Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:30:49.098Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Change in agricultural land use constrains adaptation of national wildlife refuges to climate change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2014

CHRISTOPHER M. HAMILTON ,
WAYNE E. THOGMARTIN ,
VOLKER C. RADELOFF ,
ANDREW J. PLANTINGA ,
PATRICIA J. HEGLUND ,
SEBASTIAN MARTINUZZI  and
ANNA M. PIDGEON
CHRISTOPHER M. HAMILTON
Affiliation:
Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA
WAYNE E. THOGMARTIN*
Affiliation:
United States Geological Survey, Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, 2630 Fanta Reed Road, La Crosse, WI 54603, USA
VOLKER C. RADELOFF
Affiliation:
Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA
ANDREW J. PLANTINGA
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331, USA
PATRICIA J. HEGLUND
Affiliation:
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, 2630 Fanta Reed Road, La Crosse, WI 54603, USA
SEBASTIAN MARTINUZZI
Affiliation:
Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA
ANNA M. PIDGEON
Affiliation:
Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA
*
*Correspondence: Wayne E. Thogmartin Tel: +1 608 781 6309 e-mail:wthogmartin@usgs.gov
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Land-use change around protected areas limits their ability to conserve biodiversity by altering ecological processes such as natural hydrologic and disturbance regimes, facilitating species invasions, and interfering with dispersal of organisms. This paper informs USA National Wildlife Refuge System conservation planning by predicting future land-use change on lands within 25 km distance of 461 refuges in the USA using an econometric model. The model contained two differing policy scenarios, namely a ‘business-as-usual’ scenario and a ‘pro-agriculture’ scenario. Regardless of scenario, by 2051, forest cover and urban land use were predicted to increase around refuges, while the extent of range and pasture was predicted to decrease; cropland use decreased under the business-as-usual scenario, but increased under the pro-agriculture scenario. Increasing agricultural land value under the pro-agriculture scenario slowed an expected increase in forest around refuges, and doubled the rate of range and pasture loss. Intensity of land-use change on lands surrounding refuges differed by regions. Regional differences among scenarios revealed that an understanding of regional and local land-use dynamics and management options was an essential requirement to effectively manage these conserved lands. Such knowledge is particularly important given the predicted need to adapt to a changing global climate.

Keywords

climate changeconservation estateeconometric modellingland-use change
Type
Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 12 - 19
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Boswell, G.P., Britton, N.F. & Franks, N.R. (1998) Habitat fragmentation, percolation theory and the conservation of a keystone species. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 265: 1921–1925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coreau, A., Pinay, G., Thompson, J.D., Cheptou, P.-O. & Mermet, L. (2009) The rise of research on futures in ecology: rebalancing scenarios and predictions. Ecology Letters 12: 1277–1286.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crossman, N.D., Bryan, B.A. & Summers, D.M. (2012) Identifying priority areas for reducing species vulnerability to climate change. Diversity and Distributions 18: 60–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dale, V.H., Kline, K.L., Wright, L.L., Perlack, R.D., Downing, M. & Graham, R.L. (2011) Interactions among bioenergy feedstock choices, landscape dynamics, and land use. Ecological Applications 21: 1039–1054.Google Scholar
Ellis, E.C., Klein Goldewijk, K., Siebert, S., Lightman, D. & Ramankutty, N. (2010) Anthropogenic transformation of the biomes, 1700 to 2000. Global Ecology and Biogeography 19: 589–606.Google Scholar
ESRI (2011) ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CA, USA.Google Scholar
Fahrig, L. (2001) How much habitat is enough? Biological Conservation 100: 65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleishman, E., Blockstein, D.E., Hall, J.A., Mascia, M.B., Rudd, M.A., Scott, J.M., Sutherland, W.J., Bartuska, A.M., Brown, A.G., Christen, C.A., Clement, J.P., DellaSala, D., Duke, C.S., Eaton, M., Fiske, S.J., Gosnell, H., Haney, J.C., Hutchins, M., Klein, M.L., Marqusee, J., et al. (2011) Top 40 priorities for science to inform US conservation and management policy. Bioscience 61: 290–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foley, J.A., DeFries, R., Asner, G.P., Barford, C., Bonan, G., Carpenter, S.R., Chapin, F.S., Coe, M.T., Daily, G.C., Gibbs, H.K., Helkowski, J.H., Holloway, T., Howard, E.A., Kucharik, C.J., Monfreda, C., Patz, J.A., Prentice, I.C., Ramankutty, N. & Snyder, P.K. (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science 309: 570–574.Google Scholar
Foley, J.A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K.A., Cassidy, E.S., Gerber, J.S., Johnston, M., Mueller, N.D., O’Connell, C., Ray, D.K., West, P.C., Balzer, C., Bennett, E.M., Carpenter, S.R., Hill, J., Monfreda, C., Polasky, S., Rockstrom, J., Sheehan, J., Siebert, S., Tilman, D., et al. (2011) Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature (London) 478: 337–342.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Folke, C., Carpenter, S.R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T. & Rockstrom, J. (2010) Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and Society 15: art. 20.Google Scholar
Franklin, J.F. & Lindenmayer, D.B. (2009) Importance of matrix habitats in maintaining biological diversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 106: 349–350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gagne, S.A. & Fahrig, L. (2010 a) The trade-off between housing density and sprawl area: minimizing impacts to Carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Ecology and Society 15: art. 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gagne, S.A. & Fahrig, L. (2010 b) The trade-off between housing density and sprawl area: minimising impacts to forest breeding birds. Basic and Applied Ecology 11: 723–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffith, B., Scott, J.M., Adamcik, R., Ashe, D., Czech, B., Fischman, R., Gonzalez, P., Lawler, J., McGuire, A.D. & Pidgorna, A. (2009) Climate change adaptation for the US National Wildlife Refuge System. Environmental Management 44: 1043–1052 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamilton, C.M., Martinuzzi, S., Plantinga, A.J., Radeloff, V.C., Lewis, D.J., Thogmartin, W.E., Heglund, P.J. & Pidgeon, A.M. (2013) Current and future land use around a nationwide protected area network. PLoS One 8: e55737.Google Scholar
Hansen, A.J. & DeFries, R. (2007) Ecological mechanisms linking protected areas to surrounding lands. Ecological Applications 17: 974–988.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heller, N.E. & Zavaleta, E.S. (2009) Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: a review of 22 years of recommendations. Biological Conservation 142: 14–32.Google Scholar
Kuhman, T.R., Pearson, S.M. & Turner, M.G. (2010) Effects of land-use history and the contemporary landscape on non-native plant invasion at local and regional scales in the forest-dominated southern Appalachians. Landscape Ecology 25: 1433–1445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lepczyk, C.A., Flather, C.H., Radeloff, V.C., Pidgeon, A.M., Hammer, R.B. & Liu, J. (2008) Human impacts on regional avian diversity and abundance. Conservation Biology 22: 405–416.Google Scholar
Lindenmayer, D., Hobbs, R.J., Montague-Drake, R., Alexandra, J., Bennett, A., Burgman, M., Cale, P., Calhoun, A., Cramer, V., Cullen, P., Driscoll, D., Fahrig, L., Fischer, J., Franklin, J., Haila, Y., Hunter, M., Gibbons, P., Lake, S., Luck, G., MacGregor, C., et al. (2008) A checklist for ecological management of landscapes for conservation. Ecology Letters 11: 78–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lu, X., McElroy, M.B. & Kiviluoma, J. (2009) Global potential for wind-generated electricity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 106: 10933–10938.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lubowski, R.N., Plantinga, A.J. & Stavins, R.N. (2006) Land-use change and carbon sinks: econometric estimation of the carbon sequestration supply function. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 51: 135–152.Google Scholar
Martinuzzi, S., Radeloff, V.C., Higgins, J.V., Helmers, D.P. & Plantinga, A.J. (2013) Key areas for conserving United States’ biodiversity likely threatened by future land use change. Ecosphere 4: art 58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mawdsley, J.R., O’Malley, R. & Ojima, D.S. (2009) A review of climate-change adaptation strategies for wildlife management and biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology 23: 1080–1089.Google Scholar
Merenlender, A.M., Newburn, D., Reed, S.E. & Rissman, A.R. (2009) The importance of incorporating threat for efficient targeting and evaluation of conservation investments. Conservation Letters 2: 240–241.Google Scholar
Nickerson, C., Morehart, M., Kuethe, T., Beckman, J., Ifft, J. & Williams, R. (2012) Trends in US farmland values and ownership. Report EIB-92, Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Nusser, S.M. & Goebel, J.J. (1997) The National Resources Inventory: a long-term multi-resource monitoring programme. Environmental and Ecological Statistics 4: 181–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pijanowski, B.C. & Robinson, K.D. (2011) Rates and patterns of land use change in the Upper Great Lakes States, USA: a framework for spatial temporal analysis. Landscape and Urban Planning 102: 102–116.Google Scholar
Radeloff, V.C., Nelson, E., Plantinga, A.J., Lewis, D.J., Helmers, D., Lawler, J.J., Withey, J.C., Beaudry, F., Martinuzzi, S., Butsic, V., Lonsdorf, E., White, D. & Polasky, S. (2012) Economic-based projections of future land use in the conterminous United States under alternative policy scenarios. Ecological Applications 22: 1036–1049.Google Scholar
Radeloff, V.C., Stewart, S.I., Hawbaker, T.J., Gimmi, U., Pidgeon, A.M., Flather, C.H., Hammer, R.B. & Helmers, D.P. (2010) Housing growth in and near United States protected areas limits their conservation value. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 107: 940–945.Google Scholar
Smith, B., Burton, I., Klein, R.J.T. & Wang, I.A.N.J. (2000) An anatomy of adaptation to climate change and variability. Climate Change 45: 223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stauffer, D. (1985) Introduction to Percolation Theory. London, UK: Taylor & Francis Ltd.Google Scholar
Sohl, T.L., Loveland, T.R., Sleeter, B.M., Sayler, K.L. & Barnes, C.A. (2010) Addressing foundational elements of regional land-use change forecasting. Landscape Ecology 25: 233–247.Google Scholar
Sohl, T.L., Sleeter, B.M., Sayler, K.L., Bouchard, M.A., Reker, R.R., Bennett, S.L., Sleeter, R.R., Kanengieter, R.L. & Zhu, Z. (2012) Spatially explicit land-use and land-cover scenarios for the Great Plains of the United States. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 153: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J. & Befort, B.L. (2011) Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 108: 20260–20264.Google Scholar
Tilman, D., Fargione, J., Wolff, B., D’Antonio, C., Dobson, A., Howarth, R., Schindler, D., Schlesinger, W.H., Simberloff, D. & Swackhamer, D. (2001) Forecasting agriculturally driven global environmental change. Science 292: 281–284.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wade, A.A. & Theobald, D.M. (2010) Residential development encroachment on US protected areas. Conservation Biology 24: 151–161.Google Scholar
Wear, D.N. (2011) Forecasts of county-level land uses under three future scenarios: a technical document supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment. General Technical Report SRS-141, USDA Forest Service, Asheville, NC, USA.Google Scholar
With, K.A. & Crist, T.O. (1995) Critical thresholds in species’ responses to landscape structure. Ecology 76: 2446–2459.Google Scholar
Woo, M. & Guldmann, J.-M. (2011) Impacts of urban containment policies on the spatial structure of US metropolitan areas. Urban Studies 48: 3511–3536.Google Scholar
Wright, C.K. & Wimberly, M.C. (2013) Recent land use change in the Western Corn Belt threatens grasslands and wetlands. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 110: 4134–9.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Hamilton Supplementary Material

Appendix

Download Hamilton Supplementary Material(File)
File 166 KB
Supplementary material: Image

Hamilton Supplementary Material

Figure S1

Download Hamilton Supplementary Material(Image)
Image 259.5 KB