Abstract
Conservation scientists emphasize the importance of maintaining a connected network of protected areas to prevent ecosystems and populations from becoming isolated, reduce the risk of extinction, and ultimately sustain biodiversity. Keeping protected areas connected in a network is increasingly recognized as a conservation priority in the current era of rapid climate change. Models that identify suitable linkages between core areas have been used to prioritize potentially important corridors for maintaining functional connectivity. Here, we identify the most “natural” (i.e., least human-modified) corridors between large protected areas in the contiguous Unites States. We aggregated results from multiple connectivity models to develop a composite map of corridors reflecting agreement of models run under different assumptions about how human modification of land may influence connectivity. To identify which land units are most important for sustaining structural connectivity, we used the composite map of corridors to evaluate connectivity priorities in two ways: (1) among land units outside of our pool of large core protected areas and (2) among units administratively protected as Inventoried Roadless (IRAs) or Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). Corridor values varied substantially among classes of “unprotected” non-core land units, and land units of high connectivity value and priority represent diverse ownerships and existing levels of protections. We provide a ranking of IRAs and WSAs that should be prioritized for additional protection to maintain minimal human modification. Our results provide a coarse-scale assessment of connectivity priorities for maintaining a connected network of protected areas.
Highlights
Protected areas or ecological reserves form the foundation of conservation strategies to sustain biological diversity [1]
Western regions tended to have lower resistance values leading to higher corridor values, but many eastern regions host relatively well-connected networks of protected areas (Figs 3 and 4)
By far the greatest number of Protected Area Database (PAD) units outside of core protected areas are managed by the U.S Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, and many of these units (IRAs and Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs)) are eligible to receive a higher level of protection through administrative or legislative means
Summary
Protected areas or ecological reserves (e.g., wilderness areas, national parks) form the foundation of conservation strategies to sustain biological diversity [1]. May not provide for species migration and dispersal or ecological flows of materials required to sustain genetic and species diversity, population recovery, and ecosystem processes [4]. Protected areas unconnected to a network may serve only as temporary insular ecosystems, vulnerable to population isolation or environmental change [5, 6] and may be at greater risk of experiencing local species extirpations. Creating, restoring, and maintaining large, connected networks of protected areas has emerged as one of the highest priorities for conservation in the age of climate change [8,9,10,11]. Maintaining relatively natural and undeveloped connections between protected areas in a network of ecological reserves may be the best means for conserving biodiversity and in the future [13]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
