Search

Programs that incentivize private landowners to create habitats that offset losses due to conversion and climate change are increasingly being used to bolster sensitive wildlife populations. In the Central Valley of California, shorebird habitat incentive programs pay landowners to create additional habitat during the non‐breeding season by flooding their fields. However, it remains unclear how successful these programs have been in supporting baseline shorebird population needs or meeting established population goals, particularly in the face of changing environmental conditions. To address these questions, we used bioenergetics modeling to estimate shorebird food energy needs over four consecutive years that had the highest annual mean air temperatures ever recorded in California, and included years of extreme drought, as well as the second wettest winter on record. Our objectives were to (1) characterize annual variability in the timing and magnitude of shorebird food energy shortfalls, (2) estimate the contributions that incentive programs made to meeting these needs, and (3) develop recommendations for implementation of future habitat programs to advance shorebird conservation in the region. Overall, we found a high level of consistency in the timing and magnitude of habitat shortfalls, especially in fall, despite large differences in annual rainfall, a result that was unexpected, but that emphasizes how highly managed the hydrological system is in the Central Valley. We also found that the magnitude of both fall and spring energy shortfalls increased, relative to recent (2007–2014) estimates, perhaps due to aberrantly warm conditions. Incentive programs implemented to provide supplemental habitat were somewhat effective in reducing shortfalls for the assumed baseline population, but there were consistent unmet habitat needs when there were not enough shallow open water foraging areas available. Strategies to offset these remaining food energy deficits include scaling up habitat investments, adjusting the timing of habitat programs to better match the migration patterns of the birds, and adapting programs to new geographies. To the extent that there is variability in annual habitat need we recommend implementing a dynamic conservation approach. This involves scaling the amount of additional habitat created to match the shifting needs of the birds to maximize return on investment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A new term, Multiple‐Benefit Conservation, has emerged in the conservation community, but has not been defined. We define Multiple‐Benefit Conservation as conservation efforts designed to simultaneously benefit local communities of people, enhance ecological function, and improve habitat quality for fish and wildlife. Its key features are setting ecological and societal goals at the outset and defining success as achieving these goals simultaneously. This is in contrast to efforts aimed at one goal that may also produce co‐benefits; it is inclusive of ecosystem services but not limited by a focus solely on human benefit. Strengths of this approach include that it is constructive, inclusive of multiple worldviews, easily communicated, solutions‐oriented, and compelling. Multiple‐Benefit Conservation as we define and describe it here appears to provide a pathway useful for designing conservation efforts that are more likely to be inclusive, that will quantify trade‐offs among goals, and can embrace pluralistic conservation leadership. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Climate change and biodiversity loss are two global challenges that can be addressed simultaneously through reforestation of previously cleared land. However, carbon markets can encourage reforestations that focus on maximizing carbon storage, potentially at the expense of biodiversity conservation.To identify opportunities to optimize reforestation design and management to meet both goals, we examined the forest stand features associated with carbon stocks in biomass and soil, as well as bird abundance and diversity, in remnant and restored riparian forest stands in central California, U.S.A.Within three decades of reforestation, both planted and naturally regenerating riparian forest stands provided significantly greater carbon storage and avian biodiversity benefits compared to baseline conditions. They were also similar to a remnant riparian forest stand.We identified a synergy between carbon storage and biodiversity benefits in their positive associations with understorey cover, but we also identified a trade‐off in their relationships to forest stand density. Biomass carbon stocks were strongly positively related to stand density, while bird density and diversity suffered at the highest stand densities.The variability in understorey cover across forest stands indicates an opportunity for further enhancement of carbon and biodiversity benefits in areas where understorey cover is low, while the variability in stand density suggests an opportunity to re‐examine reforestation goals and consider thinning to achieve those goals.Synthesis and applications. We identified synergies and trade‐offs between carbon storage and biodiversity in their relationships to forest stand features, indicating opportunities to optimize reforestation design and management to achieve multiple goals. Our approach can be adapted to other reforestation efforts intended to simultaneously address the global challenges of climate change and biodiversity loss. We identified synergies and trade‐offs between carbon storage and biodiversity in their relationships to forest stand features, indicating opportunities to optimize reforestation design and management to achieve multiple goals. Our approach can be adapted to other reforestation efforts intended to simultaneously address the global challenges of climate change and biodiversity loss. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Restoration of deforested and degraded landscapes is a globally recognized strategy to sequester carbon, improve ecological integrity, conserve biodiversity, and provide additional benefits to human health and well‐being. Investment in riparian forest restoration has received relatively little attention, in part due to their relatively small spatial extent. Yet, riparian forest restoration may be a particularly valuable strategy because riparian forests have the potential for rapid carbon sequestration, are hotspots of biodiversity, and provide numerous valuable ecosystem services. To inform this strategy, we conducted a global synthesis and meta‐analysis to identify general patterns of carbon stock accumulation in riparian forests. We compiled riparian biomass and soil carbon stock data from 117 publications, reports, and unpublished data sets. We then modeled the change in carbon stock as a function of vegetation age, considering effects of climate and whether or not the riparian forest had been actively planted. On average, our models predicted that the establishment of riparian forest will more than triple the baseline, unforested soil carbon stock, and that riparian forests hold on average 68–158 Mg C/ha in biomass at maturity, with the highest values in relatively warm and wet climates. We also found that actively planting riparian forest substantially jump‐starts the biomass carbon accumulation, with initial growth rates more than double those of naturally regenerating riparian forest. Our results demonstrate that carbon sequestration should be considered a strong co‐benefit of riparian restoration, and that increasing the pace and scale of riparian forest restoration may be a valuable investment providing both immediate carbon sequestration value and long‐term ecosystem service returns. We analyzed data from around the world to identify general patterns of carbon sequestration in riparian forests. We found that the carbon stored in mature riparian forest rivals the highest estimates for any biome, and that carbon accumulation is faster over the first ten years in planted forests than naturally regenerating forests. Riparian forests are known to provide multiple ecosystem services, and our results demonstrate that carbon sequestration can be an additional co‐benefit. Despite their relatively small area, investing in riparian forest restoration can be a valuable strategy for contributing to both climate change mitigation and ecological integrity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Few studies have quantitatively projected changes in demography in response to climate change, yet doing so can provide important insights into the processes that may lead to population declines and changes in species distributions. Using a long-term mark-recapture data set, we examined the influence of multiple direct and indirect effects of weather on adult and juvenile survival for a population of Song Sparrows ( Melospiza melodia) in California. We found evidence for a positive, direct effect of winter temperature on adult survival, and a positive, indirect effect of prior rainy season precipitation on juvenile survival, which was consistent with an effect of precipitation on food availability during the breeding season. We used these relationships, and climate projections of significantly warmer and slightly drier winter weather by the year 2100, to project a significant increase in mean adult survival (12-17%) and a slight decrease in mean juvenile survival (4-6%) under the B1 and A2 climate change scenarios. Together with results from previous studies on seasonal fecundity and postfledging survival in this population, we integrated these results in a population model and projected increases in the population growth rate under both climate change scenarios. Our results underscore the importance of considering multiple, direct, and indirect effects of weather throughout the annual cycle, as well as differences in the responses of each life stage to climate change. Projecting demographic responses to climate change can identify not only how populations will be affected by climate change but also indicate the demographic process(es) and specific mechanisms that may be responsible. This information can, in turn, inform climate change adaptation plans, help prioritize future research, and identify where limited conservation resources will be most effectively and efficiently spent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Juvenile survival is often found to be more sensitive than adult survival to variation in environmental conditions, and variation in juvenile survival can have significant impacts on population growth rates and viability. Therefore, understanding the population-level effects of environmental changes requires understanding the effects on juvenile survival. We hypothesized that parental care will buffer the survival of dependent juveniles from variation in environmental conditions, while the survival of independent juveniles will respond more strongly to environmental variation and, in turn, drive the overall variation in annual juvenile survival. We tested this parental-care hypothesis using a 30-year mark-recapture data set to model the survival of juvenile Song Sparrows (Melospiza melodia) during the dependent and independent stages. We examined the effects of weather, density, and cohort mean fledge date and body mass on annual variation in survival during the first 12 weeks after fledging, as well as effects of individual fledge date and body mass on individual variation in survival. The primary driver of annual variation in juvenile survival was precipitation during the previous rainy season, consistent with an effect on food availability, which had a strong positive effect on the survival of independent juveniles, but no effect on dependent juveniles. We also found strong support for effects of body mass and fledge date on individual survival probability, including striking differences in the effect of fledge date by stage. Our results provided evidence that different mechanisms influence juvenile survival during each stage of fledgling development, and that parental care buffers the survival of dependent juveniles from variation in environmental conditions. Consequently, variation in juvenile survival was driven by independent juveniles, not dependent juveniles, and studies focused only on survival during the dependent stage may not be able to detect the major drivers of variation in juvenile survival. We recommend that future efforts to understand or project the population-level effects of environmental change not only examine the effects on juvenile survival, but specifically consider the survival of independent juveniles, as well as how the drivers of variation in juvenile survival may vary by stage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]