Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
T. Merrill, D. Mattson, R. Wright, H. Quigley (1999)
Defining landscapes suitable for restoration of grizzly bears Ursus arctos in IdahoBiological Conservation, 87
C. Carroll, R. Noss, P. Paquet, N. Schumaker (2004)
Extinction Debt of Protected Areas in Developing LandscapesConservation Biology, 18
P. Beier, R. Noss (1998)
Do Habitat Corridors Provide Connectivity?Conservation Biology, 12
M. Soulé, M. Sanjayan (1998)
ECOLOGY: Conservation Targets: Do They Help?Science, 279
We would like to thank the following individuals for assistance
R. Wright, J. Lemons (1996)
National Parks and Protected Areas: Their Role in Environmental Protection
R. Pressey, K. Taffs (2001)
Scheduling conservation action in production landscapes: priority areas in western New South Wales defined by irreplaceability and vulnerability to vegetation lossBiological Conservation, 100
R. Pressey, H. Possingham, C. Margules (1996)
Optimality in reserve selection algorithms: When does it matter and how much?Biological Conservation, 76
M. Boyce, L. McDonald (1999)
Relating populations to habitats using resource selection functions.Trends in ecology & evolution, 14 7
W. Newmark (1995)
Extinction of mammal populations in Western North American national parksConservation Biology, 9
J. Diamond (1975)
THE ISLAND DILEMMA: LESSONS OF MODERN BIOGEOGRAPHIC STUDIES FOR THE DESIGN OF NATURAL RESERVESBiological Conservation, 7
Douglas Chadwick, Raymond Gehman (2000)
Yellowstone to Yukon
(2000)
Designing a geography of hope: a practitioner's handbook for ecoregional conservation planning
Ron Pulliam (1988)
Sources, Sinks, and Population RegulationThe American Naturalist, 132
(2001)
Grizzly bear habitat and population fragmentation in the Central Selkirk Mountains and surrounding region of southeast British Columbia. Unpublished report to Forest Renewal British Columbia
A. Huete, H. Liu, K. Batchily, W. Leeuwen (1997)
A comparison of vegetation indices over a global set of TM images for EOS-MODISRemote Sensing of Environment, 59
(2001)
Is the return of the wolf, wolverine, and grizzly bear to Oregon and California biologically feasible? Pages 25–46 in Large mammal restoration: ecological and social challenges in the 21st century
SITES Version 1.0: an analytical toolbox for designing ecoregional conservation portfolios. The Nature Conservancy
J. Dunning, D. Stewart, B. Danielson, B. Noon, T. Root, R. Lamberson, E. Stevens (1995)
Spatially Explicit Population Models: Current Forms and Future UsesEcological Applications, 5
G. Mowat, C. Strobeck (2000)
Estimating population size of grizzly bears using hair capture, DNA profiling, and mark-recapture analysisJournal of Wildlife Management, 64
C. Pease, D. Mattson (1999)
DEMOGRAPHY OF THE YELLOWSTONE GRIZZLY BEARSEcology, 80
B. Manly, L. McDonald, Dana Thomas (1993)
Resource Selection by Animals
A. Tyre, H. Possingham, D. Lindenmayer (2001)
INFERRING PROCESS FROM PATTERN: CAN TERRITORY OCCUPANCY PROVIDE INFORMATION ABOUT LIFE HISTORY PARAMETERS?Ecological Applications, 11
(1990)
Census of the United States
R. Pressey, T. Hager, K. Ryan, J. Schwarz, S. Wall, S. Ferrier, P. Creaser (2000)
Using abiotic data for conservation assessments over extensive regions : quantitative methods applied across New South Wales, AustraliaBiological Conservation, 96
R. Noss, H. Quigley, M. Hornocker, T. Merrill, P. Paquet (1996)
Conservation Biology and Carnivore Conservation in the Rocky MountainsConservation Biology, 10
P. Kareiva, U. Wennergren (1995)
Connecting landscape patterns to ecosystem and population processesNature, 373
J. Scott, F. Davis, B. Csuti, R. Noss, C. Groves, H. Anderson, S. Caicco, T. Edwards, J. Ulliman, R. Wright (1993)
GAP ANALYSIS: A GEOGRAPHIC APPROACH TO PROTECTION OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
(1998)
A user's guide to the PATCH model
L. Ruggiero, K. Aubry, S. Buskirk, L. Lyon, W. Zielinski (1994)
The Scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores : American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States /, 254
R. Lambeck (1997)
Focal Species: A Multi‐Species Umbrella for Nature ConservationConservation Biology, 11
(1992)
Regional and zonal ecosystems in the Shining Mountains. Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Wildlife Branch, Habitat Inventory Section
R. Woodroffe, J. Ginsberg (1998)
Edge effects and the extinction of populations inside protected areasScience, 280 5372
(1995)
Large carnivore conservation in the Rocky Mountains. World Wildlife Fund Canada
R. Noss, C. Carroll, K. Vance‐Borland, G. Wuerthner (2002)
A Multicriteria Assessment of the Irreplaceability and Vulnerability of Sites in the Greater Yellowstone EcosystemConservation Biology, 16
R. Briers (2002)
Incorporating connectivity into reserve selection proceduresBiological Conservation, 103
C. Margules, R. Pressey (2000)
Systematic conservation planningNature, 405
R. Pressey, I. Johnson, Peter Wilson (1994)
Shades of irreplaceability: towards a measure of the contribution of sites to a reservation goalBiodiversity & Conservation, 3
C. Carroll, Michael Phillips, N. Schumaker, Douglas Smith (2003)
Impacts of Landscape Change on Wolf Restoration Success: Planning a Reintroduction Program Based on Static and Dynamic Spatial ModelsConservation Biology, 17
J. Weaver, P. Paquet, L. Ruggiero (1996)
Resilience and conservation of large carnivores in the Rocky MountainsConservation Biology, 10
C. Carroll, R. Noss, P. Paquet (2001)
CARNIVORES AS FOCAL SPECIES FOR CONSERVATION PLANNING IN THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGIONEcological Applications, 11
C. Kyle, C. Strobeck (2001)
Genetic structure of North American wolverine (Gulo gulo) populationsMolecular Ecology, 10
B. Horne (1983)
DENSITY AS A MISLEADING INDICATOR OF HABITAT QUALITYJournal of Wildlife Management, 47
T. Fuller (1989)
Denning Behavior of Wolves in North-central MinnesotaAmerican Midland Naturalist, 121
H. Possingham, I. Ball, S. Andelman (2000)
Mathematical Methods for Identifying Representative Reserve Networks
P. Kareiva, D. Skelly, M. Ruckelshaus (1997)
Reevaluating the Use of Models to Predict the Consequences of Habitat Loss and Fragmentation
D. Blockstein, R. Noss, A. Cooperrider (1994)
Saving Nature's Legacy: Protecting and Restoring BiodiversityBioScience
(1993)
A bioregional conservation plan for the Oregon Coast Range
K. Redford, S. Pickett, R. Ostfeld, M. Shachak, G. Likens (1999)
The Ecological Basis of Conservation: Heterogeneity, Ecosystems, and BiodiversityEcology
(2003)
Canadian Rocky Mountains ecoregional assessment. Volume One. Report. Nature Conservancy of Canada
Turner, and one anonymous reviewer provided helpful reviews of the manuscript. LITERATURE CITED
(2002)
Rocky Mountain Carnivore Project-Final Report. World Wildlife Fund Canada
(1997)
A national overview: 1996 Census of Canada. Publication 93-357-XPB
Current reserve selection algorithms have difficulty evaluating connectivity and other factors necessary to conserve wide-ranging species in developing landscapes. Conversely, population viability analyses may incorporate detailed demographic data, but often lack sufficient spatial detail or are limited to too few taxa to be relevant to regional conservation plans. We developed a regional conservation plan for mammalian carnivores in the Rocky Mountain region using both a reserve selection algorithm (SITES) and a spatially explicit population model (PATCH). The spatially explicit population model informed reserve selection and network design by producing data on the locations of population sources, the degree of threat to those areas from landscape change, the existence of thresholds to population viability as the size of the reserve network increased, and the effect of linkage areas on population persistence. A 15%% regional decline in carrying capacity for large carnivores was predicted within 25 years if no addition to protected areas occurred. Increasing the percentage of the region in reserves from the current 17.2%% to 36.4%% would result in a 1––4%% increase over current carrying capacity, despite the effects of landscape change. The population model identified linkage areas that were not chosen by the reserve selection algorithm, but whose protection strongly affected population viability. A reserve network based on carnivore conservation goals incidentally protected 76%% of ecosystem types, but was poor at capturing localized rare species. Although it is unlikely that planning for focal species requirements alone will capture all facets of biodiversity, when used in combination with other planning foci, it may help to forestall the effects of loss of connectivity on a larger group of threatened species and ecosystems. A better integration of current reserve selection tools and spatial simulation models should produce reserve designs that are simultaneously biologically realistic and taxonomically inclusive.
Ecological Applications – Ecological Society of America
Published: Dec 1, 2003
Keywords: carnivores ; conservation planning ; focal species ; population viability analysis ; regional conservation plans ; reserve selection ; Rocky Mountains
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.