A Framework to Optimize Biodiversity Restoration Efforts Based on Habitat Amount and Landscape Connectivity

The effectiveness of ecological restoration actions toward biodiversity conservation depends on both local and landscape constraints. Extensive information on local constraints is already available, but few studies consider the landscape context when planning restoration actions. We propose a multiscale framework based on the landscape attributes of habitat amount and connectivity to infer landscape resilience and to set priority areas for restoration. Landscapes with intermediate habitat amount and where connectivity remains sufficiently high to favor recolonization were considered to be intermediately resilient, with high possibilities of restoration effectiveness and thus were designated as priority areas for restoration actions. The proposed method consists of three steps: (1) quantifying habitat amount and connectivity; (2) using landscape ecology theory to identify intermediate resilience landscapes based on habitat amount, percolation theory, and landscape connectivity; and (3) ranking landscapes according to their importance as corridors or bottlenecks for biological flows on a broader scale, based on a graph theory approach. We present a case study for the Brazilian Atlantic Forest (approximately 150 million hectares) in order to demonstrate the proposed method. For the Atlantic Forest, landscapes that present high restoration effectiveness represent only 10% of the region, but contain approximately 15 million hectares that could be targeted for restoration actions (an area similar to today's remaining forest extent). The proposed method represents a practical way to both plan restoration actions and optimize biodiversity conservation efforts by focusing on landscapes that would result in greater conservation benefits.

[1]  S. Bell,et al.  Linking Restoration and Landscape Ecology , 1997 .

[2]  A. Newton,et al.  Enhancement of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services by Ecological Restoration: A Meta-Analysis , 2009, Science.

[3]  Richard J. Hobbs,et al.  Setting Effective and Realistic Restoration Goals: Key Directions for Research , 2007 .

[4]  J. Metzger,et al.  Evaluating the legacy of landscape history: extinction debt and species credit in bird and small mammal assemblages in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest , 2012 .

[5]  T. Tokola,et al.  Vegetation Dynamics and Forest Landscape Restoration in the Upper Min River Watershed, Sichuan, China , 2008 .

[6]  J. Louzada,et al.  Towards environmentally sustainable agriculture in Brazil: challenges and opportunities for applied ecological research , 2012 .

[7]  K. Holl,et al.  Landscape Restoration: Moving from Generalities to Methodologies , 2003 .

[8]  M. Fortin,et al.  The Brazilian Atlantic Forest: A Shrinking Biodiversity Hotspot , 2011 .

[9]  J. Metzger,et al.  Associations of Forest Cover, Fragment Area, and Connectivity with Neotropical Understory Bird Species Richness and Abundance , 2012, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[10]  James Aronson,et al.  Emerging Threats and Opportunities for Large‐Scale Ecological Restoration in the Atlantic Forest of Brazil , 2011 .

[11]  K. Holl,et al.  Tropical forest recovery and restoration , 1999 .

[12]  Timothy H. Keitt,et al.  LANDSCAPE CONNECTIVITY: A GRAPH‐THEORETIC PERSPECTIVE , 2001 .

[13]  H. Andrén,et al.  Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review , 1994 .

[14]  Kendra Cipollini,et al.  Planning for Restoration: A Decision Analysis Approach to Prioritization , 2005 .

[15]  Carsten Thies,et al.  REVIEWS AND SYNTHESES Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity - ecosystem service management , 2005 .

[16]  Ricardo Ribeiro Rodrigues,et al.  On the restoration of high diversity forests: 30 years of experience in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. , 2009 .

[17]  S. McLachlan,et al.  Outcomes of longterm deciduous forest restoration in southwestern Ontario, Canada , 2003 .

[18]  Jean Paul Metzger,et al.  Using gap‐crossing capacity to evaluate functional connectivity of two Atlantic rainforest birds and their response to fragmentation , 2008 .

[19]  A. G. Endress,et al.  Relative influence of landscape vs. local factors on plant community assembly in restored wetlands. , 2009, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[20]  Jean Paul Metzger,et al.  Importance of Interhabitat Gaps and Stepping‐Stones for Lesser Woodcreepers (Xiphorhynchus fuscus) in the Atlantic Forest, Brazil , 2008 .

[21]  Jean Paul Metzger,et al.  The Brazilian Atlantic Forest: How much is left, and how is the remaining forest distributed? Implications for conservation , 2009 .

[22]  H. Jacquemyn,et al.  Impacts of Restored Patch Density and Distance from Natural Forests on Colonization Success , 2003 .

[23]  Jean Paul Metzger,et al.  Isolation determines patterns of species presence in highly fragmented landscapes , 2011 .

[24]  A. Bennett,et al.  Where and when to revegetate: a quantitative method for scheduling landscape reconstruction. , 2009, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[25]  Santiago Saura,et al.  Conefor Sensinode 2.2: A software package for quantifying the importance of habitat patches for landscape connectivity , 2009, Environ. Model. Softw..

[26]  M. Ribeiro,et al.  Anchor Areas to Improve Conservation and Increase Connectivity within the Brazilian "Mesopotamia of Biodiversity" , 2011 .

[27]  Jean Paul Metzger,et al.  Relative effects of fragment size and connectivity on bird community in the Atlantic Rain Forest: Implications for conservation , 2008 .

[28]  Dean L Urban,et al.  Graph theory as a proxy for spatially explicit population models in conservation planning. , 2007, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[29]  N. Crossman,et al.  Identifying cost-effective hotspots for restoring natural capital and enhancing landscape multifunctionality , 2009 .

[30]  S. Hall,et al.  Rethinking Conservation Practice in Light of Climate Change , 2009, Ecological Restoration.

[31]  J. Metzger Conservation issues in the Brazilian Atlantic forest , 2009 .

[32]  J. Metzger,et al.  Is bird incidence in Atlantic forest fragments influenced by landscape patterns at multiple scales? , 2009, Landscape Ecology.

[33]  J. Metzger,et al.  Can agroforest woodlots work as stepping stones for birds in the Atlantic forest region? , 2008, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[34]  K. Gross,et al.  Alternative states and positive feedbacks in restoration ecology. , 2004, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[35]  Santiago Saura,et al.  A common currency for the different ways in which patches and links can contribute to habitat availability and connectivity in the landscape , 2010 .

[36]  Lenore Fahrig,et al.  What size is a biologically relevant landscape? , 2012, Landscape Ecology.

[37]  Jean Paul Metzger,et al.  Time-lag in biological responses to landscape changes in a highly dynamic Atlantic forest region , 2009 .

[38]  D. Lindenmayer,et al.  Reptile and arboreal marsupial response to replanted vegetation in agricultural landscapes. , 2007, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[39]  V. Kapos,et al.  Comparing species and measures of landscape structure as indicators of conservation importance , 2011 .

[40]  J. Metzger,et al.  Beyond the Fragmentation Threshold Hypothesis: Regime Shifts in Biodiversity Across Fragmented Landscapes , 2010, PloS one.

[41]  D. Twedt,et al.  A Spatially Explicit Decision Support Model for Restoration of Forest Bird Habitat , 2006, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[42]  L. Fahrig Effects of Habitat Fragmentation on Biodiversity , 2003 .

[43]  R. Hobbs,et al.  Novel ecosystems: implications for conservation and restoration. , 2009, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[44]  A. Ausseil,et al.  Will use of non-biodiversity objectives to select areas for ecological restoration always compromise biodiversity gains? , 2012 .

[45]  R. Mittermeier,et al.  Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities , 2000, Nature.

[46]  R. Lambeck,et al.  Focal Species: a Multi-species Umbrella for Nature Conservation Focal Species for Nature Conservation Lambeck , 2022 .

[47]  Eve McDonald-Madden,et al.  Is conservation triage just smart decision making? , 2008, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[48]  Renato Crouzeilles,et al.  DESLOCAMENTO NA MATRIZ PARA ESPÉCIES DA MATA ATLÂNTICA E A DIFICULDADE DA CONSTRUÇÃO DE PERFIS ECOLÓGICOS , 2010 .

[49]  R. Chazdon Beyond Deforestation: Restoring Forests and Ecosystem Services on Degraded Lands , 2008, Science.

[50]  Santiago Saura,et al.  A new habitat availability index to integrate connectivity in landscape conservation planning : Comparison with existing indices and application to a case study , 2007 .

[51]  Karen D. Holl,et al.  When and where to actively restore ecosystems , 2011 .