Optimizing conservation in species-specific agricultural landscapes

Recovery of grassland birds in agricultural landscapes is a global imperative. Agricultural landscapes are complex, and the value of resource patches may vary substantially among species. The spatial extent at which landscape features affect populations (i.e., scale of effect) may also differ among species. There is a need for regional-scale conservation planning that considers landscape-scale and species-specific responses of grassland birds to environmental change. We developed a spatially explicit approach to optimizing grassland conservation in the context of species-specific landscapes and prioritization of species recovery and applied it to a conservation program in Kentucky (USA). We used a hierarchical distance-sampling model with an embedded scale of effect predictor to estimate the relationship between landscape structure and abundance of eastern meadowlarks (Sturnella magna), field sparrows (Spizella pusilla), and northern bobwhites (Colinus virginianus). We used a novel spatially explicit optimization procedure rooted in multi-attribute utility theory to design alternative conservation strategies (e.g., prioritize only northern bobwhite recovery or assign equal weight to each species’ recovery). Eastern meadowlarks and field sparrows were more likely to respond to landscape-scale resource patch adjacencies than landscape-scale patch densities. Northern bobwhite responded to both landscape-scale resource patch adjacencies and densities and responded strongly to increased grassland density. Effects of landscape features on local abundance decreased as distance increased and had negligible influence at 0.8 km for eastern meadowlarks (0.7–1.2 km 95% Bayesian credibility intervals [BCI]), 2.5 km for field sparrows (1.5–5.8 km 95% BCI), and 8.4 km for bobwhite (6.4–26 km 95% BCI). Northern bobwhites were predicted to benefit greatly from future grassland conservation regardless of conservation priorities, but eastern meadowlark and field sparrow were not. Our results suggest similar species can respond differently to broad-scale conservation practices because of species-specific, distance-dependent relationships with landscape structure. Our framework is quantitative, conceptually simple, customizable, and predictive and can be used to optimize conservation in heterogeneous ecosystems while considering landscape-scale processes and explicit prioritization of species recovery.     

Landscape-level influences of terrestrial snake occupancy within the southeastern United States

Habitat loss and degradation are thought to be the primary drivers of species extirpations, but for many species we have little information regarding specific habitats that influence occupancy. Snakes are of conservation concern throughout North America, but effective management and conservation are hindered by a lack of basic natural history information and the small number of large-scale studies designed to assess general population trends. To address this information gap, we compiled detection/nondetection data for 13 large terrestrial species from 449 traps located across the southeastern United States, and we characterized the land cover surrounding each trap at multiple spatial scales (250-, 500-, and 1000-m buffers). We used occupancy modeling, while accounting for heterogeneity in detection probability, to identify habitat variables that were influential in determining the presence of a particular species. We evaluated 12 competing models for each species, representing various hypotheses pertaining to important habitat features for terrestrial snakes. Overall, considerable interspecific variation existed in important habitat variables and relevant spatial scales. For example, kingsnakes (Lampropeltis getula) were negatively associated with evergreen forests, whereas Louisiana pinesnake (Pituophis ruthveni) occupancy increased with increasing coverage of this forest type. Some species were positively associated with grassland and scrub/shrub (e.g., Slowinski's cornsnake, Elaphe slowinskii) whereas others, (e.g., copperhead, Agkistrodon contortrix, and eastern diamond-backed rattlesnake, Crotalus adamanteus) were positively associated with forested habitats. Although the species that we studied may persist in varied landscapes other than those we identified as important, our data were collected in relatively undeveloped areas. Thus, our findings may be relevant when generating conservation plans or restoration goals. Maintaining or restoring landscapes that are most consistent with the ancestral habitat preferences of terrestrial snake assemblages will require a diverse habitat matrix over large spatial scales.     

Advancing the Integration of History and Ecology for Conservation

Abstract: The important role of humans in the development of current ecosystems was recognized decades ago; however, the integration of history and ecology in order to inform conservation has been difficult. We identified four issues that hinder historical ecological research and considered possible solutions. First, differences in concepts and methods between the fields of ecology and history are thought to be large. However, most differences stem from miscommunication between ecologists and historians and are less substantial than is usually assumed. Cooperation can be achieved by focusing on the features ecology and history have in common and through understanding and acceptance of differing points of view. Second, historical ecological research is often hampered by differences in spatial and temporal scales between ecology and history. We argue that historical ecological research can only be conducted at extents for which sources in both disciplines have comparable resolutions. Researchers must begin by clearly defining the relevant scales for the given purpose. Third, periods for which quantitative historical sources are not easily accessible (before AD 1800) have been neglected in historical ecological research. Because data from periods before 1800 are as relevant to the current state of ecosystems as more recent data, we suggest that historical ecologists actively seek out data from before 1800 and apply analytic methods commonly used in ecology to these data. Fourth, humans are not usually considered an intrinsic ecological factor in current ecological research. In our view, human societies should be acknowledged as integral parts of ecosystems and societal processes should be recognized as driving forces of ecosystem change.