DOCSLIB.ORG

Analysis of Habitat Fragmentation and Ecosystem Connectivity Within the Castle Parks, Alberta, Canada by Breanna Beaver Submit

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Analysis of Habitat Fragmentation and Ecosystem Connectivity Within the Castle Parks, Alberta, Canada by Breanna Beaver Submit Analysis of Habitat Fragmentation and Ecosystem Connectivity within The Castle Parks, Alberta, Canada by Breanna Beaver Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in the Environmental Science Program YOUNGSTOWN STATE UNIVERSITY December, 2017 Analysis of Habitat Fragmentation and Ecosystem Connectivity within The Castle Parks, Alberta, Canada Breanna Beaver I hereby release this thesis to the public. I understand that this thesis will be made available from the OhioLINK ETD Center and the Maag Library Circulation Desk for public access. I also authorize the University or other individuals to make copies of this thesis as needed for scholarly research. Signature: Breanna Beaver, Student Date Approvals: Dawna Cerney, Thesis Advisor Date Peter Kimosop, Committee Member Date Felicia Armstrong, Committee Member Date Clayton Whitesides, Committee Member Date Dr. Salvatore A. Sanders, Dean of Graduate Studies Date Abstract Habitat fragmentation is an important subject of research needed by park management planners, particularly for conservation management. The Castle Parks, in southwest Alberta, Canada, exhibit extensive habitat fragmentation from recreational and resource use activities. Umbrella and keystone species within The Castle Parks include grizzly bears, wolverines, cougars, and elk which are important animals used for conservation agendas to help protect the matrix of the ecosystem. This study identified and analyzed the nature of habitat fragmentation within The Castle Parks for these species, and has identified geographic areas of habitat fragmentation concern. This was accomplished using remote sensing, ArcGIS, and statistical analyses, to develop models of fragmentation for ecosystem cover type and Digital Elevation Models of slope, which acted as proxies for species habitat suitability. Data indicated that the primary threat to the study species was increased habitat fragmentation caused by an increase in dirt roads and lightly-used trails. Identifying each species’ habitat needs, alongside considerable fragmentation areas allowed for the development of recommendations to mitigate the negative effects of fragmentation, and thus better conserve the ecosystem in these provincial parks. iii Acknowledgments I would like to sincerely thank my advisor, Dr. Cerney, for all of her encouragement, wisdom, time, and support. It was a privilege to have worked with her. I thoroughly enjoyed all of our time spent together researching. I would also like to thank my committee members for bringing unique wisdom to this project and for helping me succeed: Drs. Kimosop, Armstrong, and Whitesides. I especially want to thank Dr. Kimosop for all of the long hours of GIS work, Dr. Armstrong for guiding me through the entire program from the beginning, and Dr. Whitesides for his subject expertise. Last, I would like to thank my husband, Bill Beaver, for his support and love throughout this project. iv Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1 Chapter 2 Literature Review ...................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Study Area ........................................................................................................................................... 2 2.1.1 Climate ......................................................................................................................................... 3 2.1.3 Historic Land Use: First Nations People ....................................................................................... 5 2.1.4 Historic Land Use: European Occupation of Western North America ......................................... 6 2.1.5 Contemporary Land Use History .................................................................................................. 7 2.1.6 Political History of The Castle Parks Region ................................................................................. 9 2.1.7 Castle Parks Management Plan ................................................................................................. 11 2.1.8 Climate Change .......................................................................................................................... 12 2.2 Ecological Review .............................................................................................................................. 13 2.2.1 Ecoregions .................................................................................................................................. 13 2.2.2 Structure and Function .............................................................................................................. 15 2.2.3 Species Ecology .......................................................................................................................... 18 2.2.4 Grizzly Bear ............................................................................................................................... 19 2.2.5 Wolverine ................................................................................................................................... 21 2.2.6 Cougars ...................................................................................................................................... 22 2.2.7 Elk ............................................................................................................................................... 23 2.3 Habitat Fragmentation ...................................................................................................................... 24 2.3.1 Fragmentation Elements in The Castle Parks ............................................................................ 26 2.3.2 Grizzly Bears ............................................................................................................................... 27 2.3.3 Wolverine ................................................................................................................................... 28 2.3.4 Cougars ...................................................................................................................................... 29 2.3.5 Elk ............................................................................................................................................... 30 2.3.6 Lost Creek Fire ............................................................................................................................ 31 2.4 Geographic Information Science ....................................................................................................... 31 2.4.1 Land Cover and Land Use ........................................................................................................... 31 2.4.2 Remote Sensing ......................................................................................................................... 32 2.4.3 Geographic Information Systems and Habitat Fragmentation .................................................. 32 2.4.4 Density Ratios ............................................................................................................................ 33 2.4.5 Landscape Change ..................................................................................................................... 34 2.5 Resilience Theory .............................................................................................................................. 35 2.6 Fire Ecology ....................................................................................................................................... 37 Chapter 3 Methods .................................................................................................................................. 38 3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 38 3.2 Site Selection ..................................................................................................................................... 38 3.3 Image and Roads Acquisition ............................................................................................................ 39 3.4 Supervised and Unsupervised Classification ..................................................................................... 40 3.5 Digitizing ............................................................................................................................................ 43 3.6 Land Use Change ............................................................................................................................... 51 3.7 Digital Elevation Model ..................................................................................................................... 52 Chapter 4 Results ..................................................................................................................................... 56 4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 56 4.2 Points of Interest ............................................................................................................................... 56 4.3 Road/Trail Length and Density .........................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Conserving Common Ground: Exploring the Place of Cultural Heritage in Protected Area Management
    University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations 2020-12-08 Conserving Common Ground: Exploring the Place of Cultural Heritage in Protected Area Management Weller, Jonathan Weller, J. (2020). Conserving Common Ground: Exploring the Place of Cultural Heritage in Protected Area Management (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. http://hdl.handle.net/1880/112818 doctoral thesis University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY Conserving Common Ground: Exploring the Place of Cultural Heritage in Protected Area Management by Jonathan Weller A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY GRADUATE PROGRAM IN ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN CALGARY, ALBERTA DECEMBER, 2020 © Jonathan Weller 2020 ii Abstract That parks and protected areas are places where the conservation of cultural heritage can and should take place has not always been immediately apparent. However, today there is widespread acknowledgement that the management of cultural heritage resources needs to be brought into large-scale planning and management processes in an integrated and holistic manner. This is particularly true in protected areas, which not only contain significant cultural heritage resources, but are also often mandated to conserve these resources and can benefit significantly from the effort.
    [Show full text]
  • Subalpine Larch (Larix Lyallii), Western Larch (Larix Occidentalis), and Tamarack (Larix Laricina)
    Unclassified ENV/JM/MONO(2007)7 Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Economiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 16-May-2007 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ English - Or. English ENVIRONMENT DIRECTORATE JOINT MEETING OF THE CHEMICALS COMMITTEE AND Unclassified ENV/JM/MONO(2007)7 THE WORKING PARTY ON CHEMICALS, PESTICIDES AND BIOTECHNOLOGY Series on Harmonisation of Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology No. 41 CONSENSUS DOCUMENT ON THE BIOLOGY OF THE NATIVE NORTH AMERICAN LARCHES: SUBALPINE LARCH (Larix lyalli), WESTERN LARCH (Larix occidentalis) AND TAMARACK (Larix laricina) English - Or. English JT03227278 Document complet disponible sur OLIS dans son format d'origine Complete document available on OLIS in its original format ENV/JM/MONO(2007)7 Also published in the Series on Harmonisation of Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology: No. 1, Commercialisation of Agricultural Products Derived through Modern Biotechnology: Survey Results (1995) No. 2, Analysis of Information Elements Used in the Assessment of Certain Products of Modern Biotechnology (1995) No. 3, Report of the OECD Workshop on the Commercialisation of Agricultural Products Derived through Modern Biotechnology (1995) No. 4, Industrial Products of Modern Biotechnology Intended for Release to the Environment: The Proceedings of the Fribourg Workshop (1996) No. 5, Consensus Document on General Information concerning the Biosafety of Crop Plants Made Virus Resistant through Coat Protein Gene-Mediated Protection (1996) No. 6, Consensus Document on Information Used in the Assessment of Environmental Applications Involving Pseudomonas (1997) No. 7, Consensus Document on the Biology of Brassica napus L. (Oilseed Rape) (1997) No. 8, Consensus Document on the Biology of Solanum tuberosum subsp. tuberosum (Potato) (1997) No. 9, Consensus Document on the Biology of Triticum aestivum (Bread Wheat) (1999) No.
    [Show full text]
  • Biocultural Indicators to Support Locally Led Environmental Management and Monitoring
    Copyright © 2019 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance. DeRoy, B. C., C. T. Darimont, and C. N. Service. 2019. Biocultural indicators to support locally led environmental management and monitoring. Ecology and Society 24(4):21. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11120-240421 Synthesis Biocultural indicators to support locally led environmental management and monitoring Bryant C. DeRoy 1,2, Chris T. Darimont 1,2 and Christina N. Service 1,2,3 ABSTRACT. Environmental management (EM) requires indicators to inform objectives and monitor the impacts or efficacy of management practices. One common approach uses “functional ecological” indicators, which are typically species whose presence or abundance are tied to functional ecological processes, such as nutrient productivity and availability, trophic interactions, and habitat connectivity. In contrast, and used for millennia by Indigenous peoples, biocultural indicators are rooted in local values and place- based relationships between nature and people. In many landscapes today where Indigenous peoples are reasserting sovereignty and governance authority over natural resources, the functional ecological approach to indicator development does not capture fundamental values and ties to the natural world that have supported social-ecological systems over the long term. Accordingly, we argue that the development and use of biocultural indicators to shape, monitor, and evaluate the success of EM projects will be critical to achieving ecological and social sustainability today. We have provided a framework composed of criteria to be considered when selecting and applying meaningful and efficacious biocultural indicators among the diverse array of potential species and values. We used a case study from a region now referred to as coastal British Columbia, Canada, to show how the suggested application of functional ecological indicators by the provincial government created barriers to the development of meaningful cogovernance.
    [Show full text]
  • Silvicultural Systems and Regeneration Methods: Current Practices and New Alternatives 153
    Silvicultural Systems and 9 Regeneration Methods: Current Practices and New Alternatives John C. Tappeiner, Denis Lavender, Jack Walstad, Robert O. Curtis, and Dean S. DeBell Development of Regeneration Practices 151 Early Logging Practices and Regeneration Methods 152 Studies of Natural Regeneration Processes 153 Artificial ConiferRegeneration 154 Producing Stands of Diverse Structures and Habitats 156 At Harvest 156 Young Stand Establishment 158 Regeneration inYoung to Mature Stands 158 Natural Succession 159 Conclusion 160 Literature Oted 160 In this chapter, we discuss silvicuItural systems and objective 1, and considerable wildlife habitat and regeneration methods to meet the needs of society other values can be provided while producing rela­ over the next several decades. We begin with a brief tively high yields of wood under objective 2. The history of silvicuItural systems and what we have knowledge and skills are available to pursue both ob­ learned about forest regeneration.in the Pacific jectives effectively. Moreover, many ownerswill likely Northwest. We then discuss how regeneration meth­ manage their forests under both approaches. ods might evolve over the next several decades. We believe that the practice of silviculture gen­ erally will be applied to two different forest man­ Development of Regeneration Practices agement philosophies and objectives, providing (1) old-forest characteristics and (2) wood production. Traditional methods for regenerating forests as part Significant amounts of wood can be produced under of a timber harvest fall into two broad categories: (1) 151 152 Section ll. Silvicultural Systems and Management Concerns even-age management systems, which include clear­ drew heavily on European experience and called for cutting, shelterwood, and seed-tree methods, and (2) intensive practices and detailed stand analyses.
    [Show full text]
  • Alpine Larch
    Alpine Larch Pinaceae Pine family Stephen F. Arno Alpine larch (Lurix lyallii), also called subalpine larch and Lyall larch, is a deciduous conifer. Its com- mon name recognizes that this species oRen grows higher up on cool exposures than any other trees, thereby occupying what would otherwise be an al- pine tundra. Both early-day botanical explorers and modern visitors to the high mountains have noted this tree’s remarkable ability to form pure groves above the limits of evergreen conifers. Alpine larch inhabits remote high-mountain terrain and its wood has essentially no commercial value; however this tree is ecologically interesting and esthetically at- tractive. Growing in a very cold, snowy, and often windy environment, alpine larch usually remains small and stunted, but in windsheltered basins it sometimes attains large size-maximum 201 cm (79 in) in d.b.h. and 29 m (95 ft) in height. This species is distinguished from its lower elevation relative western larch (Larix occidentalis) by the woolly hairs that cover its buds and recent twigs, and frequently by its broad, irregular crown. Habitat Figure l-The native range of alpine larch. Native Range amounts atop numerous other ranges and peaks in western Montana and northern Idaho (4). In British Alpine larch (fig. 1) occupies a remote and rigorous Columbia and Alberta, alpine larch is common along environment, growing in and near the timberline on the Continental Divide and adjacent ranges, and in high mountains of the inland Pacific Northwest. Al- the Purcell and southern Selkirk Ranges. though alpine larch is found in both the Rocky Moun- In the Cascade Range alpine larch is found prin- tains and the Cascades, the two distributions are cipally east of the Cascade Divide and extends from separated at their closest points by 200 km (125 mi) the Wenatchee Mountains (47” 25’ N.) in central in southern British Columbia.
    [Show full text]
  • AWA Response to Castle Park Plan
    ALBERTA WHITEWATER ASSOCIATION Water Recreation in Castle Park The new Castle Provincial Park and Castle Wildland Provincial Park proposed by the Government of Alberta will bring changes to recreational activities in southwestern Alberta. The Alberta Whitewater Association (AWA) including its member clubs and paddlers have a long history of paddling the lakes, rivers and creeks in the region. Maintaining access to the paddling opportunities while respecting the environmental integrity of the region are critical goals for the AWA when reviewing the plan for the new Parks. The AWA has 3 paddling clubs in southwest Alberta, the Waterlogged Kayak Club, the Oldman River Canoe Kayak Club in Lethbridge and the Pinch-o-Crow Creekers in Pincher Creek and Crowsnest Pass. The area is the host for the largest whitewater paddling event in western Canada, the 3 Rivers Whitewater Rendezvous. This event has been held outside the Park on the May long weekend for almost 20 years at the Castle River Rodeo Grounds campground. The Alberta Freestyle Kayak Association also holds one of its annual events, the Carbondale Creek Race, on the 5 Alive rapid each year. Paddlers come from all over Alberta, BC and Saskatchewan to paddle in southwest Alberta during the short paddling season each year. Paddling activities by their very nature have a small environmental footprint on the landscape. Human powered watercraft traversing on lakes and rivers are uniQue to recreation in the following ways: - the water trails that paddlers travel across already exist as part of the natural landscape - paddlers do not leave footprints in the river and the boats do not impact the terrain they cross over - water travel is a protected right under Canadian and Alberta law - fish and wildlife may be temporarily displaced but are not permanently affected by paddlers - most other recreational users are not inconvenienced or disturbed by the travel of paddlers along the river.
    [Show full text]
  • Coram Experimental Forest
    United States Department of Agriculture Coram Experimental Forest Service Forest: 50 Years of Rocky Mountain Research Station General Technical Research in a Western Report RMRS-GTR-37 September 1999 Larch Forest Raymond C. Shearer Madelyn M. Kempf Abstract Shearer, Raymond C.; Kempf, Madelyn M. 1999. Coram Experimental Forest: 50 years of research in a western larch forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-37. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 66 p. This publication will enrich public understanding about the important contributions to science made at this and other outdoor laboratories. Coram, and other long-range research sites, provide scientific knowledge to assist resource professionals with the development of sound land management principles. This knowledge ensures healthy, sustainable, and productive ecosystems while meeting social and economic needs. Major research at Coram includes the regeneration of young forests and the interaction of flora, fauna, and water to a wide range of forest treatments. Ongoing studies include: • cone and seed development and dispersal • natural and artificial regeneration after harvest cuttings • effects of stand culture treatment on forest development • insect and disease interactions • effects of the amount of wood harvest on site productivity • influence of silvicultural practices on watershed, esthetics, and wildlife values The Coram Experimental Forest is used cooperatively by Federal, university, and private scientists. About 340 ha of the forest are designated as the Coram Research Natural Area where virgin conditions are permanently maintained for research and monitoring. Coram, designated a Biosphere Reserve in 1976, is part of an international network that is devoted to the conservation of nature and scientific research in the service of humans.
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Data Sheet Lyallii.Htm
    Plant Data Sheet http://depts.washington.edu/propplnt/Plants/larix lyallii.htm Subalpine larch Larix lyallii Cone photo courtesy of L. lyallii fact sheet at Virginia Tech Forestry Department: http://www.cnr.vt.edu/dendro /dendrology/Syllabus2/factsheet.cfm?ID=680 Branch photos courtesy of Dr. R. Beal at FVCC (background): http://www.fvcc.edu/academics/botany /RockyMountainFlora/images/ETHtml.htm, and the Washington Native plant society (inlay): http://www.wnps.org/plants/larix_lyallii.html Range Two ranges exist, one in the North Cascades of Washington and the other in the Rocky mountains throughout Alberta, British Columbia, Idaho, and Montana (5). In the Cascades, L. lyallii is found east of the Cascade Divide from the Wenatchee Mountains (47° 25’N) to about 21 km into British Columbia (2). In the Rockies, L. lyallii extends from the Salmon River Mountains of central Idaho (45° 28’ N) northward to latitude 51° 36 in Canada (2). Range photo courtesy of the Gymnosperm Database: http://www.botanik.uni-bonn.de/conifers/pi/la/lyallii.htm Climate, Elevation In its ranges, found from 1800 to 2400 meters (5900 – 7800 feet), and locally common on exposed northern alpine slopes to timberline (5). Grows in a very cold, snowy and moist climate, where for more than half the year, temperatures are below freezing and mean annual precipitation is 800 - 1900 mm (2). “Most alpine larch stands annually experience winds reaching hurricane velocity, 117 km/h (73 mi/h) or more” (5). Local occurrence (where, how common) Its uncommon and highly discontinuous distribution shows this species is adapted to a time when cooler, more extensive timberline habitat existed (3).
    [Show full text]
  • Thermophilic Lithotrophy and Phototrophy in an Intertidal, Iron-Rich, Geothermal Spring 2 3 Lewis M
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/428698; this version posted September 27, 2018. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. 1 Thermophilic Lithotrophy and Phototrophy in an Intertidal, Iron-rich, Geothermal Spring 2 3 Lewis M. Ward1,2,3*, Airi Idei4, Mayuko Nakagawa2,5, Yuichiro Ueno2,5,6, Woodward W. 4 Fischer3, Shawn E. McGlynn2* 5 6 1. Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA 7 2. Earth-Life Science Institute, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Meguro, Tokyo, 152-8550, Japan 8 3. Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 9 91125 USA 10 4. Department of Biological Sciences, Tokyo Metropolitan University, Hachioji, Tokyo 192-0397, 11 Japan 12 5. Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Meguro, Tokyo, 13 152-8551, Japan 14 6. Department of Subsurface Geobiological Analysis and Research, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth 15 Science and Technology, Natsushima-cho, Yokosuka 237-0061, Japan 16 Correspondence: [email protected] or [email protected] 17 18 Abstract 19 Hydrothermal systems, including terrestrial hot springs, contain diverse and systematic 20 arrays of geochemical conditions that vary over short spatial scales due to progressive interaction 21 between the reducing hydrothermal fluids, the oxygenated atmosphere, and in some cases 22 seawater. At Jinata Onsen, on Shikinejima Island, Japan, an intertidal, anoxic, iron- and 23 hydrogen-rich hot spring mixes with the oxygenated atmosphere and sulfate-rich seawater over 24 short spatial scales, creating an enormous range of redox environments over a distance ~10 m.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Predation
    COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL, CONSUMER AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Understanding Predation Louis C. Bender1 aces.nmsu.edu/pubs • Cooperative Extension Service • Circular 688 The College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences is an engine for economic and community development in New Mexico, improving Figure 1. Predation is a frequently misunderstood ecological process, primarily because people empathize with the prey and confuse the act of predation with the effect of predation on populations of prey. While successful predation re- the lives of New sults in the death of individuals, those deaths may have little or no effect on the population as a whole. (Photo courtesy of L. Bender.) Mexicans through SUMMARY academic, research, Predation is a much misunderstood ecological process. Most people confuse the act of predation with the effect, believing that the killing of an individual and extension animal invariably results in a negative impact on the population (Figure 1). This view is frequently wrong, and ignores the complexity of predation at the individual, population, and community levels. At the individual level, programs. predisposition refers to characteristics (e.g., poor body condition, inadequate cover, disease, etc.) of individuals that make them more or less likely to die from predation or any other cause. Predisposition influences whether (or how likely it was that) an individual would have lived if not killed by a predator. The greater the degree of predisposition, the less likely the death of a pre- dated individual would have any effect on the population. Predisposition is necessary for predation to be compensatory, or substitutive, at the level of the population.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Systems of the United States a Working Classification of U.S
    ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS OF THE UNITED STATES A WORKING CLASSIFICATION OF U.S. TERRESTRIAL SYSTEMS NatureServe is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing the scientific knowledge that forms the basis for effective conservation action. Citation: Comer, P., D. Faber-Langendoen, R. Evans, S. Gawler, C. Josse, G. Kittel, S. Menard, M. Pyne, M. Reid, K. Schulz, K. Snow, and J. Teague. 2003. Ecological Systems of the United States: A Working Classification of U.S. Terrestrial Systems. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. © NatureServe 2003 Ecological Systems of the United States is a component of NatureServe’s International Terrestrial Ecological Systems Classification. Á Funding for this report was provided by a grant from The Nature Conservancy. Front cover: Maroon Bells Wilderness, Colorado. Photo © Patrick Comer NatureServe 1101 Wilson Boulevard, 15th Floor Arlington, VA 22209 (703) 908-1800 www.natureserve.org ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS OF THE UNITED STATES A WORKING CLASSIFICATION OF U.S. TERRESTRIAL SYSTEMS Á Á Á Á Á Patrick Comer Don Faber-Langendoen Rob Evans Sue Gawler Carmen Josse Gwen Kittel Shannon Menard Milo Pyne Marion Reid Keith Schulz Kristin Snow Judy Teague June 2003 Acknowledgements We wish to acknowledge the generous support provided by The Nature Conservancy for this effort to classify and characterize the ecological systems of the United States. We are particularly grateful to the late John Sawhill, past President of The Nature Conservancy, who was an early supporter of this concept, and who made this funding possible through an allocation from the President’s Discretionary Fund. Many of the concepts and approaches for defining and applying ecological systems have greatly benefited from collaborations with Conservancy staff, and the classification has been refined during its application in Conservancy-sponsored conservation assessments.
    [Show full text]
  • Minnesota's Wildlife Action Plan 2015-2025
    Glossary of Terms and Acronyms Terms adaptive management. A decision process that promotes flexible decision making in the face of uncertainty or changing conditions, and allows for adaptation as the effect of management actions and outcomes become better understood. Monitoring of conservation actions and outcomes is a key component of adaptive management. biological diversity. The variety of living organisms that are recognized and analyzed by biologists at three levels of organization: ecosystems; the species that comprise those ecosystems; and the genetic variability within those species (Wilson 2001). Species present in an ecosystem include animals, plants, fungi, protists, and bacteria and range enormously in size and ecological functions. Functional diversity (see definition) is an aspect of biological diversity that some scientists believe may be of particular importance to ecosystem resilience. Biological diversity can be measured at different spatial scales (Whittaker 1960): • alpha-diversity: the number of species found in a small homogeneous area. • beta-diversity: extent of change in species composition among habitats or communities. • gamma-diversity: total species diversity in a landscape. Conservation Focus Areas. Priority areas for working with partners to identify, design, and implement conservation actions and report on the effectiveness toward achieving the goals and objectives defined in the Wildlife Action Plan. Conservation Focus Areas are intended to focus conservation efforts over the next 10 years to maintain and enhance the resiliency of the Wildlife Action Network. ecological classification system. A system used to identify, describe, and map progressively smaller areas of land with increasingly uniform ecological features. The system uses associations of biotic and environmental factors, including climate, geology, topography, soils, hydrology, and vegetation.
    [Show full text]