Advertisement

Current Landscape Ecology Reports

, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 1–13 | Cite as

Landscape Connectivity Planning for Adaptation to Future Climate and Land-Use Change

  • Jennifer K. CostanzaEmail author
  • Adam J. Terando
Landscape Change - Causes and Effects (C Sirami, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Landscape Change - Causes and Effects

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.

Keywords

Adaptation Climate change Climate velocity Climate-land-use interaction Coarse filter Connectivity Fine filter Land-use change Land-use velocity Landscape fragmentation Multiple scales Uncertainty 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Nick Haddad and Amanda Chunco who provided comments on an early draft. We also thank Toni Lyn Morelli and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments that greatly improved this manuscript. This research was supported by the Department of the Interior Southeast Climate Adaptation Science Center. Any use of trade, product, or firms names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the US Geological Survey or the Department of Interior. This manuscript is submitted for publication with the understanding that the US Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Governmental purposes.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Newbold T, Hudson LN, Hill SLL, Contu S, Lysenko I, Senior, RA, Börger L, Bennett DJ, Choimes A, Collen B, Day J, DePalma A, Díaz S. Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature. 2015;520:45–50.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14324.
  2. 2.
    Settele J, Scholes R, Betts RA, Bunn S, Leadley P, Nepstad D, et al. Terrestrial and inland water systems. In: Field CB, Barros VR, Dokken DJ, Mach KJ, Mastrandrea MD, editors. Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Part A: Global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of working group II to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA; 2015. p. 271–359.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Parmesan C, Yohe G. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature. 2003;421:37–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Scheffers BR, De Meester L, Bridge TCL, Hoffmann AA, Pandolfi JM, Corlett RT, et al. The broad footprint of climate change from genes to biomes to people. Science. 2016;354:aaf7671.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Urban MC. Accelerating extinction risk from climate change. Science. 2015;348:571–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haddad NM, Brudvig LA, Clobert J, Davies KF, Gonzalez A, Holt RD, et al. Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth ecosystems. Sci Adv. 2015;e1500052:1–9.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Oliver TH, Morecroft MD. Interactions between climate change and land use change on biodiversity: attribution problems, risks, and opportunities. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang. 2014;5:317–35.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mantyka-Pringle CS, Visconti P, Di Marco M, Martin TG, Rondinini C, Rhodes JR. Climate change modifies risk of global biodiversity loss due to land-cover change. Biol Conserv Elsevier Ltd. 2015;187:103–11.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Groves CR, Game ET, Anderson MG, Cross M, Enquist C, Ferdaña Z, et al. Incorporating climate change into systematic conservation planning. Biodivers Conserv. 2012;21:1651–71.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Krosby M, Tewksbury J, Haddad NM, Hoekstra J. Ecological connectivity for a changing climate. Conserv Biol. 2010;24:1686–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heller NE, Zavaleta ES. Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: a review of 22 years of recommendations. Biol Conserv. 2009;142:14–32.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Crooks KR, Sanjayan M. Connectivity conservation: maintaining connections for nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2006.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hilty JA, Lidicker W, Merenlender AM. Corridor ecology: the science and practice of linking landscapes for biodiversity conservation. Washignton, D.C.: Island Press; 2006.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Noss RF. Corridors in real landscapes: a reply to Simberloff and Cox. Conserv Biol. Wiley/Blackwell (10.1111). 1987;1:159–64.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Beier P, Noss RF. Do habitat corridors provide connectivity? Conserv Biol. Wiley/Blackwell (10.1111). 1998;12:1241–52.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cross MS, Hilty JA, Tabor GM, Lawler JJ, Graumlich LJ, Berger J. From connect-the-dots to dynamic networks: maintaining and enhancing connectivity to address climate change impacts on wildlife. In: Brodie J, Doak D, Post E, editors. Climate change and wildlife conservation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2013. p. 307–29.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brost BM, Beier P. Use of land facets to design linkages for climate change. Ecol Appl. 2012;22:87–103.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McGuire JL, Lawler JJ, McRae BH, Nuñez TA, Theobald DM. Achieving climate connectivity in a fragmented landscape. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2016;113:7195–200.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nuñez TA, Lawler JJ, McRae BH, Pierce DJ, Krosby MB, Kavanagh DM, et al. Connectivity planning to address climate change. Conserv Biol. 2013;27:407–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lawler JJ, Ruesch AS, Olden JD, McRae BH. Projected climate-driven faunal movement routes.Haddad N, editor. Ecol Lett. 2013;16:1014–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dilts TE, Weisberg PJ, Leitner P, Matocq MD, Inman RD, Nussear KE, et al. Multiscale connectivity and graph theory highlight critical areas for conservation under climate change. Ecol Appl. 2016;26:1223–37.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Albert CH, Rayfield B, Dumitru M, Gonzalez A. Applying network theory to prioritize multispecies habitat networks that are robust to climate and land-use change. Conserv Biol. 2017;31:1383–96.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rudnick DA, Ryan SJ, Beier P, Cushman SA, Dieffenbach F, Epps CW, et al. The role of landscape connectivity in planning and implementing conservation and restoration priorities. Issues Ecol. 2012;16:1–20.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cushman SA, McRae B, Adriaensen F, Beier P, Shirley M, Zeller K. Biological corridors and connectivity. Key Top. Conserv. Biol. 2. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons; 2013. p. 384–404.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Loarie SR, Duffy PB, Hamilton H, Asner GP, Field CB, Ackerly DD. The velocity of climate change. Nature. 2009;462:1052–5.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ordonez A, Martinuzzi S, Radeloff VC, Williams JW. Combined speeds of climate and land-use change of the conterminous US until 2050. Nat Clim Chang. 2014;4:811–6.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Weaver CP, Lempert R, Brown C, Hall JA, Revell D, Sarewitz D. Improving the contribution of climate model information to decision making: the value and demands of robust decision frameworks. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Chang. 111 RIVER ST, HOBOKEN 07030-5774, NJ USA: WILEY-BLACKWELL. 2013;4:39–60.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Brás R, Cerdeira JO, Alagador D, Araújo MB. Linking habitats for multiple species. Environ Model Softw Elsevier Ltd. 2013;40:336–9.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kool JT, Moilanen A, Treml EA. Population connectivity: recent advances and new perspectives. Landsc Ecol. 2013;28:165–85.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Opdam P, Wascher D. Climate change meets habitat fragmentation: linking landscape and biogeographical scale levels in research and conservation. Biol Conserv. 2004;117:285–97.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Leonard PB, Sutherland RW, Baldwin RF, Fedak DA, Carnes RG, Montgomery AP. Landscape connectivity losses due to sea level rise and land use change. Anim Conserv. 2016.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Breckheimer I, Haddad NM, Morris WF, Trainor AM, Fields WR, Jobe RT, et al. Defining and evaluating the umbrella species concept for conserving and restoring landscape connectivity. Conserv Biol. 2014;28:1584–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Belote TR, Dietz MS, McRae BH, Theobald DM, McClure ML, Hugh Irwin G, et al. Identifying corridors among large protected areas in the United States. PLoS One. Public Libr Sci. 2016;11:e0154223.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jaeger KL, Olden JD, Pelland NA. Climate change poised to threaten hydrologic connectivity and endemic fishes in dryland streams. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111:1–6.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kostyack J, Lawler JJ, Goble DD, Olden JD, Scott JM. Beyond reserves and corridors: policy solutions to facilitate the movement of plants and animals in a changing climate. Bioscience. 2011;61:713–9.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lacher I, Wilkerson ML. Wildlife connectivity approaches and best practices in U.S. State wildlife action plans. Conserv Biol. 2014;28:13–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Krosby M, Breckheimer I, John Pierce D, Singleton PH, Hall SA, Halupka KC, et al. Focal species and landscape “naturalness” corridor models offer complementary approaches for connectivity conservation planning. Landsc Ecol Springer Netherlands. 2015;30:2121–32.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hamilton CM, Bateman BL, Gorzo JM, Reid B, Thogmartin WE, Peery MZ, et al. Slow and steady wins the race? Future climate and land use change leaves the imperiled Blanding’s turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) behind. Biol Conserv. 2018;222:75–85.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Choe H, Thorne JH, Hijmans R, Kim J, Kwon H, Seo C. Meta-corridor solutions for climate-vulnerable plant species groups in South Korea. Collen B, editor. J Appl Ecol. 2017;54:1742–54.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wasserman TN, Cushman SA, Shirk AS, Landguth EL, Littell JS. Simulating the effects of climate change on population connectivity of American marten (Martes americana) in the northern Rocky Mountains, USA. USA Landsc Ecol. 2012;27:211–25.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Schloss CA, Nunez TA, Lawler JJ. Dispersal will limit ability of mammals to track climate change in the Western Hemisphere. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2012;109:8606–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Jones KR, Watson JEM, Possingham HP, Klein CJ. Incorporating climate change into spatial conservation prioritisation: a review. Biol Conserv. 2016;194:121–30.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Stanturf JA, Palik BJ, Dumroese RK. Contemporary forest restoration: a review emphasizing function. For Ecol Manage. Elsevier B.V. 2014;331:292–323.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Keppel G, Van Niel KP, Wardell-Johnson GW, Yates CJ, Byrne M, Mucina L, et al. Refugia: identifying and understanding safe havens for biodiversity under climate change. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 2012;21:393–404.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Morelli TL, Daly C, Dobrowski SZ, Dulen DM, Ebersole JL, Jackson ST, et al. Managing climate change refugia for climate adaptation. PLoS One. 2016;11:1–17.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Makino A, Yamano H, Beger M, Klein CJ, Yara Y, Possingham HP. Spatio-temporal marine conservation planning to support high-latitude coral range expansion under climate change. Divers Distrib. 2014;20:859–71.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Alagador D, Cerdeira JO, Araujo MB. Shifting protected areas: scheduling spatial priorities under climate change. J Appl Ecol. 2014;51:703–13.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Alagador D, Cerdeira JO, Araujo MB. Climate change, species range shifts and dispersal corridors: an evaluation of spatial conservation models. Methods Ecol Evol. 2016;7:853–66.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Gillingham PK, Bradbury RB, Roy DB, Anderson BJ, Baxter JM, Bourn NAD, et al. The effectiveness of protected areas in the conservation of species with changing geographical ranges. Biol J Linn Soc. 2015;115:707–17.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Thomas CD, Gillingham PK, Bradbury RB, Roy DB, Anderson BJ, Baxter JM, et al. Protected areas facilitate species’ range expansions. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2012;109:14063–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Strange N, Thorsen BJ, Bladt J, Wilson KA, Rahbek C. Conservation policies and planning under climate change. Biol Conserv. 2011;144:2968–77.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Taylor CM, Laughlin AJ, Hall RJ. The response of migratory populations to phenological change: a Migratory Flow Network modelling approach. Gill J, editor. J Anim Ecol. 2016;85:648–59.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Mallory ML, Ando AW. Implementing efficient conservation portfolio design. Resour Energy Econ. 2014;38:1–18.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Oliver TH, Brereton T, Roy DB. Population resilience to an extreme drought is influenced by habitat area and fragmentation in the local landscape. Ecography Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2013;36:579–86.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Beier P. Conceptualizing and designing corridors for climate change. Ecol Restor. 2012;30:312–9.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Tingley MW, Darling ES, Wilcove DS. Fine- and coarse-filter conservation strategies in a time of climate change. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2014;1322:92–109.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Beier P, Hunter ML, Anderson M. Introduction to special section: conserving nature’s stage. Conserv Biol. 2015;29:613–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Anderson MG, Ferree CE. Conserving the stage: climate change and the geophysical underpinnings of species diversity. PLoS One. 2010;5:e11554.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Hunter M, Jacobson JGL, Webb T. Paleoecology and the coarse-filter approach to mantaining biological diversity. Conserv Biol. 1988;375–85.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Noss RF. From plant communities to landscapes in conservation inventories: a look at the nature conservancy (USA). Biol Conserv. 1987;41:11–37.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Gray M. Geodiversity: developing the paradigm. Proc Geol Assoc The Geologists’ Association. 2008;119:287–98.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Gray M, Gordon JE, Brown EJ. Geodiversity and the ecosystem approach: The contribution of geoscience in delivering integrated environmental management. Proc Geol Assoc. The Geologists’ Association. 2013;124:659–73.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Beier P, Brost B. Use of land facets to plan for climate change: conserving the arenas. Not the Actors Conserv Biol. 2010;24:701–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Albano CM. Identification of geophysically diverse locations that may facilitate species’ persistence and adaptation to climate change in the southwestern United States. Landsc. Ecol. Springer Netherlands. 2015;30:1023–37.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Brost BM, Beier P. Comparing linkage designs based on land facets to linkage designs based on focal species. PLoS One. 2012;7:e48965.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Fremier AK, Kiparsky M, Gmur S, Aycrigg J, Craig RK, Svancara LK, et al. A riparian conservation network for ecological resilience. Biol Conserv. 2015;191:29–37.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Theobald DM, Reed SE, Fields K, Soulé M. Connecting natural landscapes using a landscape permeability model to prioritize conservation activities in the United States. Conserv Lett. 2012;5:123–33.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Henry E. Disturbance and conservation of at-risk butterflies. Ph.D. dissertation. North Carolina State University; 2018.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Lawler JJ, Ackerly DD, Albano CM, Anderson MG, Dobrowski SZ, Gill JL, et al. The theory behind, and the challenges of, conserving nature’s stage in a time of rapid change. Conserv Biol. 2015;29:618–29.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Walston LJ, Hartmann HM. Development of a landscape integrity model framework to support regional conservation planning. PLoS One. 2018;13:e0195115.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195115.
  71. 71.
    Jones B, O’Neill BC. Spatially explicit global population scenarios consistent with the shared socioeconomic pathways. Environ Res Lett. 2016;11:84003.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Sohl TL, Wimberly MC, Radeloff VC, Theobald DM, Sleeter BM. Divergent projections of future land use in the United States arising from different models and scenarios. Ecol Modell Elsevier B.V. 2016;337:281–97.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Sohl T, Sayler K, Bouchard M. Spatially explicit modeling of 1992 to 2100 land cover and forest stand age for the conterminous United States. Ecol Appl. 2014;24:1015–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Alexander P, Prestele R, Verburg P, Arneth A, Baranzelli C, Silva FBE, et al. Assessing uncertainties in land cover projections. Glob Chang Biol, 2016.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Titeux N, Henle K, Mihoub J-B, et al. Biodiversity scenarios neglect future land use change. Glob Chang Biol 2016;22:2505–15.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13272.
  76. 76.
    Villemey A, van Halder I, Ouin A, Barbaro L, Chenot J, Tessier P, et al. Mosaic of grasslands and woodlands is more effective than habitat connectivity to conserve butterflies in French farmland. Biol Conserv. Elsevier B.V. 2015;191:20–215.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Bishop-Taylor R, Tulbure MG, Broich M. Evaluating static and dynamic landscape connectivity modelling using a 25-year remote sensing time series. Landsc Ecol. Springer Netherlands. 2018;33:625–40.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Trainor AM, Walters JR, Urban DL, Moody A. Evaluating the effectiveness of a safe harbor program for connecting wildlife populations. Anim Conserv. 2013;16:610–20.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Piquer-Rodríguez M, Torella S, Gavier-Pizarro G, Volante J, Somma D, Ginzburg R, et al. Effects of past and future land conversions on forest connectivity in the Argentine Chaco. Landsc Ecol . Springer Netherlands. 2015;30:817–33.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Mantyka-Pringle CS, Martin TG, Rhodes JR. Interactions between climate and habitat loss effects on biodiversity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Glob Chang Biol. 2012;18:1239–52.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Oliver TH, Gillings S, Pearce-Higgins JW, Brereton T, Crick HQP, Duffield SJ, et al. Large extents of intensive land use limit community reorganization during climate warming. Glob Chang Biol. 2017:1–12.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Cushman SA, Huettmann F, McGarigal K. Habitat fragmentation effects depend on complex interactions between population size and dispersal ability: modeling influences of roads, agriculture and residential development across a range of life-history characteristics. In: Cushman SA, Huettmann F, editors. Spatial complexity, informatics, and wildlife conservation. Tokyo: Springer; 2010. p. 369–85.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Cushman SA, Elliot NB, Macdonald DW, Loveridge AJ. A multi-scale assessment of population connectivity in African lions (Panthera leo) in response to landscape change. Landsc Ecol . Springer Netherlands. 2016;31:1337–53.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Wilson MC, Chen X-Y, Corlett RT, Didham RK, Ding P, Holt RD, et al. Habitat fragmentation and biodiversity conservation: key findings and future challenges. Landsc Ecol Springer Netherlands. 2015;31:219–27.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Latimer CE, Zuckerberg B. Forest fragmentation alters winter microclimates and microrefugia in human-modified landscapes. Ecography. 2017;40:158–70.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Nogués S, Cabarga-Varona A. Modelling land use changes for landscape connectivity: the role of plantation forestry and highways. J Nat Conserv. 2014;22:504–15.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Leonard PB, Baldwin RF, Hanks RD. Landscape-scale conservation design across biotic realms: sequential integration of aquatic and terrestrial landscapes. Sci Rep. Nat Publ Group. 2017;7:14556.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Maxwell SL, Venter O, Jones KR, Watson JEM. Integrating human responses to climate change into conservation vulnerability assessments and adaptation planning. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2015;1355:98–116.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Goh CS, Junginger M, Cocchi M, Marchal D, Thrän D, Hennig C, et al. Wood pellet market and trade: a global perspective. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefining. Wiley-Blackwell. 2013;7:24–42.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Kujala H, Moilanen A, Araújo MB, Cabeza M. Conservation planning with uncertain climate change projections. PLoS One. 2013;8.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Mouquet N, Lagadeuc Y, Devictor V, Doyen L, Duputié A, Eveillard D, et al. Predictive ecology in a changing world. J Appl Ecol. 2015;52:1293–310.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Coleman MA, Cetina-Heredia P, Roughan M, et al. Anticipating changes to future connectivity within a network of marine protected areas. Glob Chang Biol. 2017;23:3533–42.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Fischman RL, Ruhl JB. Judging adaptive management practices of U.S. agencies. Conserv Biol. 2016;30:268–75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Terando AJ, Reich B, Pacifici K, Costanza J, McKerrow A, Collazo JA. Uncertainty quantification and propagation for projections of extremes in monthly area burned under climate change. In: Riley K, Webley P, Thompson M, editors. Natural hazard uncertainty assessment: modeling and decision support. Geophys Monogr. 223. John Wiley & Sons; 2017. p. 245–56.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Forester BR, Dechaine EG, Bunn AG. Integrating ensemble species distribution modelling and statistical phylogeography to inform projections of climate change impacts on species distributions. Divers Distrib. 2013;19:1480–95.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12098
  96. 96.
    Meller L, Cabeza M, Pironon S, Barbet-Massin M, Maiorano L, Georges D, et al. Ensemble distribution models in conservation prioritization: from consensus predictions to consensus reserve networks. Divers Distrib. 2014;20:309–21.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Glick P, Stein BA, Edelson NA. Scanning the conservation horizon: a guide to climate change vulnerability assessment. Washington, DC, USA. 168 pages. 2011.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Iwamura T, Possingham HP, Chadès I, Minton C, Murray NJ, Danny I, et al. Migratory connectivity magnifies the consequences of habitat loss from sea-level rise for shorebird populations. Proc R Soc B-Biol Sci R Soc. 2013;280:1–8.Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Watts K, Eycott AE, Handley P, Ray D, Humphrey JW, Quine CP. Targeting and evaluating biodiversity conservation action within fragmented landscapes: an approach based on generic focal species and least-cost networks. Landsc Ecol. 2010;25:1305–18.Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Theobald DM. A general model to quantify ecological integrity for landscape assessments and US application. Landsc Ecol. 2013;28:1859–74.Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Ackerly DD, Loarie SR, Cornwell WK, Weiss SB, Hamilton H, Branciforte R, et al. The geography of climate change: implications for conservation biogeography. Divers Distrib. 2010;16:476–87.Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Carroll C, Roberts DR, Michalak JL, Lawler JJ, Nielsen SE, Stralberg D, et al. Scale-dependent complementarity of climatic velocity and environmental diversity for identifying priority areas for conservation under climate change. Glob Chang Biol. 2017;23:4508–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Comer PJ, Pressey RL, Hunter ML, Schloss CA, Buttrick SC, Heller NE, et al. Incorporating geodiversity into conservation decisions. Conserv Biol. 2015;29:692–701.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Maher SP, Morelli TL, Hershey M, Flint AL, Flint LE, Moritz C, et al. Erosion of refugia in the Sierra Nevada meadows network with climate change. Ecosphere. 2017;8:e01673.Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Tukiainen H, Alahuhta J, Field R, Ala-Hulkko T, Lampinen R, Hjort J. Spatial relationship between biodiversity and geodiversity across a gradient of land-use intensity in high-latitude landscapes. Landsc Ecol 2017;32:1049–63Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Caplat P, Edelaar P, Dudaniec RY, Green AJ, Okamura B, Cote J, et al. Looking beyond the mountain: dispersal barriers in a changing world. Front Ecol Environ. 2016;14:261–8.Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    McRae BH, Hall SA, Beier P, Theobald DM. Where to restore ecological connectivity? Detecting barriers and quantifying restoration benefits. PLoS One. Public Libr Sci. 2012;7:e52604.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Perring MP, Standish RJ, Price JN, Craig MD, Erickson TE, Ruthrof KX, et al. Advances in restoration ecology: rising to the challenges of the coming decades. Ecosphere. 2015;6:art131.Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Watson JEM, Iwamura T, Butt N. Mapping vulnerability and conservation adaptation strategies under climate change. Nat Clim Chang. 2013;3:989–94.Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Mimet A, Houet T, Julliard R, Simon L. Assessing functional connectivity: a landscape approach for handling multiple ecological requirements. Methods Ecol Evol. 2013;4:453–63.Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Saura S, Bodin Ö, Fortin M-J. Stepping stones are crucial for species’ long-distance dispersal and range expansion through habitat networks. Frair J, editor. J Appl Ecol. 2014;51:171–82.Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Razgour O. Beyond species distribution modeling: a landscape genetics approach to investigating range shifts under future climate change. Ecol Inform. 2015;30:250–6.Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Dilkina B, Houtman R, Gomes CP, Montgomery CA, McKelvey KS, Kendall K, et al. Trade-offs and efficiencies in optimal budget-constrained multispecies corridor networks. Conserv Biol 2016;1–11.Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Hodgson JA, Wallis DW, Krishna R, Cornell SJ. How to manipulate landscapes to improve the potential for range expansion. Methods Ecol Evol. 2016;7:1558–66.Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Lempert R, Popper SW, Bankes SC. Robust decision making: coping with uncertainty. Futurist January-February. 2010. pp. 47–8.Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Bhave AG, Conway D, Dessai S, Stainforth DA. Barriers and opportunities for robust decision making approaches to support climate change adaptation in the developing world. Clim Risk Manag. 2016;14:1–10.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Forestry and Environmental ResourcesNorth Carolina State UniversityResearch Triangle ParkUSA
  2. 2.US Geological SurveySoutheast Climate Adaptation Science CenterRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations