USGS Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70202715

Landscape connectivity planning for adaptation to future climate and land-use change

Jennifer K. Costanza·Adam J. Terando
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Purpose of Review We examined recent literature on promoting habitat connectivity in the context of climate change (CC) and land-use change (LUC). These two global change forcings have wide-reaching ecological effects that are projected to worsen in the future. Improving connectivity is a common adaptation strategy, but CC and LUC can also degrade planned connections, potentially reducing their effectiveness. We synthesize advances in connectivity design approaches, identify challenges confronted by researchers and practitioners, and offer suggestions for future research. Recent Findings Recent studies incorporated future CC into connectivity design more often than LUC and rarely considered the two drivers jointly. When considering CC, most studies have focused on relatively broad spatial and temporal extents and have included either species-based targets or coarse-filter targets like geodiversity and climate gradients. High levels of uncertainty about future LUC and lack of consistent, readily available model simulations are likely hindering its inclusion in connectivity modeling. This high degree of uncertainty extends to efforts to jointly consider future CC and LUC. Summary We argue that successful promotion of connectivity as a means to adapt to CC and LUC will depend on (1) the velocity of CC, (2) the velocity of LUC, and (3) the degree of existing landscape fragmentation. We present a new conceptual framework to assist in identifying connectivity networks given these three factors. Given the high uncertainty associated with future CC and LUC, incorporating insights from decision science into connectivity planning will facilitate the development of more robust adaptation strategies.

Explore related subjects

Current Landscape Ecology ReportsArticle

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jennifer K. Costanza, Adam J. Terando. 2019-01-23. Landscape connectivity planning for adaptation to future climate and land-use change. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40823-019-0035-2

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2023

Compact or sprawling cities: Has the sparing-sharing framework yielded an ecological verdict?

Purpose of Review Global urban land area is growing faster than the urban population, raising concerns that sprawling, low-density development will reduce biodiversity and human wellbeing. The sparing-sharing framework, adapted from agroecology, provides one approach to assessing alternative urban growth patterns. It compares ecological outcomes in landscapes matched for total population and land area, but differing in configuration: land sparing (partitioned between densely urbanized and undeveloped areas) or land sharing (low-density development throughout). We reviewed the urban sparing-sharing literature since 2010 and recovered 15 studies conducted in 22 cities on four continents. Recent Findings Collectively, studies assessed effects of alternative development patterns on 296 species, 21 community metrics (such as species richness), and 26 indicators of ecosystem services or processes (such as carbon sequestration). Sparing was the best option for 51% of individual species; 43% of community metrics; and 27% of ecosystem service indicators. Summary Existing ecological research does not clearly favor one pattern or the other, and new approaches are needed to facilitate decision making and ecological insight. Specifically, future work could (1) explicitly evaluate optimized urban development patterns across multiple competing priorities (such as providing housing, delivering ecosystem services, and protecting priority species), (2) tackle issues of spatial scale and connectivity that are often ambiguous in sparing-sharing research, and (3) improve geographical representation. These advances can be made while preserving the key insight of the framework–that choices between alternative landscape configurations are only meaningful when those landscapes are matched for total area and the level of human needs met.

Current Landscape Ecology Reports↗
USGS2021

Responses of vertebrate wildlife to oil and natural gas development: Patterns and frontiers

Purpose of Review Anthropogenic activities can lead to the loss, fragmentation, and alteration of wildlife habitats. I reviewed the recent literature (2014–2019) focused on the responses of avian, mammalian, and herpetofaunal species to oil and natural gas development, a widespread and still-expanding land use worldwide. My primary goals were to identify any generalities in species’ responses to development and summarize remaining gaps in knowledge. To do so, I evaluated the directionality of a wide variety of responses in relation to taxon, location, development type, development metric, habitat type, and spatiotemporal aspects. Recent Findings Studies ( n = 70) were restricted to the USA and Canada, and taxonomically biased towards birds and mammals. Longer studies, but not those incorporating multiple spatial scales, were more likely to detect significant responses. Negative responses of all types were present in relatively low frequencies across all taxa, locations, development types, and development metrics but were context-dependent. The directionality of responses by the same species often varied across studies or development metrics. Summary The state of knowledge about wildlife responses to oil and natural gas development has developed considerably, though many biases and gaps remain. Studies outside of North America and that focus on herpetofauna are lacking. Tests of mechanistic hypotheses for effects, long-term studies, assessment of response thresholds, and experimental designs that isolate the effects of different stimuli associated with development, remain critical. Moreover, tests of the efficacy of habitat mitigation efforts have been rare. Finally, investigations of the demographic effects of development across the full annual cycle were absent for non-game species and are critical for the estimation of population-level effects.

Current Landscape Ecology Reports↗
USGS2020

Restoration at the landscape scale as a means of mitigation and adaptation to climate change

Purpose of Review Although landscape-scale restoration efforts are gaining traction worldwide, their success is generally unknown. We review landscape-scale restorations to gain insight to whether focal ecological outcomes have been achieved, in the face of changing environmental conditions. Recent Findings Only 9% of the 477 articles that resulted from our search were studies of landscape-scale restorations. The majority (73%) of the landscape restorations from our study have occurred since the 1990s, indicating that this type of restoration has gained in popularity in the last 30 years. Furthermore, 67% of these restoration studies occurred in a single country: China. Many scientific studies have addressed the ability of a species to shift ranges with climate change, yet few of the landscape-scale restoration studies used for our study addressed this question. Instead, 87% of the studies focused on ecosystem function, rather than community-level processes, as a result of restoration. Summary There is a clear need for more research to be undertaken on the ecological outcomes of landscape-scale restorations to understand whether they enable species and communities to shift their ranges or adapt to climate change. Conservation practitioners could utilize our decision matrix as a tool to guide restoration of individual sites within a landscape context, as well as current and future climatic conditions, to guide ecological outcomes of interest. Optimal biodiversity maintenance requires habitat conservation in concert with restoration activities at the landscape scale, and the latter, likely increasingly so in a world of changing climate.

Current Landscape Ecology Reports↗