A Multicriteria Assessment of the Irreplaceability and Vulnerability of Sites in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem

Abstract

We conducted a systematic conservation assessment of the 10.8‐million‐ha Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE), integrating three basic approaches to conservation planning: protecting special elements, representing environmental variation, and securing habitat for focal species (grizzly bear [ Ursus arctos], wolf [Canis lupus], and wolverine [Gulo gulo]). Existing protected areas encompass 27% of the GYE but fail to capture many biological hotspots of the region or to represent all natural communities. Using a simulated annealing site‐selection algorithm, combined with biological and environmental data based on a geographic information system and static ( habitat suitability) and dynamic ( population viability) modeling of focal species, we identified unprotected sites within the GYE that are biologically irreplaceable and vulnerable to degradation. Irreplaceability scores were assigned to 43 megasites (aggregations of planning units) on the basis of nine criteria corresponding to quantitative conservation goals. Expert opinion supplemented quantitative data in determining vulnerability scores. If all megasites were protected, the reserved area of the GYE would expand by 43% (to 70%) and increase protection of known occurrences of highly imperiled species by 71% (to 100%) and of all special elements by 62% (to 92%). These new reserves would also significantly increase representation of environmental variation and capture critical areas for focal species. The greatest gains would be achieved by protecting megasites scoring highest in irreplaceability and vulnerability. Protection of 15 high‐priority megasites would expand reserved area by 22% and increase the overall achievement of goals by 30%. Protection of highly imperiled species and representation of geoclimatic classes would increase by 46% and 49%, respectively. Although conservation action must be somewhat opportunistic, our method aids decision‐making by identifying areas that will contribute the most to explicit conservation goals.

Biodiversity Conservation in Swedish Forests: Ways Forward for a 30-Year-Old Multi-Scaled Approach

“…In practice, however, such a ranking is often difficult and even suboptimal to follow strictly as practical factors influence on the process and determine the success of the outcome (Knight and Cowling 2007). Recognizing different opportunities as they arise and changing temporal priorities accordingly can therefore often be advantageous (Noss et al 2002). Systematic selection is also hampered by the fact that areas very rarely can be simultaneously selected and protected; instead both processes are usually successive and slow.…”

A Framework for Implementing and Valuing Biodiversity Offsets in Colombia: A Landscape Scale Perspective

“…Landscape-level conservation planning is the process of locating, configuring and maintaining areas that are managed to maintain the viability of biodiversity and other natural features [29,30]. A conservation portfolio, the end product of conservation planning efforts, is a select set of areas that represents the full distribution and diversity of these systems [31]. The results of landscape-level conservation plans can be used to guide the application of the mitigation hierarchy [20,32].…”

Anuran Amphibians: A Huge and Threatened Factory of a Variety of Active Peptides with Potential Nanobiotechnological Applications in the Face of Amphibian Decline

“…If this is allowed to continue, the projected losses would constitute the largest mass extinction since the disappearance of the dinosaurs, which many scientists argue would be the sixth great mass extinction (Wake & Vredenburg, 2008). Several long-term studies performed on intact natural ecosystems such as Yellowstone National Park and Sierra Nevada of California in United States (Noss et al, 2002;Vredenburg et al, 2007), Eungella National Park in Australia (McDonald, 1990), and Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve in Costa Rica (Pounds et al, 1997) show a worldwide decline in amphibian species in the last two decades. Populations of many species of frogs have declined dramatically in relatively undisturbed habitats at high altitudes and anthropized areas throughout the world (Blaustein & Wake, 1990, 1995Blaustein et al, 1994;Bradford, 1991;Campbell, 1999;Carey, 1993;Collins & Storfer 2003;Crump et al, 1992;Czechura & Ingram, 1990;Hero et al, 2005;Kiesecker et al, 2001;McDonald, 1990;McMenamin et al, 2008;Pounds, 2001;Reading, 2007;Richards et al, 1993;Skerratt et al, 2007;Stuart et al, 2004;Young et al, 2001).…”