A landscape triage approach: combining spatial and temporal dynamics to prioritize restoration and conservation

Summary The spatial and temporal dynamics of landscape structure yield ecological constraints that may limit or promote the recovery of functioning habitat within human-modified ecosystems. In planning restoration and conservation measures to optimize outcomes for biodiversity, such constraints should be evaluated at multiple scales. This study presents a multi-scale methodology based on the concept of triage that incorporates landscape and regional spatial context and temporal dynamics to prioritize restoration and conservation. In applying the framework to a large Brazilian Atlantic forest study site that underwent substantial forest cover changes between 1990 and 2002, our results demonstrate the utility of this framework for navigating between different trade-offs inherent to biodiversity conservation. Landscapes are ranked in accordance with indicators that evaluate the relative urgency of intervention, feasibility of recovery and importance for broader-scale biotic flows. Synthesis and applications. Efforts to enhance biodiversity through restoration and/or conservation may be hampered when decisions are based exclusively on contemporary landscape structure, and not made through a historical perspective. In making such trade-offs explicit, this framework can aid practitioners in defining the most appropriate set of restoration or conservation strategies given the ecological constraints, biodiversity goals and available budget.

[1]  S. Saura,et al.  Comparison and development of new graph-based landscape connectivity indices: towards the priorization of habitat patches and corridors for conservation , 2006, Landscape Ecology.

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

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

[4]  R. Cerqueira,et al.  Land use vs. fragment size and isolation as determinants of small mammal composition and richness in Atlantic Forest remnants , 2009 .

[5]  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.

[6]  William F. Laurance,et al.  Near-Complete Extinction of Native Small Mammal Fauna 25 Years After Forest Fragmentation , 2013, Science.

[7]  Scott G. Leibowitz,et al.  A General Framework for Prioritizing Land Units for Ecological Protection and Restoration , 2000, Environmental management.

[8]  Adrian C. Newton,et al.  Benayas Restoration : A Meta-Analysis Enhancement of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services by Ecological , 2012 .

[9]  Andrew Fall,et al.  The Effects of Spatial Legacies following Shifting Management Practices and Fire on Boreal Forest Age Structure , 2007, Ecosystems.

[10]  Volker C. Radeloff,et al.  Effects of different matrix representations and connectivity measures on habitat network assessments , 2014, Landscape Ecology.

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

[12]  Lenore Fahrig,et al.  Mechanisms Affecting Population Density in Fragmented Habitat , 2005 .

[13]  David B. Lindenmayer,et al.  Stretch Goals and Backcasting: Approaches for Overcoming Barriers to Large‐Scale Ecological Restoration , 2006 .

[14]  David B. Lindenmayer,et al.  A species-centered approach for uncovering generalities in organism responses to habitat loss and fragmentation , 2014 .

[15]  M. Nowak,et al.  Habitat destruction and the extinction debt , 1994, Nature.

[16]  P. Ehrlich,et al.  Intervention Ecology: Applying Ecological Science in the Twenty-first Century , 2011 .

[17]  W. W. Thomas,et al.  Plant endemism in two forests in southern Bahia, Brazil , 1998, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[18]  B. Bestelmeyer.  Threshold Concepts and Their Use in Rangeland Management and Restoration: The Good, the Bad, and the Insidious , 2006 .

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

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

[21]  Richard J. Hobbs,et al.  Triage: How do we prioritize health care for landscapes? , 2003 .

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

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

[24]  M. Pärtel,et al.  Extinction debt: a challenge for biodiversity conservation. , 2009, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[25]  J. Metzger,et al.  A Framework for Setting Local Restoration Priorities Based on Landscape Context , 2013 .

[26]  Garry D. Peterson.  Contagious Disturbance, Ecological Memory, and the Emergence of Landscape Pattern , 2002, Ecosystems.

[27]  S. Zack,et al.  Spatial and Temporal Considerations in Restoring Habitat for Wildlife , 2001 .

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

[29]  Paulo Salles,et al.  How may agricultural matrix intensification affect understory birds in an Atlantic Forest landscape? A qualitative model on stochasticity and immigration , 2013, Ecol. Informatics.

[30]  Jean Paul Metzger,et al.  Landscape Ecology Perspective in Restoration Projects for Biodiversity Conservation: a Review , 2013 .

[31]  Astrid J.A. van Teeffelen,et al.  Species in a dynamic world: Consequences of habitat network dynamics on conservation planning , 2012 .

[32]  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 .

[33]  Jean Paul Metzger,et al.  A Framework to Optimize Biodiversity Restoration Efforts Based on Habitat Amount and Landscape Connectivity , 2014 .

[34]  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 .

[35]  A. King,et al.  ON THE IMPORTANCE OF LANDSCAPE HISTORY FOR ASSESSING EXTINCTION RISK , 2005 .

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

[37]  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.

[38]  P. Opdam,et al.  Resilience-based governance in rural landscapes: Experiments with agri-environment schemes using a spatially explicit agent-based model , 2013 .

[39]  M. Chhowalla.  Synthesis and Applications , 2016 .

[40]  J. Metzger,et al.  Using ecological thresholds to evaluate the costs and benefits of set-asides in a biodiversity hotspot , 2014, Science.

[41]  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..

[42]  J. Metzger,et al.  REVIEW: Beyond the fragmentation debate: a conceptual model to predict when habitat configuration really matters , 2014 .