Sustainable management of wildlife habitat and risk of extinction

Smith, Winston P.; Zollner, Patrick A.

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2005.03.021

Cited by 21 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These results highlight the inherent difficulty often associated with managing forests for multiple wildlife species. Different species often require different habitat and management that creates quality habitat for one species of interest can reduce habitat for another (Smith and Zollner 2005). We have demonstrated such a situation with Indiana and northern long-eared bats.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 81%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The simulated effects of timber harvest on suitable habitat for Indiana and northern long‐eared bats

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bat conservation in the eastern United States following the onset of white‐nose syndrome necessitates the conservation and production of important summer habitat required by bats for both diurnal roosting and nocturnal foraging and commuting. Forest management via silvicultural applications can purposely direct forest succession so important habitat features are retained and developed. The effects of timber harvest on habitat at large spatiotemporal scales for a species are not always readily apparent but can be investigated with spatially explicit forest dynamic modeling. Here we used a forest succession model (LANDIS‐II) to simulate future forest conditions under different harvest regimes. We simulated nine harvest scenarios on Indiana State Forests that ranged from a complete cessation of timber harvest to intensive timber extraction. We then applied previously created models of nocturnal and diurnal habitat occupancy for both Indiana and northern long‐eared bats. We found that suitable nocturnal habitat was maximized for Indiana bats but minimized for northern long‐eared bats under low intensity timber harvest scenarios. Among moderate intensity timber harvest scenarios, both species exhibited the greatest amount of suitable nocturnal habitat when timber harvest applications focused on regenerative openings. The quantity of suitable diurnal habitat trended in the opposite direction of nocturnal habitat with selection harvests favoring suitable roosting habitat. Finally, both species displayed a trend in which overall suitable habitat was primarily driven by the degree of suitable diurnal habitat rather than nocturnal habitat. These results highlight the complex nature of managing multiple habitat needs for more than one species. Furthermore, our research illustrates the importance of understanding the distinct habitat requirements associated with different life history needs that can occur within a single species. Despite such complexities, our results can help guide forest management to preserve and encourage suitable habitat for multiple imperiled bat species.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 81%

“…Habitat conservation for more than one species can be difficult (Nicholson et al 2006) but often is mandated by management objectives (Smith and Zollner 2005). Even closely related species can have different habitat requirements or responses to habitat management which complicates joint conservation efforts (Carey 2000).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The simulated effects of timber harvest on suitable habitat for Indiana and northern long‐eared bats

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Landres et al 1988;. Focal species approaches have been criticized for ad hoc species selection (Landres et al 1988) and lack of evidence that conservation priorities based on focal taxa adequately protect other species and values (Simberloff 1998;Andelman & Fagan 2000;Smith & Zollner 2005). Methodologies range widely -'focal species' may or may not need to possess umbrella, keystone, flagship and indicator traits or combinations thereof (Simberloff 1998), so the term only broadly refers to individual species whose needs are highlighted in conservation planning.…”

Section: Why Base Management On Individual Species?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing Landscapes for Vulnerable, Invasive and Disease Species

Zavaleta¹,

Pasari²

2007

Managing and Designing Landscapes for Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As the focus of conservation moves from protected areas to include working landscapes, management must accommodate multiple goals. In this context, management focused on individual species must be well justified. Conservation practices that target carefully selected individual species can complement pattern-based criteria needed to maintain species richness and ecosystem function by providing mechanistic rationale and quantifiable targets for conservation actions. However, most treatments of landscape design do not consider the compatibility of management for individual diseasecausing species, invasive species and threatened species simultaneously. We summarize recommendations from landscape epidemiology and invasion management and evaluate whether they are congruent with general principles for vulnerable species' protection. Many, but not all, broad strategies for controlling invasive and disease species appear compatible with strategies for protecting vulnerable species. Local circumstances, scale considerations and the relative importance of landscape and other interventions should guide management of trade-offs among conflicting goals.

show abstract

“…The varying intensity and episodic nature of gypsy moth outbreaks make predicting their effect on upland forests difficult. Federal and state agencies in the United States devote valuable resources to developing adaptive management plans that incorporate periodic monitoring of forest stand conditions (Smith and Zollner, 2005;Mahan et al, 2007). Monitoring protocols usually call for sampling at regularly defined intervals, but it is important to note that the scale of sampling and description affects the ability to observe individual phenomena as collections of cases that are regular enough to be described in a more generalized fashion (Levin, 1992).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%