian vulnerability to climate change may be more extensive than previously anticipated.

Systematic conservation planning efforts typically focus on protecting current patterns of biodiversity. Climate change is poised to shift species distributions, reshuffle communities, and alter ecosystem functioning. In such a dynamic environment, lands selected to protect today's biodiversity may fail to do so in the future. One proposed approach to designing reserve networks that are robust to climate change involves protecting the diversity of abiotic conditions that in part determine species distributions and ecological processes. A set of abiotically diverse areas will likely support a diversity of ecological systems both today and into the future, although those two sets of systems might be dramatically different. Here, we demonstrate a conservation planning approach based on representing unique combinations of abiotic factors. We prioritize sites that represent the diversity of soils, topographies, and current climates of the Columbia Plateau. We then compare these sites to sites prioritized to protect current biodiversity. This comparison highlights places that are important for protecting both today's biodiversity and the diversity of abiotic factors that will likely determine biodiversity patterns in the future. It also highlights places where a reserve network designed solely to protect today's biodiversity would fail to capture the diversity of abiotic conditions and where such a network could be augmented to be more robust to climate-change impacts.

Landscape connectivity improves species’ capacity to adapt to climate change. These models are increasingly needed and available for climate-change conservation planning. However, their relative strengths and weaknesses are unclear. We asked how well do the spatial outputs from four connectivity models intended to support climate change conservation agree? To understand the implications of selecting one or several approaches, we compared various combinations of four connectivity models for ecoregions in California, U.S.A. Two models are based on landscape structure, Land Facet Corridors and Omniscape, while two other models, Meta-Corridor Approach and Network Flow Analysis (NFA), use focal species’ range dynamics to determine connectivity. We also describe how each approach integrates climate-adaptive connectivity concepts. Variation in modeling methods, objectives, inputs, and landscape representations strongly affects the modeled connectivity patterns. For the region where all four models were run, almost three quarters of the landscape was selected by one or more models, but three or more agree for only 9.5% of the area, all of which is riparian. This emphasizes the importance of riparian areas for climate adaptation. We found NFA prioritized connections close to protected areas, while Meta-Corridor avoided higher cost agricultural and developed areas. The structural models agreed in areas with low human impact but Omniscape avoided areas of low topographic diversity and Land Facet Corridors avoided connections in areas with no protected areas. Connectivity models should be selected based on the conservation objectives, such as spatial scale to be implemented, and a combination of models may be best.

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.