A national approach for mapping and quantifying habitat-based biodiversity metrics across multiple spatial scales

Abstract Ecosystem services, i.e., services provided to humans from ecological systems have become a key issue of this century in resource management, conservation planning, and environmental decision analysis. Mapping and quantifying ecosystem services have become strategic national interests for integrating ecology with economics to help understand the effects of human policies and actions and their subsequent impacts on both ecosystem function and human well-being. Some aspects of biodiversity are valued by humans in varied ways, and thus are important to include in any assessment that seeks to identify and quantify the benefits of ecosystems to humans. Some biodiversity metrics clearly reflect ecosystem services (e.g., abundance and diversity of harvestable species), whereas others may reflect indirect and difficult to quantify relationships to services (e.g., relevance of species diversity to ecosystem resilience, cultural value of native species). Wildlife habitat has been modeled at broad spatial scales and can be used to map a number of biodiversity metrics. In the present study, we present an approach that (1) identifies mappable biodiversity metrics that are related to ecosystem services or other stakeholder concerns, (2) maps these metrics throughout a large multi-state region, and (3) compares the metric values obtained for selected watersheds within the regional context. The broader focus is to design a flexible approach for mapping metrics to produce a national-scale product. We map 20 biodiversity metrics reflecting ecosystem services or other aspects of biodiversity for all vertebrate species except fish. Metrics include species richness for all vertebrates, specific taxon groups, harvestable species (i.e., upland game, waterfowl, furbearers, small game, and big game), threatened and endangered species, and state-designated species of greatest conservation need, and also a metric for ecosystem (i.e., land cover) diversity. The project is being conducted at multiple scales in a phased approach, starting with place-based studies, then multi-state regional areas, culminating into a national-level atlas. As an example of this incremental approach, we provide results for the southwestern United States (i.e., states of Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and Colorado) and portions of two watersheds within this region: the San Pedro River (Arizona) and Rio Grande River (New Mexico). Geographic patterns differed considerably among metrics across the southwestern study area, but metric values for the two watershed study areas were generally greater than those for the southwestern region as a whole.

[1]  Michael Taylor Diversity of life , 1994, Nature.

[2]  Reed F. Noss,et al.  Endangered Ecosystems of the United States: A Preliminary Assessment of Loss and Degradation , 1996, Restoration & Management Notes.

[3]  John E. Estes,et al.  Species RichnessA geographic approach to protecting future biological diversity , 1987 .

[4]  Hiroyuki Matsuda,et al.  Biodiversity and ecosystem services science for a sustainable planet: the DIVERSITAS vision for 2012-20. , 2012, Current opinion in environmental sustainability.

[5]  D. Goodrich,et al.  Scenario Analysis for the San Pedro River, Analyzing Hydrological Consequences of a Future Environment , 2004, Environmental monitoring and assessment.

[6]  Matt Walpole,et al.  Developing ecosystem service indicators: Experiences and lessons learned from sub-global assessments and other initiatives , 2011 .

[7]  M. Soulé What Is Conservation Biology , 2007 .

[8]  Katherine J. LaJeunesse Connette,et al.  Conservation Biology , 2009, The Quarterly review of biology.

[9]  K. Boykin,et al.  Accuracy of gap analysis habitat models in predicting physical features for wildlife-habitat associations in the southwest U.S. , 2010 .

[10]  P. Kareiva,et al.  An ecosystem services framework to support both practical conservation and economic development , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[11]  Pushpam Kumar,et al.  The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity : mainstreaming the economics of nature : a synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB , 2010 .

[12]  K. Schulz,et al.  ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS OF THE UNITED STATES A WORKING CLASSIFICATION OF U . S . TERRESTRIAL SYSTEMS � � � � � , 2003 .

[13]  H. Tallis,et al.  A Critical Analysis of Ecosystem Services as a Tool in Conservation Projects , 2009, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[14]  Brian Wynne,et al.  Conservation policy: Listen to the voices of experience , 2012, Nature.

[15]  R. D. Ramsey,et al.  Mapping moderate-scale land-cover over very large geographic areas within a collaborative framework : A case study of the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project (SWReGAP) , 2007 .

[16]  Richard Silberglitt A. Scenario Analysis , 2001 .

[17]  A. Troy,et al.  Linking Ecology and Economics for Ecosystem Management , 2006 .

[18]  N. Dulvy,et al.  Linked indicator sets for addressing biodiversity loss , 2011, Oryx.

[19]  K. Boykin,et al.  Spatial Identification of Statewide Areas for Conservation Focus in New Mexico: Implications for State Conservation Efforts , 2011 .

[20]  B. Ridder Questioning the ecosystem services argument for biodiversity conservation , 2008, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[21]  Zong-ci Zhao,et al.  Climate change 2001, the scientific basis, chap. 8: model evaluation. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC , 2001 .

[22]  J. Bart,et al.  Response of Vegetation and Breeding Birds to the Removal of Cattle on the San Pedro River, Arizona (U.S.A.) , 2003 .

[23]  J. L. Sincock,et al.  Forest Bird Communities of the Hawaiian Islands: Their Dynamics, Ecology, and Conservation , 1989 .

[24]  Anne Choate,et al.  National housing and impervious surface scenarios for integrated climate impact assessments , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[25]  M. Noguer,et al.  Climate change 2001: The scientific basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , 2002 .

[26]  George Gaylord Simpson,et al.  Species Density of North American Recent Mammals , 1964 .

[27]  Megan Mehaffey,et al.  INTEGRATING LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT AND HYDROLOGIC MODELING FOR LAND COVER CHANGE ANALYSIS 1 , 2002 .

[28]  D. Richardson,et al.  Spatial congruence between biodiversity and ecosystem services in South Africa , 2009 .

[29]  J. Emmett Duffy Why biodiversity is important to the functioning of real‐world ecosystems , 2009 .

[30]  E. Wilson,et al.  Monitoring Biological Diversity for Setting Priorities in Conservation , 1988 .

[31]  D. Finch,et al.  Ecology, diversity, and sustainability of the Middle Rio Grande Basin , 1995 .