Not all agriculture is created equal when you’re on the move

Assessments of animal movement through different land cover types often lump “agriculture” into one general category. In their recent American Midland Naturalist paper, Nogeire et al. show that this can lead to misleading conclusions about the value of agricultural lands for connectivity. The process of determining conservation priorities can also be confounded by which methods are used to measure movement, potentially leading to misguided decisions on how to manage agricultural lands for both production and wildlife benefit. By tracking several bobcats in Orange County, CA through multiple types of land cover, including row crops and avocado orchards, the study reveals interesting conclusions about the value of agricultural lands for connectivity:

1. Not all agricultural lands are created equal. In the case of bobcats in Southern California, movement rates through avocado orchards were similar to those through natural land covers, while movement rates through row crops were more similar to those through roadsides and barren lands. Understanding the difference between how different agricultural lands have the potential to support different degrees of connectivity is critical in determining how to manage such lands.
2. Results on connectivity differ when using movement rates vs. expert opinion. Assumptions about land use by individuals can vary based on the type of data used to inform connectivity maps, which can in turn lead to differing conclusions on how best to manage agricultural lands for connectivity. Managers and land owners looking to maintain connectivity in agricultural lands should keep in mind the methods used to obtain connectivity metrics, and base conservation priorities and decisions on multiple methods if possible.