Abstract
BackgroundMaintaining and restoring connectivity between source populations is essential for the long term viability of wide-ranging species, many of which occur in landscapes that are under pressure to meet increasing infrastructure needs. Identifying barriers in corridors can help inform conservation and infrastructure development agencies so that development objectives can be achieved without compromising conservation goals. Here, we use the tiger landscape in central India as a case study to identify barriers, associate them with existing infrastructure, and quantify the potential improvement by restoring or mitigating barriers. Additionally, we propose an approach to categorize linkages based on their current status within and between Protected Areas (PAs).MethodsWe generated a hybrid landuse-landcover map of our study area by merging datasets. We used least-cost methods and circuit theory to map corridors and generate linkage metrics. We mapped barriers and used the improvement score (IS) metric to quantify potential improvement by restoring or mitigating them. Based on criteria that represent the status of corridors between-PAs and populations within-PAs, we ranked linkages into one of four categories: Cat1—linkages that currently have high quality and potential for tiger connectivity and should be maintained, Cat2W—linkages where focus on habitat and tiger populations may improve connectivity, Cat2B—linkages where focus on reducing barriers between PAs may improve connectivity, and Cat3—linkages where effort is needed to both reduce barriers between PAs and improve tiger populations and habitat within PAs. We associated barriers with infrastructure and present maps to show where restoration or mitigation measures can be targeted to have the highest potential impact.ResultsWe mapped 567 barriers within 30 linkages in this landscape, of which 265 barriers intersect with infrastructure (694 km of roads, 150 km of railway, 48 reservoirs, 10 mines) and 302 barriers are due to land-use or gaps in forest cover. Eighty-six barriers have both roads and railways. We identified 7 Cat1, 4 Cat2w, 9 Cat2b, and 10 Cat3 linkages. Eighty surface mines and thermal power plants are within 10 km of the least-cost paths, and more coal mines are closer to connectivity areas where linkages are narrow and rank poorly on both axes.DiscussionWe present spatial and quantitative results that can help conservation practitioners target mitigation and restoration efforts. India is on the path to rapid economic growth, with infrastructure development planned in biodiversity-rich areas. The mitigation hierarchy of avoiding, minimizing, and offsetting impacts due to proposed development projects can be applied to corridors in this landscape. Cross-sectoral cooperation at early stages of project life-cycles to site, design, and implement solutions can maintain connectivity while meeting infrastructure needs in this rapidly changing landscape.
Highlights
Wildlife conservation is increasingly focused at landscape scales, an approach that requires reconciliation of human needs with conservation priorities within and outside protected areas (PAs)
Of the cells that were classified as corridors, ∼52% were identified as corridors in more than 9 resistance schemes and ∼46% were consistently identified in all 12 schemes
The connectivity analysis resulted in thirty-one linkages, of which thirty linkages consistently appeared in the 17 sensitivity test runs (S2)
Summary
Wildlife conservation is increasingly focused at landscape scales, an approach that requires reconciliation of human needs with conservation priorities within and outside protected areas (PAs). Large mammalian carnivores have large area requirements, low densities, complex land-tenure systems, and long dispersal distances These traits do not match the size and distribution of existing PAs, where most conservation effort is often directed (Chundawat et al, 2016). Based on criteria that represent the status of corridors between-PAs and populations within-PAs, we ranked linkages into one of four categories: Cat1—linkages that currently have high quality and potential for tiger connectivity and should be maintained, Cat2W—linkages where focus on habitat and tiger populations may improve connectivity, Cat2B—linkages where focus on reducing barriers between PAs may improve connectivity, and Cat3— linkages where effort is needed to both reduce barriers between PAs and improve tiger populations and habitat within PAs. We associated barriers with infrastructure and present maps to show where restoration or mitigation measures can be targeted to have the highest potential impact. Category 1 Category 2b Category 2w Category 3 Least-cost corridors (weighted meters) High cost Low cost
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
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 call
