Biodiversity losses and conservation trade-offs: Assessing future urban growth scenarios for a North American trade corridor

International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services and Management

Volumn 9, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 90-103

  Villarreal, Miguel L ^a   Norman, Laura M ^a   Boykin, Kenneth G ^b   Wallace, Cynthia S A ^a  

^a U S GEOLOGICAL SURVEY   (United States)

^b NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

habitat model; spatial simulation; species richness; urban development; urbanization; Wildlife Habitat Relation

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; ECOREGION; HABITAT CONSERVATION; HABITAT FRAGMENTATION; HISTORICAL RECORD; POPULATION DISTRIBUTION; STATE ROLE; TAXONOMY; URBAN AREA; URBAN DEVELOPMENT; WATERSHED;

NORTH AMERICA; SONORAN DESERT;

AVES; MAMMALIA; VERTEBRATA;

EID: 84878910209     PISSN: 21513732     EISSN: 21513740     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/21513732.2013.770800     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Armsworth PR, Daily GC, Kareiva P, Sanchirico JN. 2006. Land market feedbacks can undermine biodiversity conservation. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 103:5403-5408.
2. Atwood TC, Julie KY, Jon PB, Stewart WB, Jennifer F, Olin ER, Bristow KD. 2012. Modeling Connectivity of Black Bears in a Desert Sky Island Archipelago. Biol Conserv. 44:2851-2862. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2011.08.002.
3. Bailey RG. 1998. Ecoregions map of North America: explanatory mote. Washington (DC): USDA Forest Service; 10 p., with separate map at 1:15,000,000, Prepared in cooperation with The Nature Conservancy and the U.S. Geological Survey (Miscellaneous publication no. 1548).
4. Bartlett J. 1965. Personal narrative of explorations and incidents in Texas, New Mexico, California, Sonora, and Chihuahua: connected with the United States and Mexico boundary commission, during the years 1850, '51, '52, and '53. Chicago (IL): The Rio Grande Press, Inc.
5. Bowers JE, McLaughlin SP. 1996. Flora of the Huachuca Mountains, a botanically rich and historically significant Sky Island in Cochise County, Arizona. J Arizona Nevada Acad Sci. 29:66-107.
6. Boykin KG, Kepner WG, Bradford DF, Guy RK, Kopp DA, Leimer AK, Samson EA, East NF, Neale AC, Gergely KG. 2012. A national approach for mapping and quantifying habitat-based biodiversity metrics across multiple spatial scales. Ecol Indic. In Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.11.005.
7. Boykin KG, Thompson BC, Deitner RA, Schrupp D, Bradford D, O'Brien L, Drost C, Propeck-Gray S, Reith W, Thomas KA, et al. 2007. Predicted animal habitat distributions and species richness. In: Prior-Magee JS, Boykin, KG, Bradford DF, Kepner WG, Lowry JH, Schrupp DL, Thomas KA, Thompson BC, editors. Southwest regional gap analysis final report. Moscow (ID): U.S. Geological Survey, Gap Analysis Program; p. 39-78.
8. Boykin KG, Thompson BC, Propeck-Gray S. 2010. Accuracy of southwest regional gap analysis project habitat models in predicting physical features for habitat associations. EcolModel. 221:2769-2775.
9. Brooks TM, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, Da Fonseca GAB, Rylands AB, Konstant WR, Flick P, Pilgrim J, Oldfield S, Magin G, et al. 2002. Habitat loss and extinction in the hotspots of biodiversity. Conserv Biol. 16:909-923. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00530.x.
10. Crooks KR, Soulé A. 1999. Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions in a fragmented system. Nature 400:563-566.
11. DeFries RS, Foley JA, Asner GP. 2004. Land-use choices: balancing human needs and ecosystem function. Front Ecol Environ. 2:249-257.
12. Dirzo R, Raven PH. 2003. Global state of biodiversity and loss. Annu Rev Environ Resour. 28:137-167. doi:10.1146/ annurev.energy.28.050302.105532.
13. Edwards TC Jr, Deshler ET, Foster D, Moisen GG. 1996. Adequacy of wildlife habitat relation models for estimating spatial distributions of terrestrial vertebrates. Conserv Biol. 10:263-270.
14. Ehrlich PR, Pringle RM. 2008. Where does biodiversity go from here? A grim business-as-usual forecast and a hopeful portfolio of partial solutions. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 105:11579-11586.
15. Ewers RM, Rodrigues ASL. 2008. Estimates of reserve effectiveness are confounded by leakage. Trends Ecol Evol. 23:113-116. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2007.11. 008.
16. Felger RS, Wilson MF. 1994. Northern Sierra Madre Occidental and its Apachian outliers: a neglected center of biodiversity. In: DeBano FL, Ffolliott PF, Ortega-Rubio A, Gottfried GJ, Hamre RH, editors. Biodiversity and management of the Madrean Archipelago: the sky islands of southwestern United States and northwestern Mexico. Tucson (AZ): U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station; p. 36-59.
17. Ferrier S. 2002. Mapping spatial pattern in biodiversity for regional conservation planning: where to from here? Syst Biol. 51:331-363.
18. Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB. 2007. Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: a synthesis. Global Ecol Biogeogr. 16:265-280. doi:10.1111/j.1466-8238.2007.00287.x.
19. Gan J, McCarl BA. 2007. Measuring transnational leakage of forest conservation. Ecol Econ. 64:423-432. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.032.
20. Ingram H, Milich L, Varady RG. 1994. Managing transboundary resources: lessons from Ambos Nogales. Environ Sci Policy Sustain Dev. 36:6-38. doi: 10.1080/00139157.1994.9929996.
21. Jantz CA, Goetz SJ, Donato D, Claggett P. 2010. Designing and implementing a regional urban modeling system using the SLEUTH cellular urban model. Comput Environ Urban Syst. 34:1-16. doi: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2009.08. 003.
22. Koprowski JL, Alanen MI, Lynch AM. 2005. Nowhere to run and nowhere to hide: response of endemic Mt. Graham red squirrels to catastrophic forest damage. Biol Conserv. 126:491-498. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2005.06.028.
23. Laymon SA, Halterman HD. 1987. Can the western subspecies of the yellow-billed cuckoo be saved from extinction? Western Birds 18:19-25.
24. Leones J, Colby B, Crandall K. 1998. Tracking expenditures of the elusive nature tourists of southeastern Arizona. J Travel Res. 36:56-64.
25. Logan MF. 2002. The lessening stream: an environmental history of the Santa Cruz River. Tucson (AZ): University of Arizona Press.
26. Lowry JH, Ramsey RD, Thomas KA, Schrupp D, Kepner W, Sajwaj T, Kirby J, Waller E, Schrader S, Falzarano S, et al. 2006. Land cover classification and mapping. In: Prior- Magee JS and others, editors. Southwest regional gap analysis final report. Moscow (ID): U.S. Geological Survey, Gap Analysis Program.
27. Mearns EA. 1907. Mammals of the Mexican boundary of the United States: a descriptive catalogue of the species of mammals occurring in that region; with a general summary of the natural history, and a list of trees. Washington (DC): Government Printing Office.
28. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being. Vol. 5. Washington (DC): Island Press.
29. Norman L, Tallent-Halsell N, Labiosa W, Weber M, McCoy A, Hirschboeck K, Callegary J, van Riper III C, Floyd G. 2010. Developing an ecosystem services online decision support tool to assess the impacts of climate change and urban growth in the Santa Cruz Watershed; where we live, work, and play. Adv Forum Sustain Develop. 2:2044-2069; [cited 2013 Feb 7]. Available from: http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/2/7/2044/.
30. Norman LM, Feller M, Guertin PD. 2009. Forecasting urban growth across the United States-Mexico border. Comput Environ Urban. 33:150-159. doi:10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2008.10.003.
31. Norman LM, Feller M, Villarreal ML. 2012. Developing plausible scenarios for ecosystem services assessment - Santa Cruz Watershed, Arizona and Sonora. Landscape Urban Plan. 107:225-235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012. 06.015.
32. Olson DM, Dinerstein E. 1998. The Global 200: a representation approach to conserving the earth's most biologically valuable Ecoregions. Conserv Biol. 12:502-515. doi:10.1046/j.1523- 1739.1998.012003502.x.
33. Peterson GD, Cumming GS, Carpenter SR. 2003. Scenario planning: a tool for conservation in an uncertain world. Conserv Biol. 17:358-366. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01491.x.
34. Polasky S. 2006. You can't always get what you want: conservation planning with feedback effects. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 103:5245-5246.
35. Powell BF, Albrecht EW, Halvorson WL, Schmidt CA, Anning P, Docherty K. 2005. Vascular plant and vertebrate inventory of Tumacacori National Historic Park [Internet]. (USGS open file report no. 2005-1142); 140 p; [cited 2013 Feb 7]. Available from: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1142/.
36. Powell BF, Halvorson WL, Schmidt CA. 2006. Vascular plant and vertebrate inventory of Saguaro National Park, Rincon District [Internet]. (USGS open file report no. 2006-1075); 174 p; [cited 2013 Feb 7]. Available from: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1075/.
37. Powell BF, Halvorson WL, Schmidt CA. 2007. Vascular plant and vertebrate inventory of Saguaro National Park, Tucson Mountain District [Internet]. (U.S. geological survey openfile report no. 2007-1296); 92 p; [cited 2013 Feb 7]. Available from: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1296/.
38. Pressey RL, Cabeza M, Watts ME, Cowling RM, Wilson KA. 2007. Conservation planning in a changing world. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 22:583-592. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2007.10.001.
39. Prugh LR, Chantal JS, Epps CW, Bean WT, RippleWJ, Laliberte AS, Brashares JS. 2009. The rise of the mesopredator. BioSci. 59:779-791. doi:10.1525/bio.2009.59.9.9.
40. Sala OE, Chapin FS III, Armesto JJ, Berlow E, Bloomfield J, Dirzo R, Huber-Sanwald E, Huenneke LF, Jackson RB, Kinzig A, et al. 2000. Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287:1770-1774.
41. Schmidt CA, Powell BF, Swann DE, Halvorson WL. 2007. Vascular plant and vertebrate inventory of Coronado National Memorial [Internet]. (U.S. geological survey open-file report no. 2007-1393); 114 p; [cited 2013 Feb 7]. Available from: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1393/.
42. Schumaker NH, Ernst T, White D, Baker J, Haggerty P. 2004. Projecting wildlife responses to alternative future landscapes in Oregon's Willamette Basin. Ecol Appl. 14:381-400. doi:10.1890/02-5010.
43. Sekercioglu CH. 2002. Impacts of birdwatching on human and avian communities. Environ Conserv. 29:282-289.
44. Sheridan TE. 2001. Cows, condos, and the contested commons: the political ecology of ranching on the Arizona-Sonora borderlands. Hum Organ. 60(2):141-152.
45. Spector S. 2002. Biogeographic crossroads as priority areas for biodiversity conservation. Conserv Biol. 16(1480-1487). doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739. 2002.00573.x.
46. Theobald DM. 2004. Placing exurban land-use change in a human modification framework. Front Ecol Environ. 2:139-144. doi:10.1890/1540- 9295(2004)002[0139:PELCIA]2.0.CO;2.
47. Thomas KA, Schulz KA, Boykin K. 2010. Distribution and conservation protection of natural land cover in the Sonoran Desert Ecoregion of Arizona, as described by the Southwest Regional GAP Analysis Project. In: Halverson W, Schwalbe C, van Riper III C, editors. Southwestern desert resources. Tucson (AZ): University of Arizona Press; p. 81-92.
48. Turner W, Spector S, Gardiner N, Fladeland M, Sterling E, Steininger M. 2003. Remote sensing for biodiversity science and conservation. Trends Ecol Evol. 18:306-314. doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(03)00070-3.
49. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Birding in the United States: a demographic and economic analysis: addendum to the 2006 National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation. Arlington (VA); p. 20. (Report no. 2006-4).
50. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. 2011 National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation: state overview [Internet]; p. 28. Arlington (VA); [cited 2013 Feb 7]. Available from: http://digitalmedia.fws.gov/ cdm/ singleitem/collection/document/id/858/rec/1
51. Villarreal ML, Drake S, Marsh SE, McCoy AL. 2012. The influence of wastewater subsidy, flood disturbance and neighbouring land use on current and historical patterns of riparian vegetation in a semi-arid watershed. River Res Appl. 28:1230-1245. doi: 10.1002/rra.1510.
52. Villarreal ML, Norman LM,Wallace CSA, van Riper III C. 2011. A multi-temporal (1979-2009) land use/land cover data set of the bi-national Upper Santa Cruz Watershed [Internet]. (U.S. geological survey open-file report no. 2011-1131); 26 p. and database; [cited 2013 Feb 7]. Available from: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1131/.
53. Wallace CSA, Villarreal ML, Norman LM. 2011. Development of a high-resolution binational vegetation map of the Santa Cruz River riparian corridor and surrounding watershed, southern Arizona and northern Sonora, Mexico [Internet]. (U.S. geological survey open-file report no. 2011-1143); 22 p; [cited 2013 Feb 7]. Available from: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/ 1143/.
54. Wear DN, Murray BC. 2004. Federal timber restrictions, interregional spillovers, and the impact on US softwood markets. J Environ Econ Manage. 47:307-330. doi: 10.1016/S0095-0696(03)00081-0.
55. Webb RH, Leake SA, Turner RM. 2007. The ribbon of green: change in riparian vegetation in the southwestern United States. Tucson (AZ): University of Arizona Press.
56. White D, Minotti PG, Barczak MJ, Sifneos JC, Freemark KE, Santelmann MV, Steinitz CF, Kiester RA, Preston EM. 1997. Assessing risks to biodiversity from future landscape change. Conserv Biol. 11:349-360.
57. Whittaker RH, Niering WA. 1965. Vegetation of the Santa Catalina Mountains, Arizona: a gradient analysis of the south slope. Ecology 46:429-452.