Strategic Habitats for Biodiversity Conservation in Florida

Abstract: Privately owned lands support a large portion of the biodiversity in some areas, but procedures for identifying those private lands critical to the maintenance of biodiversity vary tremendously. We used habitat-based distribution maps in combination with population conservation goals to help identify strategic habitats on private lands in Florida. We used a vegetation map, occurrence data, and published life-history information to create habitat-based distribution maps for 179 rare taxa. We estimated the security of 130 of the taxa by overlaying public land boundaries on habitat maps and then estimating whether conservation lands satisfied a population goal of supporting at least 10 populations of approximately 200 breeding adults. The remaining taxa were evaluated in terms of number of occurrence records on conservation lands. Of the 179 taxa evaluated, existing conservation lands did not adequately protect 56. We then identified habitats on private lands that could best satisfy the minimum conservation goal or else significantly enhance the survival potential of inadequately protected taxa. Strategic habitats included a mix of large and small sites, incorporated some corridor or stepping-stone connections among habitat patches, and protected multiple species. Additional strategic habitats were identified for shorebirds, four natural plant communities, and 105 globally rare plants. The strategic habitats identified in Florida cover 1.65 million ha (12% of the land area) and would cost $8.2 billion (about 15% of Florida's annual state budget) to purchase and $122 million per year to manage. Existing conservation lands account for 3.07 million ha (22% of the land area).     

Estimating the Effect of Protected Lands on the Development and Conservation of Their Surroundings

Abstract:  The fate of private lands is widely seen as key to the fate of biodiversity in much of the world. Organizations that work to protect biodiversity on private lands often hope that conservation actions on one piece of land will leverage the actions of surrounding landowners. Few researchers have, however, examined whether protected lands do in fact encourage land conservation nearby or how protected lands affect development in the surrounding landscape. Using spatiotemporal data sets on land cover and land protection for three sites (western North Carolina, central Massachusetts, and central Arizona), we examined whether the existence of a protected area correlates with an increased rate of nearby land conservation or a decreased rate of nearby land development. At all sites, newly protected conservation areas tended to cluster close to preexisting protected areas. This may imply that the geography of contemporary conservation actions is influenced by past decisions on land protection, often made for reasons far removed from concerns about biodiversity. On the other hand, we found no evidence that proximity to protected areas correlates with a reduced rate of nearby land development. Indeed, on two of our three sites the development rate was significantly greater in regions with more protected land. This suggests that each conservation action should be justified and valued largely for what is protected on the targeted land, without much hope of broader conservation leverage effects.     

Targeting Conservation Action through Assessment of Protection and Exurban Threats

Abstract:   Landscape-level assessments of biodiversity strive to guide land-use planning and conservation activities by providing information about areas of high biodiversity value and low protection status. I developed a methodology to assess the level of threat to conservation of biodiversity to help guide conservation action. This method incorporates socioeconomic indicators of risk, including developed and roaded areas, and measures the proportion of conservation lands affected by developed areas. In addition, I developed a metric called conservation potential to measure the degree of fragmentation of patches caused by development. As an illustration I applied this methodology to Colorado (U.S.A.). Protection levels were determined by examining land ownership, resulting in protected lands (status levels 1 and 2) and unprotected lands (status levels 3 and 4). Areas were considered threatened (at risk) if a land-cover patch had >20% roaded area, >15% developed area, or was highly fragmented. Although 24 of 43 natural land-cover types were unprotected (49% of the state), 9 additional types were threatened. Combining conservation-status protection levels with patterns of threat targets the geographic area where conservation action is needed, provides a way to determine where so-called protected areas are at risk, and allows conservation strategies to be better refined.     

Biodiversity Conservation and Indigenous Land Management in the Era of Self‐Determination

Abstract: Indigenous people inhabit approximately 85% of areas designated for biodiversity conservation worldwide. They also continue to struggle for recognition and preservation of cultural identities, lifestyles, and livelihoods—a struggle contingent on control and protection of traditional lands and associated natural resources (hereafter, self‐determination). Indigenous lands and the biodiversity they support are increasingly threatened because of human population growth and per capita consumption. Application of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to tribal lands in the United States provides a rich example of the articulation between biodiversity conservation and indigenous peoples' struggle for self‐determination. We found a paradoxical relationship whereby tribal governments are simultaneously and contradictorily sovereign nations; yet their communities depend on the U.S. government for protection through the federal‐trust doctrine. The unique legal status of tribal lands, their importance for conserving federally protected species, and federal environmental regulations' failure to define applicability to tribal lands creates conflict between tribal sovereignty, self‐determination, and constitutional authority. We reviewed Secretarial Order 3206, the U.S. policy on “American Indian tribal rights, federal–tribal trust responsibilities, and the ESA,” and evaluated how it influences ESA implementation on tribal lands. We found improved biodiversity conservation and tribal self‐determination requires revision of the fiduciary relationship between the federal government and the tribes to establish clear, legal definitions regarding land rights, applicability of environmental laws, and financial responsibilities. Such actions will allow provision of adequate funding and training to tribal leaders and resource managers, government agency personnel responsible for biodiversity conservation and land management, and environmental policy makers. Increased capacity, cooperation, and knowledge transfer among tribes and conservationists will improve biodiversity conservation and indigenous self‐determination.     

An Index of Risk as a Measure of Biodiversity Conservation Achieved through Land Reform

Abstract:  We measured the net progress of land reform in achieving a national policy goal for biodiversity conservation in the context of ongoing clearing of native vegetation and additions of land to a highly nonrepresentative (residual) reserve network, interior South Island, New Zealand. We used systematic conservation-planning approaches to develop a spatially explicit index of risk of biodiversity loss (RBL). The index incorporated information from national data sets that describe New Zealand's remaining indigenous land cover, legal protection, and land environments and modeled risk to biodiversity on the basis of stated assumptions about the effects of past habitat loss and legal protection. The index identified irreplaceable and vulnerable native habitats in lowland environments as the most at risk of biodiversity loss, and risk was correlated with the density of threatened plant records. To measure achievement, we used changes in the index that reflected gains made and opportunity costs incurred by legal protection and privatization. Application of the index to measure the difference made by land reform showed it had caused a net increase in the risk of biodiversity loss because most land vulnerable to habitat modification and rich in threatened plant species was privatized and land at least risk of biodiversity loss was protected. The application revealed that new high-elevation reserves did little to mitigate biodiversity decline, that privatization of low-elevation land further jeopardized the most vulnerable biodiversity in lowland native habitats, and that outcomes of land reform for biodiversity deteriorated over time. Further development of robust achievement measures is needed to encourage more accountable biodiversity conservation decisions.     

Conservation Development Practices,Extent, and Land‐Use Effects in the United States

Abstract: Conservation development projects combine real‐estate development with conservation of land and other natural resources. Thousands of such projects have been conducted in the United States and other countries through the involvement of private developers, landowners, land trusts, and government agencies. Previous research has demonstrated the potential value of conservation development for conserving species, ecological functions, and other resource values on private lands, especially when traditional sources of conservation funding are not available. Nevertheless, the aggregate extent and effects of conservation development were previously unknown. To address this gap, we estimated the extent and trends of conservation development in the United States and characterized its key attributes to understand its aggregate contribution to land‐conservation and growth‐management objectives. We interviewed representatives from land trusts, planning agencies, and development companies, searched the Internet for conservation development projects and programs, and compiled existing databases of conservation development projects. We collected data on 3884 projects encompassing 1.38 million ha. About 43% of the projects targeted the conservation of specific plant or animal species or ecological communities of conservation concern; 84% targeted the protection of native ecosystems representative of the project area; and 42% provided buffers to existing protected areas. The percentage of protected land in conservation development projects ranged from <40% to >99%, and the effects of these projects on natural resources differed widely. We estimate that conservation development projects have protected roughly 4 million ha of land in the United States and account for about 25% of private‐land conservation activity nationwide.     

Conservation Deficits for the Continental United States: an Ecosystem Gap Analysis

Abstract:  Few attempts have been made to analyze the status of conservation efforts at a continental scale, mainly because of the lack of high-quality data sets at this scale. Given that land management agencies want to prioritize conservation efforts and spend limited resources wisely, we recognized the need to undertake a national gap analysis. We developed the most detailed national vegetation cover map feasible to analyze the degree of representation of ecosystem analysis units (an initial representation of ecosystem types) in the network of conservation lands for the continental United States. We combined The Nature Conservancy's ecoregions with the natural land-cover types of the National Land Cover Data Set and examined the conservation status of each combination. The majority of ecosystem analysis units have a small percentage of their total area residing in lands that are managed to support biodiversity. The median percentage of area conserved on status 1 and 2 lands (highest of four levels of protection) as designated by the Gap Analysis Program for the 554 ecosystem analysis units is 4.0% (SD 18.1%). This finding, which highlights our national conservation deficits, points to the need to address the size and diversity of the conservation estate.     

Bias in protected‐area location and its effects on long‐term aspirations of biodiversity conventions

To contribute to the aspirations of recent international biodiversity conventions, protected areas (PAs) must be strategically located and not simply established on economically marginal lands as they have in the past. With refined international commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity to target protected areas in places of “importance to biodiversity,” perhaps they may now be. We analyzed location biases in PAs globally over historic (pre‐2004) and recent periods. Specifically, we examined whether the location of protected areas are more closely associated with high concentrations of threatened vertebrate species or with areas of low agricultural opportunity costs. We found that both old and new protected areas did not target places with high concentrations of threatened vertebrate species. Instead, they appeared to be established in locations that minimize conflict with agriculturally suitable lands. This entrenchment of past trends has substantial implications for the contributions these protected areas are making to international commitments to conserve biodiversity. If protected‐area growth from 2004 to 2014 had strategically targeted unrepresented threatened vertebrates, >30 times more species (3086 or 2553 potential vs. 85 actual new species represented) would have been protected for the same area or the same cost as the actual expansion. With the land available for conservation declining, nations must urgently focus new protection on places that provide for the conservation outcomes outlined in international treaties.     

The Capacity of Australia's Protected‐Area System to Represent Threatened Species

Abstract: The acquisition or designation of new protected areas is usually based on criteria for representation of different ecosystems or land‐cover classes, and it is unclear how well‐threatened species are conserved within protected‐area networks. Here, we assessed how Australia's terrestrial protected‐area system (89 million ha, 11.6% of the continent) overlaps with the geographic distributions of threatened species and compared this overlap against a model that randomly placed protected areas across the continent and a spatially efficient model that placed protected areas across the continent to maximize threatened species’ representation within the protected‐area estate. We defined the minimum area needed to conserve each species on the basis of the species’ range size. We found that although the current configuration of protected areas met targets for representation of a given percentage of species’ ranges better than a random selection of areas, 166 (12.6%) threatened species occurred entirely outside protected areas and target levels of protection were met for only 259 (19.6%) species. Critically endangered species were among those with the least protection; 12 (21.1%) species occurred entirely outside protected areas. Reptiles and plants were the most poorly represented taxonomic groups, and amphibians the best represented. Spatial prioritization analyses revealed that an efficient protected‐area system of the same size as the current protected‐area system (11.6% of the area of Australia) could meet representation targets for 1272 (93.3%) threatened species. Moreover, the results of these prioritization analyses showed that by protecting 17.8% of Australia, all threatened species could reach target levels of representation, assuming all current protected areas are retained. Although this amount of area theoretically could be protected, existing land uses and the finite resources available for conservation mean land acquisition may not be possible or even effective for the recovery of threatened species. The optimal use of resources must balance acquisition of new protected areas, where processes that threaten native species are mitigated by the change in ownership or on‐ground management jurisdiction, and management of threatened species inside and outside the existing protected‐area system.     

Measuring Protected‐Area Isolation and Correlations of Isolation with Land‐Use Intensity and Protection Status

Abstract: Protected areas cover over 12% of the terrestrial surface of Earth, and yet many fail to protect species and ecological processes as originally envisioned. Results of recent studies suggest that a critical reason for this failure is an increasing contrast between the protected lands and the surrounding matrix of often highly altered land cover. We measured the isolation of 114 protected areas distributed worldwide by comparing vegetation‐cover heterogeneity inside protected areas with heterogeneity outside the protected areas. We quantified heterogeneity as the contagion of greenness on the basis of NDVI (normalized difference vegetation index) values, for which a higher value of contagion indicates less heterogeneous land cover. We then measured isolation as the difference between mean contagion inside the protected area and mean contagion in 3 buffer areas of increasing distance from the protected‐area border. The isolation of protected areas was significantly positive in 110 of the 114 areas, indicating that vegetation cover was consistently more heterogeneous 10–20 km outside protected areas than inside their borders. Unlike previous researchers, we found that protected areas in which low levels of human activity are allowed were more isolated than areas in which high levels are allowed. Our method is a novel way to assess the isolation of protected areas in different environmental contexts and regions.     

Ecological mechanisms linking protected areas to surrounding lands.

Land use is expanding and intensifying in the unprotected lands surrounding many of the world's protected areas. The influence of this land use change on ecological processes is poorly understood. The goal of this paper is to draw on ecological theory to provide a synthetic framework for understanding how land use change around protected areas may alter ecological processes and biodiversity within protected areas and to provide a basis for identifying scientifically based management alternatives. We first present a conceptual model of protected areas embedded within larger ecosystems that often include surrounding human land use. Drawing on case studies in this Invited Feature, we then explore a comprehensive set of ecological mechanisms by which land use on surrounding lands may influence ecological processes and biodiversity within reserves. These mechanisms involve changes in ecosystem size, with implications for minimum dynamic area, species-area effect, and trophic structure; altered flows of materials and disturbances into and out of reserves; effects on crucial habitats for seasonal and migration movements and population source/sink dynamics; and exposure to humans through hunting, poaching, exotics species, and disease. These ecological mechanisms provide a basis for assessing the vulnerability of protected areas to land use. They also suggest criteria for designing regional management to sustain protected areas in the context of surrounding human land use. These design criteria include maximizing the area of functional habitats, identifying and maintaining ecological process zones, maintaining key migration and source habitats, and managing human proximity and edge effects.     

Effects of land use,cover, and protection on stream and riparian ecosystem services and biodiversity

Protected areas are an important part of broader landscapes that are often used to preserve biodiversity or natural features. Some argue that protected areas may also help ensure provision of ecosystem services. However, the effect of protection on ecosystem services and whether protection affects the provision of ecosystem services is known only for a few services in a few types of landscapes. We sought to fill this gap by investigating the effect of watershed protection status and land use and land cover on biodiversity and the provision of ecosystem services. We compared the ecosystem services provided in and around streams in 4 watershed types: International Union for Conservation of Nature category II protected forests, unprotected forests, unprotected forests with recent timber harvesting, and unprotected areas with agriculture. We surveyed 28 streams distributed across these watershed types in Quebec, Canada, to quantify provisioning of clean water, carbon storage, recreation, wild foods, habitat quality, and terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity richness and abundance. The quantity and quality of ecosystem services and biodiversity were generally higher in sites with intact forest—whether protected or not—relative to those embedded in production landscapes with forestry or agriculture. Clean-water provision, carbon storage, habitat quality, and tree diversity were significantly higher in and around streams surrounded by forest. Recreation, wild foods, and aquatic biodiversity did not vary among watershed types. Although some services can be provided by both protected and unprotected areas, protection status may help secure the continued supply of services sensitive to changes in land use or land cover. Our findings provide needed information about the ecosystem service and biodiversity trade-offs and synergies that result from developing a watershed or from protecting it.     

Protecting biodiversity and economic returns in resource-rich tropical forests

In pursuit of socioeconomic development, many countries are expanding oil and mineral extraction into tropical forests. These activities seed access to remote, biologically rich areas, thereby endangering global biodiversity. We examined how protection of biodiversity and economic revenues can be balanced in biologically valuable regions. Using spatial data on oil profits and predicted species and ecosystem extents, we optimized the protection of 741 terrestrial species and 20 ecosystems of the Ecuadorian Amazon across a range of opportunity costs (i.e., sacrifices of extractive profit). We also applied spatial statistics to remotely sensed, historic deforestation data to focus the optimization on areas most threatened by imminent forest loss. Giving up 5% of a year's oil profits (US$221 million) allowed for a protected area network that retained an average of 65% of the extent of each species and ecosystem. This performance far exceeded that of the network produced by simple optimization for land area (which required a sacrifice of approximately 40% of annual oil profits [US$1.7 billion]) and used only marginally less land to achieve equivalent levels of ecological protection. We identified what we call emergency conservation targets: regions that are essential components of a cost-effective conservation reserve network but at imminent risk of destruction, thus requiring urgent and effective protection. Governments can use our methods when evaluating extractive-led development options to responsibly manage the associated ecological and economic trade-offs and protect natural capital.     

A Multiscale Network Analysis of Protected‐Area Connectivity for Mammals in the United States

Abstract: Protected areas must be close, or connected, enough to allow for the preservation of large‐scale ecological and evolutionary processes, such as gene flow, migration, and range shifts in response to climate change. Nevertheless, it is unknown whether the network of protected areas in the United States is connected in a way that will preserve biodiversity over large temporal and spatial scales. It is also unclear whether protected‐area networks that function for larger species will function for smaller species. We assessed the connectivity of protected areas in the three largest biomes in the United States. With methods from graph theory—a branch of mathematics that deals with connectivity and flow—we identified and measured networks of protected areas for three different groups of mammals. We also examined the value of using umbrella species (typically large‐bodied, far‐ranging mammals) in designing large‐scale networks of protected areas. Although the total amount of protected land varied greatly among biomes in the United States, overall connectivity did not. In general, protected‐area networks were well connected for large mammals but not for smaller mammals. Additionally, it was not possible to predict connectivity for small mammals on the basis of connectivity for large mammals, which suggests the umbrella species approach may not be an appropriate design strategy for conservation networks intended to protect many species. Our findings indicate different strategies should be used to increase the likelihood of persistence for different groups of species. Strategic linkages of existing lands should be a conservation priority for smaller mammals, whereas conservation of larger mammals would benefit most from the protection of more land.     

The Links between Protected Areas, Faiths, and Sacred Natural Sites

Most people follow and are influenced by some kind of spiritual faith. We examined two ways in which religious faiths can in turn influence biodiversity conservation in protected areas. First, biodiversity conservation is influenced through the direct and often effective protection afforded to wild species in sacred natural sites and in seminatural habitats around religious buildings. Sacred natural sites are almost certainly the world's oldest form of habitat protection. Although some sacred natural sites exist inside official protected areas, many thousands more form a largely unrecognized "shadow" conservation network in many countries throughout the world, which can be more stringently protected than state-run reserves. Second, faiths have a profound impact on attitudes to protection of the natural world through their philosophy, teachings, investment choices, approaches to land they control, and religious-based management systems. We considered the interactions between faiths and protected areas with respect to all 11 mainstream faiths and to a number of local belief systems. The close links between faiths and habitat protection offer major conservation opportunities, but also pose challenges. Bringing a sacred natural site into a national protected-area system can increase protection for the site, but may compromise some of its spiritual values or even its conservation values. Most protected-area managers are not trained to manage natural sites for religious purposes, but many sacred natural sites are under threat from cultural changes and habitat degradation. Decisions about whether or not to make a sacred natural site an "official" protected area therefore need to be made on a case-by-case basis. Such sites can play an important role in conservation inside and outside official protected areas. More information about the conservation value of sacred lands is needed as is more informed experience in integrating these into wider conservation strategies. In addition, many protected-area staff need training in how to manage sensitive issues relating to faiths where important faith sites occur in protected areas.     

Assessing the Effectiveness of Reserve Acquisition Programs in Protecting Rare and Threatened Species

Abstract:  Measuring the effectiveness of reserve networks is essential to ensure that conservation objectives such as species persistence are being met. We devised a new approach for measuring the effectiveness of land conservation in protecting rare and threatened species and applied it to an ecosystem of global significance. We compiled detailed global distributional data for 36 rare and threatened plants and animals found in the Lake Wales Ridge ecosystem in central Florida (U.S.A.). For each species, we developed a set of protection indices based in part on criteria used to categorize species for the World Conservation Union's Red List. We calculated protection indexes under three different conservation scenarios: a past scenario, which assumed recent, major land-acquisition efforts never occurred; a current scenario, which assumed no additional areas are saved beyond what is currently protected; and a targeted scenario, which assumed all of the remaining areas targeted for protection are eventually acquired. This approach enabled us to quantify the progress, in terms of reduced risk of extinction, that conservationists have made in protecting target species. It also revealed the limited success these land-acquisition efforts have had in reducing those extinction risks associated with loss of habitat or small geographic ranges. Many species of the Lake Wales Ridge will remain at high risk of extinction even if planned land-acquisition efforts are completely successful. By calculating protection indexes with and without each site for all imperiled species, we also quantified the contribution of each protected area to the conservation of each species, enabling local conservation decisions to be made in the context of a larger (global) perspective. The protection index approach can be adapted readily to other ecosystems with multiple rare and threatened species.     

Costs of expanding the network of protected areas as a response to climate change in the Cape Floristic Region

The expansion of protected areas is a critical component of strategies to promote the continued existence of biodiversity (i.e., life at all levels of biological organization) as climate changes, but scientific, social, and economic uncertainties associated with climate change are some of the major obstacles preventing such expansion. New models of climate change and species distribution and new methods of conservation planning now make it possible to explore the uncertainties associated with climate changes and species responses. Yet few reliable estimates of the costs of expanding protected areas and methods for determining these costs exist, largely because of the many (and uncertain) determinants of these costs. We developed a cost-accounting model to estimate the range in costs of various options for expanding protected areas and to explore the variables that drive these costs. Model development was informed by an existing plan to expand protected areas in the Cape Floristic Region of South Africa to address species conservation under a scenario of climate change. The 50-year present value of total costs varied from US$260 million ($1077/ha) for an off-reserve option that involves agreements with landowners and no compensation of forgone production and associated revenue to $1020 million ($4228/ha) for an on-reserve option that involves land acquisition and protection. The costs of acquiring land or compensating landowners for forgone production and development opportunities were the major drivers of the total costs across all options because most of the area identified in the protected-area expansion plan consisted of urban and high-quality agricultural lands. Total costs were also affected by changes in protected area extent and discount rate. Model-generated outputs such as these may be useful for informing implementation strategies and the allocation of future efforts in monitoring, data collection, and model development.     

Conserving Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function through Limited Development: an Empirical Evaluation

Abstract:  Suburban, exurban, and rural development in the United States consumes nearly 1 million hectares of land per year and is a leading threat to biodiversity. In response to this threat, conservation development has been advanced as a way to combine land development and land conservation while providing functional protection for natural resources. Yet, although conservation development techniques have been in use for decades, there have been few critical evaluations of their conservation effectiveness. We addressed this deficiency by assessing the conservation outcomes of one type of conservation development project: conservation and limited development projects (CLDPs). Conducted by land trusts, landowners, and developers, CLDPs use revenue from limited development to finance the protection of land and natural resources. We compared a sample of 10 CLDPs from the eastern United States with their respective baseline scenarios (conventional development) and with a sample of conservation subdivisions—a different conservation development technique characterized by higher-density development. To measure conservation success, we created an evaluation method containing eight indicators that quantify project impacts to terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems at the site and in the surrounding landscape. The CLDPs protected and managed threatened natural resources including rare species and ecological communities. In terms of conservation benefits, the CLDPs significantly outperformed their respective baseline scenarios and the conservation subdivisions. These results imply that CLDPs can offer a low-impact alternative to conventional development and a low-cost method for protecting land when conventional conservation techniques are too expensive. In addition, our evaluation method demonstrates how planners and developers can incorporate appropriate ecological considerations when designing, reviewing, and evaluating conservation development projects.     

Cumulative ecological and socioeconomic effects of forest policies in coastal Oregon.

Forest biodiversity policies in multi-ownership landscapes are typically developed in an uncoordinated fashion with little consideration of their interactions or possible unintended cumulative effects. We conducted an assessment of some of the ecological and socioeconomic effects of recently enacted forest management policies in the 2.3-million-ha Coast Range Physiographic Province of Oregon. This mountainous area of conifer and hardwood forests includes a mosaic of landowners with a wide range of goals, from wilderness protection to high-yield timber production. We projected forest changes over 100 years in response to logging and development using models that integrate land use change and forest stand and landscape processes. We then assessed responses to those management activities using GIS models of stand structure and composition, landscape structure, habitat models for focal terrestrial and aquatic species, timber production, employment, and willingness to pay for biodiversity protection. Many of the potential outcomes of recently enacted policies are consistent with intended goals. For example, we project the area of structurally diverse older conifer forest and habitat for late successional wildlife species to strongly increase. 'Other outcomes might not be consistent with current policies: for example, hardwoods and vegetation diversity strongly decline within and across owners. Some elements of biodiversity, including streams with high potential habitat for coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and sites of potential oak woodland, occur predominately outside federal lands and thus were not affected by the strongest biodiversity policies. Except for federal lands, biodiversity policies were not generally characterized in sufficient detail to provide clear benchmarks against which to measure the progress or success. We conclude that land management institutions and policies are not well configured to deal effectively with ecological issues that span broad spatial and temporal scales and that alternative policies could be constructed that more effectively provide for a mix of forest values from this region.     

Estimating Climate Resilience for Conservation across Geophysical Settings

Conservationists need methods to conserve biological diversity while allowing species and communities to rearrange in response to a changing climate. We developed and tested such a method for northeastern North America that we based on physical features associated with ecological diversity and site resilience to climate change. We comprehensively mapped 30 distinct geophysical settings based on geology and elevation. Within each geophysical setting, we identified sites that were both connected by natural cover and that had relatively more microclimates indicated by diverse topography and elevation gradients. We did this by scoring every 405 ha hexagon in the region for these two characteristics and selecting those that scored >SD 0.5 above the mean combined score for each setting. We hypothesized that these high‐scoring sites had the greatest resilience to climate change, and we compared them with sites selected by The Nature Conservancy for their high‐quality rare species populations and natural community occurrences. High‐scoring sites captured significantly more of the biodiversity sites than expected by chance (p < 0.0001): 75% of the 414 target species, 49% of the 4592 target species locations, and 53% of the 2170 target community locations. Calcareous bedrock, coarse sand, and fine silt settings scored markedly lower for estimated resilience and had low levels of permanent land protection (average 7%). Because our method identifies—for every geophysical setting—sites that are the most likely to retain species and functions longer under a changing climate, it reveals natural strongholds for future conservation that would also capture substantial existing biodiversity and correct the bias in current secured lands.