Search

Conservation of biologically diverse regions has thus far been accomplished largely through the establishment and maintenance of protected areas. Climate change is expected to shift climate space of many species outside existing reserve boundaries. We used climate-envelope models to examine shifts in climate space of 11 species that are representative of the Mount Hamilton Project area (MHPA) (California, U.S.A.), which includes areas within Alameda, Santa Clara, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, and San Benito counties and is in the state's Central Coast ecoregion. We used Marxan site-selection software to determine the minimum area required as climate changes to achieve a baseline conservation goal equal to 80% of existing climate space for all species in the MHPA through 2050 and 2100. Additionally, we assessed the costs associated with use of existing conservation strategies (land acquisition and management actions such as species translocation, monitoring, and captive breeding) necessary to meet current species-conservation goals as climate changes. Meeting conservation goals as climate changes through 2050 required an additional 256,000 ha (332%) of protected area, primarily to the south and west of the MHPA. Through 2050 the total cost of land acquisition and management was estimated at US$1.67-1.79 billion, or 139-149% of the cost of achieving the same conservation goals with no climate change. To maintain 80% of climate space through 2100 required nearly 380,000 additional hectares that would cost $2.46-2.62 billion, or 209-219% of the cost of achieving the same conservation goals with no climate change. Furthermore, maintaining 80% of existing climate space within California for 27% of the focal species was not possible by 2100 because climate space for these species did not exist in the state. The high costs of conserving species as the climate changes-that we found in an assessment of one conservation project-highlights the need for tools that will aid in iterative goal setting given the uncertainty of the effects of climate change and adaptive management that includes new conservation strategies and consideration of the long-term economic costs of conservation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Global goals established by the Convention on Biological Diversity stipulate that 10% of the world's ecological regions must be effectively conserved by 2010. To meet that goal for the mediterranean biome, at least 5% more land must be formally protected over the next few years. Although global assessments identify the mediterranean biome as a priority, without biologically meaningful analysis units, finer-resolution data, and corresponding prioritization analysis, future conservation investments could lead to more area being protected without increasing the representation of unique mediterranean ecosystems. We used standardized analysis units and six potential natural vegetation types stratified by 3 elevation zones in a global gap analysis that systematically explored conservation priorities across the mediterranean biome. The highest levels of protection were in Australia, South Africa, and California-Baja California (from 9–11%), and the lowest levels of protection were in Chile and the mediterranean Basin (<1%). Protection was skewed to montane elevations in three out of five regions. Across the biome only one of the six vegetation types—mediterranean shrubland—exceeded 10% protection. The remaining vegetation types—grassland, scrub, succulent dominated, woodland, and forest—each had <3% protection. To guard against biases in future protection efforts and ensure the protection of species characteristic of the mediterranean biome, we identified biodiversity assemblages with <10% protection and subject to >30% conversion and suggest that these assemblages be elevated to high-priority status in future conservation efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conservation easements are one of the primary tools for conserving biodiversity on private land. Despite their increasing use, little quantitative data are available on what species and habitats conservation easements aim to protect, how much structural development they allow, or what types of land use they commonly permit. To address these knowledge gaps, we surveyed staff responsible for 119 conservation easements established by the largest nonprofit easement holder, The Nature Conservancy, between 1985 and 2004. Most easements (80%) aimed to provide core habitat to protect species or communities on-site, and nearly all were designed to reduce development. Conservation easements also allowed for a wide range of private uses, which may result in additional fragmentation and habitat disturbance. Some residential or commercial use, new structures, or subdivision of the property were permitted on 85% of sampled conservation easements. Over half (56%) allowed some additional buildings, of which 60% restricted structure size or building area. Working landscape easements with ranching, forestry, or farming made up nearly half (46%) of the easement properties sampled and were more likely than easements without these uses to be designated as buffers to enhance biodiversity in the surrounding area. Our results demonstrate the need for clear restrictions on building and subdivision in easements, research on the compatibility of private uses on easement land, and greater public understanding of the trade-offs implicit in the use of conservation easements for biodiversity conservation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]