Fine‐ and coarse‐filter conservation strategies in a time of climate change

Abstract

As species adapt to a changing climate, so too must humans adapt to a new conservation landscape. Classical frameworks have distinguished between fine- and coarse-filter conservation strategies, focusing on conserving either the species or the landscapes, respectively, that together define extant biodiversity. Adapting this framework for climate change, conservationists are using fine-filter strategies to assess species vulnerability and prioritize the most vulnerable species for conservation actions. Coarse-filter strategies seek to conserve either key sites as determined by natural elements unaffected by climate change, or sites with low climate velocity that are expected to be refugia for climate-displaced species. Novel approaches combine coarse- and fine-scale approaches--for example, prioritizing species within pretargeted landscapes--and accommodate the difficult reality of multiple interacting stressors. By taking a diversified approach to conservation actions and decisions, conservationists can hedge against uncertainty, take advantage of new methods and information, and tailor actions to the unique needs and limitations of places, thereby ensuring that the biodiversity show will go on.

Scale‐dependent complementarity of climatic velocity and environmental diversity for identifying priority areas for conservation under climate change

“…Planners should remain aware of the limitations of both diversity and velocity metrics in capturing complex biotic responses to climate change. Coarse‐filter metrics such as we discuss in this study should typically be complemented with fine‐filter (species‐specific) metrics where that information is available (Tingley et al., ). Additionally, there are a variety of more complex methods for refugia identification based on climatic data that address connectivity, isolation, compositional turnover, and interannual variations in climate (e.g., frequency of extreme temperatures and drought) (Dobrowski & Parks, ).…”

“…() identified refugia based on climatic velocity, species‐specific climatic niche models, compositional‐turnover modeling (Ferrier, Manion, Elith, & Richardson, ), areas of stable vegetative productivity during drought events (“greenspots”; Mackey et al., ), and areas of connectivity between current and future refugia. Tingley, Darling, and Wilcove () proposed the use of conservation targets based on natural elements unaffected by climate change (e.g., physical habitat types) and locations with low climatic velocity. Lastly, Schmitz et al.…”

California forests show early indications of both range shifts and local persistence under climate change

“…b; local indicators hereafter). The identification of local hotspots is useful because early indicators of resilient populations can have implications for species conservation under climate change (Franklin et al ., ; Hannah et al ., ; Tingley et al ., ). Global and local regeneration‐based indicators of the effects of climate change on tree species distributions are needed to better capture the dynamics of species range shifts beyond a unified direction within a species' range.…”

Clustering and ensembling approaches to support surrogate‐based species management

“…Monitoring indices of habitat availability is generally not a substitute for monitoring populations (Noon, Murphy, Beissinger, Shaffer, & Dellasala, ; Noss, ), but it is also infeasible to test whether conserving abiotic diversity or a given distribution of habitat is likely to maintain the viability of each and every species in a landscape. Surrogates have the potential to fill an intermediate role between coarse filter approaches based on abiotic or habitat features and fine‐filter approaches that are species‐specific (Tingley, Darling, & Wilcove, ). Accounting for the uncertainty in surrogate relationships is a key step in selecting credible surrogates.…”