Testing landscape resistance layers and modeling connectivity for wolverines in the western United States

Carroll, Kathleen A.; Hansen, Andrew J.; Inman, Robert M.; Lawrence, Rick L.; Hoegh, Andrew

doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01125

Cited by 16 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the broad extent of public or ''fixed'' lands appeared to limit the number of high-priority areas. This finding, paired with our previous work demonstrating that wolverines are less sensitive to low habitat quality during dispersal than previously thought, indicated that there may be more flexibility in implementing wolverine connectivity conservation than previously recognized (Carroll et al, 2020). This finding represents a considerable improvement for the wolverine conservation planning outlook.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 71%

“…Our wolverine habitat models were based on previously collected wolverine relocation data (Inman et al, 2012) and 2040 to 2069 RCP 8.5 snow water equivalent (SWE) projections. We chose the SWE model because snow cover area, duration, and SWE are strong predictors of wolverine habitat (Schwartz et al, 2009;Carroll et al, 2020, but see Stewart et al, 2016. Additionally, the SWE data layer included a portion of the Rocky Mountains in southern Canada, which is ecologically important for wolverine population connectivity.…”

Section: High-quality Habitatmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is gene flow between wolverines found in the US and Canada, and collared animals occasionally cross the border (Cegelski et al, 2006;COSEWIC 2014). We compared the SWE-only model to a previously analyzed model that included seven variables (Carroll et al, 2020). The SWE-only model predicted use and availability of withheld data with 78% accuracy (kappa = 32%).…”

Section: High-quality Habitatmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We modeled wolverine habitat using a negative inverse relationship between future SWE habitat quality and resistance (Carroll et al, 2020) in Circuitscape 4.0 (McRae et al, 2008;McRae and Shah, 2009). We chose to use Circuitscape because it provides current density estimates representing both the paths individuals are likely to move and how tenuous movements between habitat cores are.…”

Section: Connectivity Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While high-elevation conservation areas are highly valuable for species conservation, they are isolated and require species to move down through private lands to maintain natural ecological processes. Many RMW species (e.g., elk, mule deer, pronghorn, wolverines, bighorn sheep) migrate or disperse across land tenures with varying degrees of protection throughout their lifetime (Sawyer et al, 2009;Allen et al, 2016;Tack et al, 2019;Carroll et al, 2020;Middleton et al, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A framework for collaborative wolverine connectivity conservation

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Maintaining connectivity between high-elevation public lands is important for wolverines and other species of conservation concern. This work represents the first effort to prioritize wolverine connectivity under future climate conditions using a systematic conservation planning framework. We optimized 10, 15, 20, and 50% of habitat features for wolverines using integer linear programming. We identified 369 privately owned areas in the 10% solution, 572 in the 15% solution, 822 in the 20% solution, and 3,996 in the 50% solution where voluntary landowner easements would improve the long-term landscape functionality for wolverine connectivity.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 71%

Section: High-quality Habitatmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: High-quality Habitatmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Connectivity Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A framework for collaborative wolverine connectivity conservation

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Landscape‐level habitat connectivity of large mammals in Chitwan Annapurna Landscape, Nepal

Adhikari,

Bhattarai,

Baral

et al. 2024

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The populations of many species of large mammals occur in small isolated and fragmented habitat patches in the human‐dominated landscape. Maintenance of habitat connectivity in the fragmented landscapes is important for maintaining a healthy population of large mammal. This study evaluated the landscape patches and their linkages on two carnivores (leopard and Himalayan black bear) and seven prey species (northern red muntjac, chital, sambar, wild pig, Himalayan goral, rhesus macaque, and langur) between Chitwan National Park (CNP) and Annapurna Conservation Area (ACA) by using the least‐cost path (LCP) approach and the Linkage Mapper tool in ArcGIS. A total of 15 habitat patches (average area 26.67 ± 12.70 km2) were identified that had more than 50% of the total studied mammals. A weak relation among the habitat patches was found for chital and sambar (Cost‐weighted distance [CWD]: Euclidean distance EucD >100), showed poor connectivity between the habitat patches, while ratio of CWD and EucD was low (i.e., low LCP) between majority of the patches for muntjac, wild pig and leopard hence had potential functional connectivity along the landscape. Similarly, low LCP between the habitat patches located in the mid‐hills was observed for Himalayan goral and Himalayan black bear. Furthermore, the multi‐species connectivity analysis identified the potential structural connectivity between the isolated populations and habitat patches. Therefore, these sites need to be considered connectivity hotspots and be prioritized for the conservation of large mammals in the landscape.

show abstract

Examining local and regional ecological connectivity throughout North America

Belote¹,

Barnett²,

Zeller

et al. 2022

Landsc Ecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context Conservation scientists recommend maintaining and restoring ecological connectivity to sustain biodiversity in the face of land-use and climate change. Alternative connectivity assessments conducted at multiple spatial scales are needed to understand consequences of varying assumptions and for use in multi-scale conservation planning. Objectives We compared mapped output from different model scenarios conducted to identify areas important for ecological connectivity across North America. We asked how areas important for connectivity vary with spatial scale and assumptions regarding the way in which human modification affects landscape resistance. Methods We conducted a factorial experiment using omnidirectional connectivity analyses across North America where we crossed “treatments” represented by four moving window sizes and three resistance surfaces. The three resistance surfaces represent a gradient in species’ sensitivity to human modification. Results Maps of connectivity importance varied among scenarios. The effects of moving window size were more conspicuous than effects of different resistance surfaces. Outputs from small moving windows revealed mottled patterns of connectivity importance, while outputs from larger moving windows revealed broad swaths of connectivity importance across mountainous and boreal areas of North America. Patterns of connectivity importance tended to be more channelized from resistance surfaces produced to represent more human-sensitive species and more diffuse from resistance surfaces produced to represent more human-tolerant species. Conclusions Our scenarios and output represent alternative hypotheses and predictions about how multiple species may move in response to varying degrees of human modification. Our output can be compared to species-specific models to investigate which of our scenarios best matches observed movements of organisms. Our output can also be used as coarse-filter and multi-scale connectivity assessments for conservation plans. Notably, our outputs highlight the importance of small and isolated fragments of relatively natural land while simultaneously identifying broad regions important for maintaining connectivity across natural areas of North America.

show abstract

Testing landscape resistance layers and modeling connectivity for wolverines in the western United States

Cited by 16 publications

References 43 publications

A framework for collaborative wolverine connectivity conservation

A framework for collaborative wolverine connectivity conservation

Landscape‐level habitat connectivity of large mammals in Chitwan Annapurna Landscape, Nepal

Examining local and regional ecological connectivity throughout North America

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About