USGS ScienceSearch

USGS · 70123889

Species of conservation concern and environmental stressors: Local regional and global effects

Abstract

Species conservation has traditionally been based on individual species within the context of their requisite habitat, which is generally defined as the communities and ecosystems deemed necessary for their presence. Conservation decisions are hampered by the fact that environmental stressors that poetically threaten the persistence of species can operate at organizational levels larger than the habitat or home range of a focal species. Resource managers must therefore simultaneously consider local, regional, and/or global scale stressors for effective conservation and management of species of concern. The wide ranging effects associated with global stressors such as climate change may exceed or exacerbate the effects of local or regional stressors, they still need to understand the direct and interactive effects of global stressors and ultimately how they affect the lands they manage. Conservation of species in southern Nevada is further complication by the fact that the region includes one of the largest and fastest growing urban centers in North America. To accomplish the goal of species conservation, resource managers must identify actionable management options that mitigate the effects of local and regional stressor in the context of the effects of global stressors that are beyond their control. Species conservation is typically focused on a subset often referred to as species of conservation concern that have either demonstrated considerable decline or are naturally rare or have limited distributions. Stressors can directly and indirectly impact species in a variety of ways and through a diversity of mechanisms. Some stressors have been more intense in the past (e.g., livestock grazing) whereas other are now only emerging as new stressors (e.g., solar energy development, climate change). The primary stressors affecting southern Nevada ecosystems are listed in table 2.1 and reviewed in detail in Chapter 2. This chapter addresses Dub-goal 1.4 in the SNAP Science Research Strategy which is to sustain and enhance southern Nevada's biotic communities to preserve biodiversity wand maintain viable populations (table 1.3; Turner and others 2009). We provide numerous examples of how stressors affect the range and/or habitat of select species of conservation concern. It is important to note that the species or groups discussed in this chapter by no means represent a comprehensive treatment of all species of conservation concern listed in Table 1.2 (Chapter 1). Rather, several species were chosen as examples for each southern Nevada ecosystem type to illustrate how stressors and linkages among them can affect species of conservation concern, keeping in mind that many of the species considered here are found in more than one ecosystem type. In addition, the stressors that may impact a species in one ecosystem may not be those that affect it in another ecosystem and different species in the same ecosystem may not be affected by the same suite of stressors. Finally, at the start of each ecosystem section we summarize key resource concerns, species used as examples, key stressors, and potential synergistic effects of those stressors relative to the species example.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 35.02392827573823° to 39.64524306073176° latitude; -120.09127846963423° to -113.99956682074821° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Steven M. Ostoja, Matthew L. Brooks, Jeanne C. Chambers, Burton Pendleton. 2013. Species of conservation concern and environmental stressors: Local regional and global effects. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/70123889

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Avoiding common pitfalls in the implementation of adaptive forest wildlife management

Forest management planning requires the evaluation of tradeoffs in proposed management actions to meet multiple objectives, including providing the habitat required to sustain wildlife populations. However, various species-specific life history strategies and ecological uncertainties complicate our understanding of the responses of wildlife to disturbances, such as wildfires and forest management. We believe that adaptive management processes, applied through the close collaboration of researchers and managers (e.g., coproduction), will be valuable in this effort. Although adaptive management programs have been touted in the past, we stress that many of these programs have fallen short of the requisite steps to complete the learning cycles of this process (i.e., single- and double-loop learning). Thus, we provide guidance on what we believe to be the missing components of these efforts in hopes to guide future coordination of local and regional adaptive management programs for forest wildlife.

General Technical Report

Chapter 6: Climate change, wildlife, and wildlife habitats in the Oregon Coast Range

Climate change is likely to have profound effects on wildlife species within the Oregon Coast Adaptation Partnership (OCAP) assessment area, although the direction and magnitude of effects are likely to vary across species. Increased mean and extreme temperatures, especially during summer, may cause shifts in plant and animal species ranges, reduce habitat for some temperature-sensitive wildlife, alter plant phenology and the timing of available food resources, and affect species interactions (e.g., predation, competition). Altered timing of precipitation, summer drought, loss of fog, increased flooding events, earlier snowmelt, and rising sea level may reduce plant productivity, increase tree mortality, shift plant species composition, and lead to reduced wildlife habitat and habitat quality for some forests, riparian areas, wetlands, meadows, estuaries, and beaches. In addition, increasing frequency and extent of wildfire and insect outbreaks may reduce the extent of late-successional forest, reduce habitat connectivity, and increase the spread of invasive species. The biggest change expected for the assessment area is an increase in area where climatic conditions favor coastal mixed forest and a large reduction in area favoring montane conifer forest. Although actual changes in forest types may not necessarily occur by the end of the 21st century, climate change may add physiological and behavioral stress to wildlife. Some wildlife species will be able to persist in place and adapt to new conditions; some may be able to migrate to find suitable habitat; and some may be greatly reduced or extirpated from the assessment area or even go extinct. Shifts in major tree and shrub species will play a major role in food, den, and cover availability for wildlife. Rising sea level will reduce low-elevation habitats along the coast. An increase in the frequency of high-severity weather events will increase frequency and magnitude of flooding, including debris flow events. Coupled with increased temperatures during summer, this may reduce or fragment important ecosystems for aquatic and semi-aquatic species. Evaluation of the vulnerabilities of nine wildlife species based on literature reviews suggests that each species has life-history attributes that can lead to resilience or vulnerability to climate change effects. Depending on long-term objectives, several broad adaptation strategies focus on protecting refugia, establishing redundant wildlife strongholds with large-scale connectivity, and promoting structural and biological complexity.

Oregon