Keeping landscapes connected in regions such as M2B requires both an assessment of landscape features as well as engagement between scientists and stakeholders. Credit: Oleg Alexandrov
Climate-wise connectivity is essential to provide species with access to suitable habitats in the future. Connectivity that allows plants and animals to move to cooler places is particularly important in coastal areas with rugged terrain, where microclimates drive temperature gradients. One way to maintain climate-wise connectivity is to create linkages between protected areas. However, the slow implementation of connectivity plans remains a challenge that hinders biodiversity conservation.
Realizing climate-wise connectivity on the ground requires both identifying and securing habitat linkages that provide climate resilience. This can be done by combining a measurement of the climate adaptation benefit provided by linkages with an understanding of the needs of the practitioners who enact conservation plans locally.
The outcomes of an assessment conducted by the Mayacamas to Berryessa Connectivity Network (M2B) illustrate the intertwined need for both social and landscape connections in effective climate-wise connectivity planning. A recent case study details how M2B identified terrestrial and riparian linkages between protected areas for the interior coastal ranges in northern California. The research used the novel metric of cooling benefit to calculate how much each linkage contributes to climate resilience. A companion paper describes how M2B fostered collaboration between scientists and practitioners throughout the project – from co-creating the methods to collectively prioritizing linkages for implementation.
Linkages in the M2B region and how they contribute to climate resilience. From Gray et al. 2020.
The linkage assessment revealed that terrestrial and riparian linkages were roughly perpendicular to each other. The distinct spatial patterns created by the two linkage types offer complementary options for enhancing connectivity through human-modified landscapes. Both linkage types showed clear seasonal differences in the strength and direction of cooling benefit. Cooler summer temperatures were found coastward, whereas cooler winter temperatures were inland and upslope. These insights into locations that offer seasonal cooling can be used in conservation planning to ensure that the climate needs of specific species are met year-round.
Framework for the engagement of scientists and stakeholders in the M2B assessment. From Gray et al. 2020.
The collaborative process provided a framework for scientists and practitioners to exchange ideas, get to know one another, and form an enduring social network. The resulting synergy shaped most aspects of the project, providing an infusion of scientific rigor and local relevance. For example, scientific and local knowledge guided the iterative process used to prioritize linkages for implementation. Scientists shared information about the data and modeling, and practitioners provided insights into local ecology and development threats. As a result, the team increasingly prioritized smaller linkages with greater cooling benefit that also secure connectivity in areas threatened by development.
Collaborative partnerships can bridge the gap between connectivity research and implementation by creating enduring connections needed for effective climate change adaptation, both across landscapes and between individuals . The availability of open-access data, implementation reports, and outreach materials has made it possible to secure land within habitat linkages that provide climate resilience. The climate-wise connectivity methods and stakeholder engagement framework used by M2B provide insights that may be applied elsewhere to advance landscape-scale resilience to climate change.
Resources
Gray, M., Micheli, E., Comendant, T. and Merenlender, A. 2020. Quantifying climate-wise connectivity across a topographically diverse landscape. Land 9(10): 355.
Gray, M., Micheli, E., Comendant, T. and Merenlender, A. 2020. Climate-wise habitat connectivity takes sustained stakeholder engagement. Land 9(11): 413.
Guidance for modeling and mapping climate-wise landscape connectivity (July 2018)
