Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T15:47:32.424Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

26 - The future of connectivity conservation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 May 2010

Kevin R. Crooks
Affiliation:
Colorado State University
M. Sanjayan
Affiliation:
The Nature Conservancy, Virginia
Get access

Summary

The present threat to Earth's biodiversity from the human enterprise is unprecedented in historic time. Understanding the consequences of environmental change, and developing effective strategies to maintain plant and animal species and the ecological processes on which all of life hinges, present enormous challenges. The growing awareness of environmental change has been mirrored, albeit with a lag, by a shift in focus of scientific endeavors in the ecological sciences. The last three decades have seen strong growth in disciplines that emphasize the importance of using scientific knowledge and skills to address threats to the future of ecosystems throughout the world.

Conservation biology emerged in the 1980s as a “mission-oriented” crisis discipline (Soulé and Wilcox 1980; Soulé 1985). It was to be a “new rallying point for biologists wishing to pool their knowledge and techniques to solve problems” (Soulé and Wilcox 1980). Rapid growth in this field has been accompanied by new journals, such as Animal Conservation, Biodiversity and Conservation, Conservation Biology, Ecological Applications, Ecology and Society, and Pacific Conservation Biology, in which setting out the conservation implications of the published research is regarded as a necessary and important part of the contribution. Likewise, rapid growth in the discipline of landscape ecology has been based on the premise that conceptual advances and empirical studies of the ways in which spatial pattern affects ecological processes will deliver insights for improved land management (Forman 1995; Turner et al. 2001; Wu and Hobbs 2002).

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andreassen, H. P., Halle, S., and Ims, R. A.. 1996. Optimal width of movement corridors for root voles: not too narrow and not too wide. Journal of Applied Ecology 33:63–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baranga, J. 1991. Kibale Forest Game Corridor: man or wildlife? Pp. 371–375 in Saunders, D. A. (eds.) Nature Conservation, vol. 2, The Role of Corridors. Chipping Norton, NSW, Australia: Surrey Beatty and Sons.Google Scholar
Beier, P. 1993. Determining minimum habitat areas and habitat corridors for cougars. Conservation Biology 7:94–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beier, P., and Noss, R. F.. 1998. Do habitat corridors provide connectivity? Conservation Biology 12:1241–1252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, A. F. 1990. Habitat corridors and the conservation of small mammals in a fragmented forest environment. Landscape Ecology 4:109–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, A. F. 1999. Linkages in the Landscape: The Role of Corridors and Connectivity in Wildlife Conservation. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.Google Scholar
Bennett, A. F., Henein, K., and Merriam, G.. 1994. Corridor use and the elements of corridor quality: chipmunks and fencerows in a farmland mosaic. Biological Conservation 68:155–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, J. M. 1975. The island dilemma: lessons of modern biogeographic studies for the design of natural reserves. Biological Conservation 7:129–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fahrig, L. 2003. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Reviews of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 34:487–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferris-Kaan, R. 1995. Management of linear habitats for wildlife in British forests. Pp. 67–77 in D. A. Saunders, J. L. Craig, and E. M. Mattiske (eds.) Nature Conservation, vol. 4, The Role of Networks. Chipping Norton, NSW, Australia: Surrey Beatty and Sons.
Forman, R. T. T. 1995. Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, B. J., and Fahrig, L.. 2002. How does landscape structure influence landscape connectivity?Oikos 99:552–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groves, C. R. 2003. Drafting a Conservation Blueprint: A Practitioner's Guide to Planning for Biodiversity. Washington, DC: Island Press,.
Haas, C. A. 1995. Dispersal and use of corridors by birds in wooded patches on an agricultural landscape. Conservation Biology 9:845–854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris L. D., and J. Scheck. 1991. From implications to applications: the dispersal corridor principle applied to the conservation of biological diversity. Pp. 189–220 in Saunders, D. A. (eds.) Nature Conservation, vol. 2, The Role of Corridors. Chipping Norton, NSW, Australia: Surrey Beatty and Sons.Google Scholar
Henein, K., and Merriam, G.. 1990. The elements of connectivity where corridor quality is variable. Landscape Ecology 4:157–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobbs, R. J. 1992. The role of corridors in conservation: solution or bandwagon?Trends in Ecology and Evolution 7:389–391CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hobbs, R. 1997. Future landscapes and the future of landscape ecology. Landscape and Urban Planning 37:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jongman, R. H. G. 1995. Nature conservation planning in Europe: developing ecological networks. Landscape and Urban Planning 32:169–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Little, C. E. 1990. Greenways for America. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Mabry, K. E., and Barrett, G. W.. 2002. Effects of corridors on home range sizes and interpatch movements of three small mammal species. Landscape Ecology 17:629–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansergh, I. M., and Scotts, D. J.. 1989. Habitat continuity and social organisation of the mountain pygmy-possum restored by tunnel. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:701–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merriam, G. 1991. Corridors and connectivity: animal populations in heterogeneous environments. Pp. 133–142 in Saunders, D. A. (eds.) Nature Conservation, vol. 2, The Role of Corridors. Chipping Norton, NSW, Australia: Surrey Beatty and Sons.Google Scholar
O'Donnell, C. F. J. 1991. Application of the wildlife corridors concept to temperate rainforest sites, North Westland, New Zealand. Pp. 85–98 in Saunders, D. A. (eds.) Nature Conservation, vol. 2, The Role of Corridors. Chipping Norton, NSW, Australia: Surrey Beatty and Sons.Google Scholar
Opdam, P., Foppen, R., Reijnen, R., and Schotman, A.. 1995. The landscape ecological approach in bird conservation: integrating the metapopulation concept into spatial planning. Ibis 137:S139–S146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parmesan, C. 2005. Biotic response: range and abundance changes. Pp. 41–61 in Lovejoy, T. E. (eds.) Climate Change and Biodiversity. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Prevett, P. T. 1991. Movement paths of koalas in the urban-rural fringes of Ballarat, Victoria: implications for management. Pp. 259–272 in Saunders, D. A. (eds.) Nature Conservation,, vol. 2, The Role of Corridors. Chipping Norton, NSW, Australia: Surrey Beatty and Sons.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, D. K., Noon, B. R., and Meslow, E. C.. 1997. Biological corridors: form, function and efficacy. BioScience 47:677–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, D. A., and Hobbs, R. (eds.) 1991. Nature Conservation,, vol. 2, The Role of Corridors. Chipping Norton, NSW, Australia: Surrey Beatty and Sons.Google Scholar
Saunders, D. A., Craig, J. L., and Mattiske, E. M. (eds.) 1995. Nature Conservation, vol. 4, The Role of Networks. Chipping Norton, NSW, Australia: Surrey Beatty and Sons.Google Scholar
Simberloff, D. S., and Cox, J.. 1987. Consequences and costs of conservation corridors. Conservation Biology 1:63–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simberloff, D., Farr, J. A., Cox, J., and Mehlman, D. W.. 1992. Movement corridors: conservation bargains or poor investments?Conservation Biology 6:493–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith D. S. 1993. Greenway case studies. Pp. 161–208 in Smith, D. S. and P. C. Hellmund (eds.) Ecology of Greenways. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Smith, D. S., and Hellmund, P. C. (eds.) 1993. Ecology of Greenways. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Soulé, M. E. 1985. What is conservation biology? BioScience 35:727–734Google Scholar
Soulé M. E. 1995. An unflinching vision: networks of people defending networks of lands. Pp. 1–8 in Saunders, D. A., Craig, J. L., and E. M. Mattiske (eds.) Nature Conservation, vol. 4, The Role of Networks. Chipping Norton, NSW, Australia: Surrey Beatty and Sons.Google Scholar
Soulé, M. E., and Terborgh, J.. 1999. Continental Conservation: Scientific Foundations of Regional Reserve Networks. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
Soulé, M. E., and Wilcox, B. A. (eds.) 1980. Conservation Biology: An Evolutionary – Ecological Perspective. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
Sutcliffe, O. L., and Thomas, C. D.. 1996. Open corridors appear to facilitate dispersal by ringlet butterflies (Aphantopus hyperantus) between woodland clearings. Conservation Biology 10:1359–1365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, P. D., Fahrig, L., Henein, K., and Merriam, G.. 1993. Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68:571–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, C. D., and Jones, T. M.. 1993. Partial recovery of a skipper butterfly (Hesperia comma) from population refuges: lessons for conservation in a fragmented landscape. Journal of Animal Ecology 62:472–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tischendorf, L., and Fahrig, L.. 2000. On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos 90:7–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trzcinski, M. K., Fahrig, L., and Merriam, G.. 1999. Independent effects of forest cover and fragmentation on the distribution of forest breeding birds. Ecological Applications 9:586–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, M. G., Gardner, R. H., and O'Neill, R. V.. 2001. Landscape Ecology in Theory and Practice: Pattern and Process. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Verboom, J., Foppen, R., Chardon, P., Opdam, P., and Luttikhuizen, P.. 2001. Introducing the key patch approach for habitat networks with persistent populations: an example for marshland birds. Biological Conservation 100:89–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, J., and Hobbs, R.. 2002. Key issues and research priorities in landscape ecology: an idiosyncratic synthesis. Landscape Ecology 17:355–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×