Elsevier

Biological Conservation

Volume 206, February 2017, Pages 201-209
Biological Conservation

Discussion
Monitoring ecological consequences of efforts to restore landscape-scale connectivity

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.12.032Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Movements of animals and plants have been disrupted by habitat loss and land-use change

  • Community-led initiatives to improve connectivity using restoration and revegetation are becoming commonplace, but we don’t know how effective our expenditure and actions are

  • Rather than simply measuring habitat extent or configuration, initiatives must assess the function of connectivity conservation actions and the influence of these actions on population persistence

  • Monitoring should be included at all stages in plans and funding agreements, necessitating input from ecologists in co-ordination, evaluation, analysis and reporting.

Abstract

Managing and restoring connectivity that enables wildlife movement through landscapes is the primary approach to reduce harmful effects of habitat loss and fragmentation. Improved connectivity is also increasingly invoked as a strategy to mitigate negative impacts of climate change by enabling species to track preferred environments and maintain evolutionary processes. Although initiatives to improve connectivity using restoration are becoming commonplace, we do not know how successful these actions are, nor which mechanisms underlie biotic responses.

Most ecological monitoring focuses on site condition or quality rather than those landscape-scale processes that connectivity is intended to facilitate. To assess biodiversity responses to connectivity initiatives, we argue that new monitoring approaches are needed that distinguish the roles of connectivity restoration from those of habitat augmentation or improvement.

To address this critical gap, we developed a conceptual model of the hypothesised roles of connectivity in complex landscapes and a linked framework to guide design of connectivity monitoring approaches in an adaptive management context. We demonstrate that integrated monitoring approaches using complementary methods are essential to reveal whether long-term landscape-scale goals are being achieved, and to determine whether connectivity management and restoration are the mechanisms responsible.

We summarize a real-world example of applying our approach to assist government develop a monitoring plan for a large-scale connectivity conservation initiative in the Australian Capital Territory. As well as highlighting the utility of the framework to help managers make informed choices about monitoring, this example illustrates the difficulties of convincing funding bodies to include monitoring in project budgets and the questions more likely to be answered with limited funds.

Synthesis and applications. Implementing an effective strategy to monitor connectivity conservation initiatives necessarily involves more work but we argue it is an essential investment rather than an additional cost. By optimizing allocation of limited monitoring resources, we can more effectively implement management that improves functional connectivity, and understand how changing connectivity affects population persistence.

Introduction

There has been a worldwide shift away from managing biodiversity within individual protected areas toward whole-of-landscape approaches (Worboys et al., 2010). This is partly because individual reserves are generally too small to support viable populations of many species, so multiple patches need to be connected by movements of individuals and genes to ensure persistence (Crooks and Sanjayan, 2006, Hilty et al., 2006). Moreover, with climates changing at unprecedented rates, the future of many ecosystems (even biomes; Moen et al., 2014) depends on the ability of species to adapt or track shifting regions of habitat suitability. Adaptation to new climates and range-shifting are more likely if populations are functionally large and genetically diverse, both of which are facilitated by ecological connectivity (Sgrò et al., 2011, Driscoll et al., 2012).

This growing appreciation that effective conservation needs large, connected populations has led to landscape-scale connectivity initiatives (or ‘connectivity conservation’ initiatives; Worboys et al., 2010) proliferating in governmental and non-governmental programs (Fig. 1). Several countries base their national conservation strategies on large-scale connectivity (e.g., DeClerck et al., 2010), with concepts like ‘defragmentation’ and ‘rewilding’ being increasingly used to frame policy discussions (Finchman et al., 2014, Drenthen and Keulartz, 2014, Nogués-Bravo et al., 2016). Rather than being motivated by explicit research questions, the intent is usually to manage or restore structural connectivity (physical links between areas) to facilitate movement of individuals and/or genes through the landscape or support large-scale abiotic processes (Soulé et al., 2004). Connectivity is typically viewed in terms of structural measures of habitat (e.g., tree-cover) but such measures may not relate directly to movement or permeability (Kadoya, 2009). That is, structural connectivity need not beget functional connectivity and the conditions required for movement by species vary widely, even within the same region (Amos et al., 2014; see ‘Definitions of connectivity concepts’ section, below). Furthermore, movement needed to support ecological and demographic processes may differ from that needed to support evolutionary processes (Lowe and Allendorf, 2010). Thus monitoring the ecological and evolutionary outcomes of attempts to enhance connectivity is critical to understand which approaches actually achieve their intended purpose.

A major impediment to monitoring connectivity conservation initiatives is that existing approaches to ecological monitoring focus on quantifying changes in metrics such as abundance of target species, species occurrence at patch scales (Worboys et al., 2010) or indirect measures such as habitat extent and configuration (Tischendorf and Fahrig, 2000). While these may be among the desired outcomes of connectivity management initiatives, such approaches do not quantify changes to connectivity nor their influence on biodiversity or ecological dynamics (including modified fire or flow regimes). Moreover, indirect measures of connectivity cannot distinguish proximate changes to populations and ecological processes from effects of habitat augmentation and/or improvement (Driscoll et al., 2014). Thus, conventional inventory- and habitat-based methods are often inappropriate for monitoring connectivity—misaligned with the immediate objectives of connectivity management and the spatial and temporal scales over which actions are expected to have desired effects (Kadoya, 2009, Gregory and Beier, 2014). New monitoring approaches are required to generate consistent and comparable measures of functional connectivity. An integrated approach is also critical to working across the spatial and temporal scales involved to inform on-ground management and restoration efforts in the context of landscape-scale conservation.

Implementing an effective strategy to monitor connectivity conservation initiatives necessarily involves more work but we argue that it is an essential investment rather than an ‘added extra’. Currently, we have no way of judging which on-ground method has the greatest effect on a population, how to make methods work more effectively, or whether these interventions are addressing the long-term objectives of initiatives. In addition to generating information critical for reporting and evaluating effectiveness for particular projects, monitoring multiple initiatives using comparable approaches would enhance our generalized understanding of how connectivity affects populations. For example, are more connected populations necessarily more resistant to stochastic events; does increased connectivity across landscapes reduce the likelihood of invasion by exotic species and resultant changes to community dynamics? By measuring relevant response variables consistently at multiple scales across multiple systems, the mechanistic basis of observed patterns can be revealed, and generalized answers to these questions will emerge, improving our ability to make robust predictions and extrapolate projected outcomes to new sites, species or systems.

To improve connectivity monitoring strategies, we developed a process to guide decisions about what, where, when and how to monitor connectivity management and restoration. Rather than a generic “how to design a connectivity conservation monitoring strategy” or comparing the pros and cons of particular methods or objectives, we provide a novel framework for biologists, conservation managers and policy makers to align objectives of any initiative with planned actions, allowing them to determine how best to monitor the effectiveness of those actions in achieving the stated objectives. We build a conceptual model that makes explicit the many hypothesised links from on-ground connectivity management to organismal movement to the demographic parameters that define population processes and finally to the ultimate conservation outcomes intended. We embed this model within an adaptive management framework (Westgate et al., 2013) to provide a decision-support tool that links objectives to achievable monitoring goals, advising on the most appropriate methods to use for understanding, managing and reporting effects of connectivity restoration. We provide a real-world example of the mismatch between best-practice monitoring applying our approach and the actual approach adopted, comparing how the two strategies relate to aspirational and practical objectives. Our model and decision framework can be used to coordinate monitoring programs to yield generalisable conclusions from diverse conservation initiatives while addressing some of the most fundamental questions in ecology (Sutherland et al., 2013).

Section snippets

Definitions of connectivity concepts

Any discussion of connectivity must begin by clarifying terminology, as key terms have been variously used in the literature. In our conceptual model and decision framework, we use the following definitions:

Structural connectivity refers to the physical arrangement of habitats within a landscape, and is typically measured as a landscape pattern without regard to species-specific movement processes or habitat needs (Tischendorf and Fahrig, 2000). Some recent treatments of the concept account for

Connectivity in complex landscapes

Landscape managers often assume that the relationships are relatively direct between on-ground actions to improve structural connectivity and long-term goals such as maintaining population viability and evolutionary potential, yet ecological theory suggests otherwise (Roshier and Reid, 2003, Bowler and Benton, 2005, Pierson et al., 2015 and references therein). Changes to connectivity are expected to have direct, proximate effects on movement processes, with the ultimate outcomes on population

A decision framework for connectivity monitoring in the real world

Since funds are usually limited, the ideal monitoring program suggested by the conceptual model is unlikely to be achievable within any single connectivity initiative. In this real-world context, informed decisions need to be made about the type and scale of data that best match the monitoring goals (e.g., learning, improving, reporting) and, thus, which goals are achievable with available resources. We therefore modified an established adaptive management framework (Westgate et al., 2013) to

Methods to monitor movement

Multiple methods are available for monitoring at each level of the model, with trade-offs between the complexity/expense of the method and the quality of the information/depth of understanding obtained. There is often an assumption that survey data on species occurrence (and thus tracking distributions and diversity for reporting purposes) are cheaper and easier to collect, making monitoring choices a foregone conclusion based on feasibility and cost. However, new methods for collecting data on

Our decision framework in practice

The Australian Capital Territory (ACT) government is consolidating and connecting over 60,000 ha of remnant box-gum grassy woodland along an urban to rural gradient. The ACT approached two of us (V. & E. Doerr) to develop a plan for monitoring the landscape-scale outcomes of this program of work with a particular focus on improvements in connectivity. We present this plan as a worked example of how our conceptual model and decision framework can inform choices about connectivity monitoring with

Prospect

Limits to funding and resources may mean that managers themselves will only be able to monitor at one level of the model and likely only for a small range of species. Partnerships with researchers, community groups and citizen science initiatives can facilitate more comprehensive monitoring if explicitly linked (Bird et al., 2014). In particular, this allows comparison of a range of species with different dispersal abilities, helping discern relationships between management actions and multiple

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the financial support of the New South Wales Government's Environmental Trust and the Great Eastern Ranges Initiative (courtesy of a Slopes to Summit partnership grant) and the Australian Capital Territory Environment and Sustainable Development Directorate. We thank Gary Howling, Sam Niedra, and Kylie Durant for their invaluable workshop contributions and feedback on an earlier version. RvdR was supported by The Baker Foundation.

References (72)

  • N. Amos et al.

    Species- and sex-specific connectivity effects of habitat fragmentation in a suite of woodland birds

    Ecology

    (2014)
  • S.C. Banks et al.

    Inbreeding avoidance, patch isolation and matrix permeability influence dispersal and settlement choices by male agile antechinus in a fragmented landscape

    J. Anim. Ecol.

    (2014)
  • T. Barrett et al.

    Fine Scale Modelling of Fauna Habitat and Connectivity Values in the ACT Region

    (2012)
  • P. Beier et al.

    Desperately seeking stable 50-year-old landscapes with patches and long, wide corridors

    PLoS Biol.

    (2012)
  • T. Bird et al.

    Estimating population size in the presence of temporary migration using a joint analysis of telemetry and capture-recapture data

    Methods Ecol. Evol.

    (2014)
  • D.E. Bowler et al.

    Causes and consequences of animal dispersal strategies: relating individual behaviour to spatial dynamics

    Biol. Rev.

    (2005)
  • T. Broquet et al.

    Molecular estimation of dispersal for ecology and population genetics

    Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst.

    (2009)
  • J.S. Cabral et al.

    Effects of harvesting flowers from shrubs on the persistence and abundance of wild shrub populations at multiple spatial extents

    Conserv. Biol.

    (2011)
  • H. Dingle

    Migration: The Biology of Life on the Move

    (1996)
  • H. Dingle et al.

    What is migration?

    Bioscience

    (2007)
  • E.D. Doerr et al.

    Dispersal range analysis: quantifying individual variation in dispersal behaviour

    Oecologia

    (2005)
  • V.A.J. Doerr et al.

    Does Structural Connectivity Facilitate Dispersal of Native Species in Australia's Fragmented Terrestrial Landscapes? Systematic Review No. 44

    (2010)
  • V.A.J. Doerr et al.

    Dispersal behaviour of Brown Treecreepers predicts functional connectivity for several other woodland birds

    Emu

    (2011)
  • E.D. Doerr et al.

    Flyways and Byways: Guiding Restoration of Wildlife Corridors—Monitoring Connectivity Restoration in the Australian Capital Territory. A Report Prepared for the Australian Capital Territory Environment and Sustainable Development Directorate

    (2014)
  • M. Double et al.

    Pre-dawn infidelity: females control extra-pair mating in superb fairy-wrens

    Proc. R. Soc. B

    (2000)
  • D.A. Driscoll et al.

    Priorities in policy and management when existing biodiversity stressors interact with climate-change

    Clim. Chang.

    (2012)
  • D.A. Driscoll et al.

    The trajectory of dispersal research in conservation biology. Systematic review

    PLoS ONE

    (2014)
  • R.L. Fischman et al.

    Planning for adaptation to climate change: lessons from the US national wildlife refuge system

    Bioscience

    (2014)
  • T. Graves et al.

    Current approaches using genetic distances produce poor estimates of landscape resistance to inter-individual dispersal

    Mol. Ecol.

    (2013)
  • A.J. Gregory et al.

    Response variables for evaluation of the effectiveness of conservation corridors

    Conserv. Biol.

    (2014)
  • K.A. Harrisson et al.

    Disrupted fine scale population processes in fragmented landscapes despite large scale genetic connectivity for a widespread and common cooperative breeder: the superb fairy-wren (Malurus cyaneus)

    J. Anim. Ecol.

    (2013)
  • J.A. Hilty et al.

    Corridor Ecology: The Science and Practice of Linking Landscapes for Biodiversity Conservation

    (2006)
  • R.A. Holland et al.

    Studying the migratory behavior of individual bats: current techniques and future directions

    J. Mammal.

    (2009)
  • M.N. Jacobi et al.

    Optimal networks of nature reserves can be found through eigenvalue perturbation theory of the connectivity matrix

    Ecol. Appl.

    (2011)
  • Cited by (27)

    • General Landscape Connectivity Model (GLCM): a new way to map whole of landscape biodiversity functional connectivity for operational planning and reporting

      2022, Ecological Modelling
      Citation Excerpt :

      While this is true in stable climatic conditions, landscape connectivity performs a critical role, facilitating migrations to meet the changing geography of habitat suitability due to climate change (Heller and Zavaleta, 2009; Noss, 1991; Prober et al., 2019). With habitat fragmentation and land-use intensification continuing in many parts of the world, and with the alarming pace of climate change, maintaining landscape movement-function has become a major goal of conservation plans (Fischer and Lindenmayer, 2007; Prober et al., 2019; Watson et al., 2017; Worboys et al., 2010). It follows that credible, yet operationally-practical landscape connectivity assessment is needed to inform conservation priorities and plans, monitor trends in the levels of ‘available’ or ‘functional’ habitat, and to report on the effectiveness of conservation actions in promoting habitat availability (Duflot et al., 2018; Fahrig, 2013; Laliberté and St-Laurent, 2020; Watson et al., 2017).

    • Range-wide monitoring of population trends for Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep

      2020, Biological Conservation
      Citation Excerpt :

      That said, it is likely that reports and data sources we used tended toward reporting successful introductions and currently surviving populations of bighorn sheep, rather than reporting unsuccessful introductions and extirpations, which may bias our results toward more positive introduction outcomes. There has been an increasing emphasis on broad-scale conservation and restoration across the globe (Rouget et al., 2006; Watson et al., 2017). The ecosystems that we aim to conserve rarely fall within jurisdictional boundaries, but rather span management units, states, countries, and continents.

    • A generalizable monitoring model to implement policies to promote forest restoration – A case study in São Paulo - Brazil

      2019, Forest Policy and Economics
      Citation Excerpt :

      Among other initiatives, a national multi-stakeholder coalition (the Atlantic Forest Pact) was created with the goal of promoting the restoration of 15 million hectare in the Atlantic Forest biome by 2050 (Viani et al., 2017). Given the increasing investment of time, effort, and money in restoration, there is an urgent need to develop monitoring programs to assess restoration effectiveness (Durigan et al., 2016; Gatica-Saavedra et al., 2017; Watson et al., 2017). Long-term monitoring programs at larger spatial scales are especially growing in importance and have specific challenges to overcome such as consistency, standardization, repeatability, affordability, and continuity (White et al., 2017; Reynolds et al., 2016; Gatica-Saavedra et al., 2017).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text