Using topography to meet wildlife and fuels treatment objectives in fire-suppressed landscapes.

Past forest management practices, fire suppression, and climate change are increasing the need to actively manage California Sierra Nevada forests for multiple environmental amenities. Here we present a relatively low-cost, repeatable method for spatially parsing the landscape to help the U.S. Forest Service manage for different forest and fuel conditions to meet multiple goals relating to sensitive species, fuels reduction, forest products, water, carbon storage, and ecosystem restoration. Using the Kings River area of the Sierra Nevada as a case study, we create areas of topographically-based units, Landscape Management Units (LMUs) using a three by three matrix (canyon, mid-slope, ridge-top and northerly, southerly, and neutral aspects). We describe their size, elevation, slope, aspect, and their difference in inherent wetness and solar radiation. We assess the predictive value and field applicability of LMUs by using existing data on stand conditions and two sensitive wildlife species. Stand conditions varied significantly between LMUs, with canyons consistently having the greatest stem and snag densities. Pacific fisher (Martes pennanti) activity points (from radio telemetry) and California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) nests, roosts, and sightings were both significantly different from uniform, with a disproportionate number of observations in canyons, and fewer than expected on ridge-tops. Given the distinct characteristics of the LMUs, these units provide a relatively simple but ecologically meaningful template for managers to spatially allocate forest treatments, thereby meeting multiple National Forest objectives. These LMUs provide a framework that can potentially be applied to other fire-dependent western forests with steep topographic relief.

Cost-effective global conservation spending is robust to taxonomic group.

Priorities for conservation investment at a global scale that are based on a single taxon have been criticized because geographic richness patterns vary taxonomically. However, these concerns focused only on biodiversity patterns and did not consider the importance of socioeconomic factors, which must also be included if conservation funding is to be allocated efficiently. In this article, we create efficient global funding schedules that use information about conservation costs, predicted habitat loss rates, and the endemicity of seven different taxonomic groups. We discover that these funding allocation schedules are less sensitive to variation in taxon assessed than to variation in cost and threat. Two-thirds of funding is allocated to the same regions regardless of the taxon, compared with only one-fifth if threat and cost are not included in allocation decisions. Hence, if socioeconomic factors are considered, we can be more confident about global-scale decisions guided by single taxonomic groups.

Protecting biodiversity when money matters: maximizing return on investment.

BACKGROUND: Conventional wisdom identifies biodiversity hotspots as priorities for conservation investment because they capture dense concentrations of species. However, density of species does not necessarily imply conservation 'efficiency'. Here we explicitly consider conservation efficiency in terms of species protected per dollar invested. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We apply a dynamic return on investment approach to a global biome and compare it with three alternate priority setting approaches and a random allocation of funding. After twenty years of acquiring habitat, the return on investment approach protects between 32% and 69% more species compared to the other priority setting approaches. To correct for potential inefficiencies of protecting the same species multiple times we account for the complementarity of species, protecting up to three times more distinct vertebrate species than alternate approaches. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Incorporating costs in a return on investment framework expands priorities to include areas not traditionally highlighted as priorities based on conventional irreplaceability and vulnerability approaches.

Conserving biodiversity efficiently: what to do, where, and when.

Conservation priority-setting schemes have not yet combined geographic priorities with a framework that can guide the allocation of funds among alternate conservation actions that address specific threats. We develop such a framework, and apply it to 17 of the world's 39 Mediterranean ecoregions. This framework offers an improvement over approaches that only focus on land purchase or species richness and do not account for threats. We discover that one could protect many more plant and vertebrate species by investing in a sequence of conservation actions targeted towards specific threats, such as invasive species control, land acquisition, and off-reserve management, than by relying solely on acquiring land for protected areas. Applying this new framework will ensure investment in actions that provide the most cost-effective outcomes for biodiversity conservation. This will help to minimise the misallocation of scarce conservation resources.