Maximizing habitat connectivity in the mitigation hierarchy. A case study on three terrestrial mammals in an urban environment

Riparian habitat connectivity restoration in an anthropized landscape: A multi-species approach based on landscape graph and soil bioengineering structures

In urbanized areas, rivers and riparian ecosystems are often the only ecological corridors available for wildlife movement. There, riverbanks are often stabilised by civil engineering structures (dykes, riprap). This can lead to habitat degradation and loss of landscape connectivity. Fascines (willow bundles tied together) could be an alternative to riprap, since they maintain the quality of the natural ecosystems by using native vegetal species instead of rocks, but their potential positive impact needs to be assessed. We proposed a landscape-scale decision-making method for river managers who want to restore banks by transforming riprap into fascines to improve landscape connectivity. We applied our methodology to a case study involving a 25 km-stretch of the Arve River, France. We selected four target vertebrate species based on biological traits to cover a wide range of dispersal capacities. For each species, we used landscape graphs to assess habitat connectivity under different contrasted riverbank scenarios. Scenarios included replacing all-natural banks with ripraps or replacing all ripraps with fascines. In addition, we systematically tested the effect of replacing individual 100 or 500 m sections of ripraps by fascines, to locate where riverbank restoration would maximize connectivity gain. The four species selected responded very differently to the scenarios (up to +14% and +46% change in Probability of Connectivity for common toads and Eurasian beavers, respectively, 0% for common sandpipers and barred grass snakes). The restoration of specific riverbank sections could result in important gains in PC (up to +33% for one single section for one species) but no section maximized connectivity gain for all the target species.

A Review of Condition Metrics Used in Biodiversity Offsetting

Biodiversity offsets are commonly used to compensate for environmental impacts, but their effectiveness is often questioned. Estimations of expected losses and gains often rely on what we called condition metrics, which measure a site's quality or condition using certain ecological attributes. Condition metrics are central to most offset policies, but their attributes and calculations vary substantially. We reviewed the academic literature to draw a profile of existing condition metrics used in the offsetting context. We found 17 metrics that differed in how they included attributes from the three "dimensions of equivalence": biodiversity (present in 15 metrics), landscape (in 10 metrics) and ecosystem services (in 5 metrics). Most metrics included many ecological attributes and required fieldwork and GIS data to be calculated, but few used modeling and expert opinion. Generally, metrics aggregated the attributes into a single final value and were created in Global North countries. To favor more transparent and ecologically equivalent offset trades worldwide, we suggest condition metrics should include the three dimensions of equivalence in a disaggregated way, i.e. measurements done separately and analyzed in parallel. The use of modeling, expert opinion and GIS may facilitate the inclusion of the dimensions and reduce the need for intensive (and expensive) fieldwork. Testing synergies and trade-offs among attributes could indicate if metrics can be simplified without losing information. Finally, development of fit-for-purpose condition metrics is especially important in Global South countries, where few such metrics exist.

Unique Land Cover Classification to Assess Day-Roost Habitat Selection of Northern Long-Eared Bats on the Coastal Plain of North Carolina, USA

Reproductively successful and over-wintering populations of the endangered northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) have recently been discovered on the Coastal Plain of North Carolina. Empirical data on resource selection within the region is limited, likely hindering management of these coastal forests. Our objectives were to determine roosting home range size, selection of day-roost tree species, second- and third-order roosting habitat selection, and to quantify the overall availability of resources in the surrounding landscape. We found core and peripheral roosting home range estimates were large, yet similar to observations from other areas of contiguous forests. Prior to juvenile volancy, female northern long-eared bats appear to select red maple (Acer rubrum), water ash (Fraxinus caroliniana), and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) as day-roosts, but then use sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), swamp bay (Persea palustris), and water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica) after juvenile volancy. At the second-order spatial scale, roosting home ranges were associated with woody wetlands farther from anthropogenic development and open water. However, within the third-order scale, northern long-eared bats were associated with undeveloped woody wetlands and upland forests, areas containing shorter trees and occurring proximal to open water. Peripheral and core areas were predicted to comprise approximately 20% of the local landscape. Our results show that complex and large tracts of woody wetlands juxtaposed with upland forests in this part of the Coastal Plain may be important for northern long-eared bats locally, results largely consistent with species management efforts in eastern North America.

A Validation Procedure for Ecological Corridor Locations

Connectivity conservation analysis is based on a wide range of approaches designed to pinpoint key ecological corridors in order to maintain multispecies flows. However, the lack of validation procedures with accessible data prevents one from evaluating the accuracy of ecological corridor locations. We propose a new validation procedure to evaluate the accuracy of ecological corridor locations in landscape connectivity approaches. The ability of the procedure to properly rank the accuracy of different landscape connectivity approaches was illustrated in a study case. Maxent model and circuit theory were used to locate ecological corridors for forest bird species, following three approaches based on land cover, umbrella species and multispecies presence data. The validation procedure was used to compare the three approaches. Our validation procedure ranked the three approaches as expected, considering that accuracy in locating ecological corridors is related to the biological realism of calibration data. The corridors modelled were more accurate with species presence data (umbrella and multispecies approaches) compared to land cover proxy (habitat-based approach). These results confirm the quality of the validation procedure. Our validation procedure can be used to: (1) evaluate the accuracy of the location of ecological corridors; (2) select the best approach to locate ecological corridors, and (3) validate the underlying assumptions of landscape connectivity approaches (e.g., dispersal and matrix resistance values).

Quantifying the impact of vegetation-based metrics on species persistence when choosing offsets for habitat destruction

Developers are often required by law to offset environmental impacts through targeted conservation actions. Most offset policies specify metrics for calculating offset requirements, usually by assessing vegetation condition. Despite widespread use, there is little evidence to support the effectiveness of vegetation-based metrics for ensuring biodiversity persistence. We compared long-term impacts of biodiversity offsetting based on area only; vegetation condition only; area × habitat suitability; and condition × habitat suitability in development and restoration simulations for the Hunter Region of New South Wales, Australia. We simulated development and subsequent offsetting through restoration within a virtual landscape, linking simulations to population viability models for 3 species. Habitat gains did not ensure species persistence. No net loss was achieved when performance of offsetting was assessed in terms of amount of habitat restored, but not when outcomes were assessed in terms of persistence. Maintenance of persistence occurred more often when impacts were avoided, giving further support to better enforce the avoidance stage of the mitigation hierarchy. When development affected areas of high habitat quality for species, persistence could not be guaranteed. Therefore, species must be more explicitly accounted for in offsets, rather than just vegetation or habitat alone. Declines due to a failure to account directly for species population dynamics and connectivity overshadowed the benefits delivered by producing large areas of high-quality habitat. Our modeling framework showed that the benefits delivered by offsets are species specific and that simple vegetation-based metrics can give misguided impressions on how well biodiversity offsets achieve no net loss.

Pooling biodiversity offsets to improve habitat connectivity and species conservation

Land developers can apply biodiversity offsetting in different ways, from a project-by-project approach to a pooled and proactive approach, this latter appearing to provide greater advantages both in terms of implementation and of the No Net Loss objective. Incorporating landscape connectivity into the mitigation hierarchy is commonly recommended, but the benefits of pooling and anticipating offsets have never really been demonstrated from modeling approaches. Here, we compare connectivity gains from two different offsetting scenarios, when interconnections at offset sites are taken and not taken into account. Assuming that gains can be increased by optimizing the location of offsets, we identified sites where biodiversity offsetting generates the greatest ecological gains in habitat connectivity. The method was applied to a study case in the suburbs of Lyon (Southern France) using several representative species and the landscape functional connectivity model Graphab. Pooling biodiversity offsets led to additional gains in overall habitat connectivity of +103% on average, which we show can be further improved (+8%) by using a patch addition process available in Graphab to plan spatially and ecologically coherent offsetting areas. Pooling and anticipating biodiversity offsets in this way can help preserve the biodiversity and the functionality of natural environments at the territorial scale.

Environmental mitigation hierarchy and biodiversity offsets revisited through habitat connectivity modelling

Biodiversity loss is accelerating because of unceasing human activity and land clearing for development projects (urbanisation, transport infrastructure, mining and quarrying …). Environmental policy-makers and managers in different countries worldwide have proposed the mitigation hierarchy to ensure the goal of "no net loss (NNL) of biodiversity" and have included this principle in environmental impact assessment processes. However, spatial configuration is hardly ever taken into account in the mitigation hierarchy even though it would greatly benefit from recent developments in habitat connectivity modelling incorporating landscape graphs. Meanwhile, national, European and international commitments have been made to maintain and restore the connectivity of natural habitats to face habitat loss and fragmentation. Our objective is to revisit the mitigation hierarchy and to suggest a methodological framework for evaluating the environmental impact of development projects, which includes a landscape connectivity perspective. We advocate the use of the landscape connectivity metric equivalent connectivity (EC), which is based on the original concept of "amount of reachable habitat". We also refine the three main levels of the mitigation hierarchy (impact avoidance, reduction and offset) by integrating a landscape connectivity aspect. We applied this landscape connectivity framework to a simple, virtual habitat network composed of 14 patches of varying sizes. The mitigation hierarchy was addressed through graph theory and EC and several scenarios of impact avoidance, reduction and compensation were tested. We present the benefits of a habitat connectivity framework for the mitigation hierarchy, provide practical recommendations to implement this framework and show its use in real case studies that had previously been restricted to one or two steps of the mitigation hierarchy. We insist on the benefits of a habitat connectivity framework for the mitigation hierarchy and for ecological equivalence assessment. In particular, we demonstrate why it is risky to use a standard offset ratio (the ratio between the amount of area negatively impacted and the compensation area) without performing a connectivity analysis that includes the landscape surrounding the zone impacted by the project. We also discuss the limitations of the framework and suggest potential improvements. Lastly, we raise concerns about the need to rethink the strategy for biodiversity protection. Given that wild areas and semi-natural habitats are becoming scarcer, in particular in industrialised countries, we are convinced that the real challenge is to quickly reconsider the current vision of "developing first, then assessing the ecological damage", and instead urgently adopt an upstream protection strategy that would identify and protect the land that must not be lost if we wish to maintain viable species populations and ecological corridors allowing them the mobility necessary to their survival.