Prioritizing Sites for Protection and Restoration for Grizzly Bears (Ursus arctos) in Southwestern Alberta, Canada

As the influence of human activities on natural systems continues to expand, there is a growing need to prioritize not only pristine sites for protection, but also degraded sites for restoration. We present an approach for simultaneously prioritizing sites for protection and restoration that conside...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inPloS one Vol. 10; no. 7; p. e0132501
Main Authors Braid, Andrew C R, Nielsen, Scott E
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States Public Library of Science 13.07.2015
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:As the influence of human activities on natural systems continues to expand, there is a growing need to prioritize not only pristine sites for protection, but also degraded sites for restoration. We present an approach for simultaneously prioritizing sites for protection and restoration that considers landscape patterns for a threatened population of grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) in southwestern Alberta, Canada. We considered tradeoffs between bottom-up (food resource supply) and top-down (mortality risk from roads) factors affecting seasonal habitat quality for bears. Simulated annealing was used to prioritize source-like sites (high habitat productivity, low mortality risk) for protection, as well as sink-like sites (high habitat productivity, high mortality risk) for restoration. Priority source-like habitats identified key conservation areas where future developments should be limited, whereas priority sink-like habitats identified key areas for mitigating road-related mortality risk with access management. Systematic conservation planning methods can be used to complement traditional habitat-based methods for individual focal species by identifying habitats where conservation actions (both protection and restoration) have the highest potential utility.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
Conceived and designed the experiments: ACRB SEN. Performed the experiments: ACRB. Analyzed the data: ACRB. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: ACRB SEN. Wrote the paper: ACRB. Manuscript conceptualization, organization, and editing: ACRB SEN.
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
ISSN:1932-6203
1932-6203
DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0132501