Large-Scale Spatial Analysis

In an effort to scale up on-the-ground connectivity conservation efforts, the project is analyzing ‘coarse-filter’ modeling efforts that may help identify areas with potential value for connecting intact natural habitat core areas throughout the Great Northern LCC region. These models are not species-specific, but designed to highlight the most natural, least human-impacted linkages on the landscape, which are expected to support movement of a wide range of species as well as the continuity of ecological processes. These models provide a first-pass, “20,000 feet” view of areas expected to be important for connectivity, and should not form the basis for fine-scale conservation decisions. Instead, these models highlight general areas that may warrant closer attention, where fine-scale efforts might identify local connectivity pathways that also contribute to broad-scale connectivity.

This list of publications and project pages help to inform the project’s large-scale spatial analysis:

• McClure, Beltran, and Hostetler assessed vulnerability of eight wildlife species and four biomes to climate change, with focus on potential impacts to connectivity. Establishing connections among natural landscapes is the most frequently recommended strategy for adapting management of natural resources in response to climate change. The U.S. Northern Rockies still support a full suite of native wildlife, and survival of these populations depends on connected landscapes. Connected landscapes support current migration and dispersal as well as future shifts in species ranges that will be necessary for species to adapt to our changing climate.

  • McClure, Beltran, and Hostetler: Informing adaptation strategies for maintaining landscape connectivity for Northern Rockies wildlife in the face of climate change: challenges and limitations

• Theobald modeled landscape permeability of four biome types throughout the Great Northern LCC - alpine, forest, shrubland, and grassland - based on the assumption that areas with less human modification (i.e., greater "naturalness") are more important for connectivity because they are more likely to allow for animal movement and natural occurrence of ecological processes. A full description of this analysis is pending; however, the following papers describe early versions of key components of the approach:

  • Theobald: A general model to quantify ecological integrity for landscape assessments and US application

  • Theobald: Connecting natural landscapes using a landscape permeability model to prioritize conservation activities in the United States

• The Washington Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Working Group conducted a statewide analysis to identify regionally important areas for wildlife connectivity. This project included two approaches for modeling coarse-scale connectivity: 1) a functional focal species approach that incorporated attributes of focal species chosen to represent the state’s diversity of habitat types; and 2) a structural landscape integrity approach that identified connections between large, contiguous areas with low levels of human modification. Additional analyses at finer ecoregional scales are underway to provide more detailed information on local connectivity:

  • Washington Connected: Various relevant papers

  • Belote et al. (2016) identified the most “natural” (least human-modified) corridors between large protected areas across the contiguous U.S. This analysis combined results from multiple connectivity models reflecting different assumptions about the effect of human modification on landscape connectivity, and produced a composite map of corridors showing areas of agreement among models.

  • Belote et al. 2016: Identifying Corridors among Large Protected Areas in the United States

*Please keep in mind: The Theobald and Belote analyses are based on similar assumptions and similar methods. They differ in that Belote aims to identify important connectivity areas between currently protected areas, while Theobald aims to identify important connectivity areas among intact places regardless of their protected status. Together, they provide complementary perspectives on regionally important connectivity areas in the Great Northern LCC.