Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T00:27:02.448Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

22 - South Coast Missing Linkages: restoring connectivity to wildlands in the largest metropolitan area in the USA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 May 2010

Kevin R. Crooks
Affiliation:
Colorado State University
M. Sanjayan
Affiliation:
The Nature Conservancy, Virginia
Get access

Summary

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bani, L., Baietto, M., Bottoni, L., and Massa, R.. 2002. The use of focal species in designing a habitat network for a lowland area of Lombardy, Italy. Conservation Biology 16:826–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrowclough, G. F. 1978. Sampling bias in dispersal studies based on finite area. Journal of Field Ornithology 4:333–341Google Scholar
Beier, P. 1993. Determining minimum habitat areas and corridors for cougars. Conservation Biology 7:94–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beier, P., and Loe, S.. 1992. A checklist for evaluating impacts to wildlife movement corridors. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20:434–440Google Scholar
Beier, P., and Noss, R. F.. 1998. Do habitat corridors provide connectivity?Conservation Biology 12:1241–1252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. H., and Kodric-Brown, A.. 1977. Turnover rates in insular biogeography: effect of immigration on extinction. Ecology 58:445–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
California Department of Fish and Game, . 2002. CWHR v 8.0 Personal Computer Program. Sacramento, CA: California Interagency Wildlife Task Group.Google Scholar
Carroll, C., Noss, R. F., and Paquet, P. C.. 2001. Carnivores as focal species for conservation planning in the Rocky Mountain region. Ecological Applications 11:961–980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clevenger, A. P., Wierzchowski, J., Chruszcz, B., and Gunson, K.. 2002. GIS-directed, expert-based models for identifying wildlife habitat linkages and planning mitigation passages. Conservation Biology 16:503–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppolillo, P., Gomez, H., Maisels, F., and Wallace, R.. 2004. Selection criteria for suites of landscape species as a basis for site-based conservation. Biological Conservation 115:419–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowling, R. M., Pressey, R. L., Sims-Castley, R., et al. 2003. The expert or the algorithm? – comparison of priority conservation areas in the Cape Floristic Region identified by park managers and reserve selection software. Biological Conservation 112:147–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crooks, K. 2002. Relative sensitivities of mammalian carnivores to habitat fragmentation. Conservation Biology 16:488–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epps, C. W., Palsbøll, P. J., Wehausen, J. D., et al. 2005. Highways block gene flow and cause a rapid decline in genetic diversity of desert bighorn sheep. Ecology Letters 8:1029–1038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ernest, H. B., Boyce, W. M., Bleich, V. C., et al. 2003. Genetic structure of mountain lion (Puma concolor) populations in California. Conservation Genetics 4:353–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzpatrick, F. A., Scudder, B. C., Lenz, B. N., and Sullivan, D. J.. 2001. Effects of multi-scale environmental characteristics on agricultural stream biota in eastern Wisconsin. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 37:1489–1508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goforth, R. R. 2000. Local and landscape-scale relations between stream communities, stream habitat and terrestrial land cover properties. Dissertation Abstracts International Part B: Science and Engineering 8:3682.Google Scholar
Goodrich, J. M., and Buskirk, S. W.. 1998. Spacing and ecology of North American badgers (Taxidea taxus) in a prairie-dog (Cynomys leucurus) complex. Journal of Mammalogy 79:171–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, R. L. 1992. Toward a theory of inter-refuge corridor design. Conservation Biology 6:292–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, R. 1999. South Coast Regional Report: California Wildlands Project Vision for Wild California. Davis, CA: California Wilderness Coalition.Google Scholar
Lambeck, R. J. 1997. Focal species: a multi-species umbrella for nature conservation. Conservation Biology 11:849–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maret, T. R., and MacCoy, D. E.. 2002. Fish assemblages and environmental variables associated with hard-rock mining in the Coeur d'Alene River Basin, Idaho. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 131:865–8842.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, B., Reading, R., Strittholt, J., et al. 1999. Using focal species in the design of nature reserve networks. Wild Earth 8:81–92Google Scholar
Naicker, K., Cukrowska, E., and McCarthy, T. S.. 2003. Acid mine drainage arising from gold mining activity in Johannesburg, South Africa and environs. Environmental Pollution 122:29–40CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Noss, R. F., Carroll, C., Vance-Borland, K., and Wuerthner, G.. 2002. A multicriteria assessment of the irreplaceability and vulnerability of sites in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Conservation Biology 16:895–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penrod, K. L., Hunter, R., and Merrifield, M.. 2001. Missing Linkages: Restoring Connectivity to the California Landscape. California Wilderness Coalition, The Nature Conservancy, US Geological Survey, Center for Reproduction of Endangered Species, and California State Parks. San Diego, CA: San Diego Zoo.Google Scholar
Polak, D. 2001. Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP): The Origins of an Ambitious Experiment to Protect Ecosystems. Sacramento, CA: California Research Bureau, California State Library.Google Scholar
Pressey, R. L., and Taffs, K. H.. 2001. Scheduling conservation action in production landscapes: priority areas in western New South Wales defined by irreplaceability and vulnerability to vegetation loss. Biological Conservation 100:355–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pressey, R. L., Johnson, I. R., and Wilson, P. D.. 1994. Shades of irreplaceability: towards a measure of the contribution of sites to a reservation goal. Biodiversity and Conservation 3:242–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinby, P., Trombulak, S., Lee, T, et al. 1999. Opportunities for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity between Algonquin Provincial Park and the Adirondack Park. Powassan, Ontario, Canada: Ancient Forest Exploration and Research.Google Scholar
Riley, S. P. D., Sauvajot, R. M., Fuller, T. K., et al. 2003. Effects of urbanization and habitat fragmentation on bobcats and coyotes in southern California. Conservation Biology 17:566–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riley, S. P. D., Pollinger, J. P., Sauvajot, R. M., et al. 2006. A southern California freeway is a physical and social barrier to gene flow in carnivores. Molecular Ecology 15:1733–1741CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scott, M. C. 2002. Integrating the stream and its valley: land use change, aquatic habitat, and fish assemblages (North Carolina). Dissertation Abstracts International Part B: Science and Engineering 63:51.Google Scholar
Simberloff, D., Farr, J. A., Cox, J., and Mehlman, D. W.. 1992. Movement corridors: conservation bargains or poor investments?Conservation Biology 6:493–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singleton, P. H., Gaines, W. L., and Lehmkuhl, J. F.. 2002. Landscape permeability for large carnivores in Washington: a geographic information system weighted-distance and least-cost corridor assessment. Research Paper PNW-RP-549. Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture Forest Service.
Stewart, J. S., Wang, L., Lyons, J., Horwatich, J. A., and Bannerman, R.. 2001. Influences of watershed, riparian-corridor, and reach-scale characteristics on aquatic biota in agricultural watersheds. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 37:1475–1488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terborgh, J., J. A. Estes, P. Paquet, et al. 1999. The role of top carnivores in regulating terrestrial ecosystems. Pp. 39–64 in Soulé, M. E., and Terborgh, J. (eds.) Continental Conservation. Covelo, CA: Island Press.Google Scholar
Wang, L., Lyons, J., Kanehl, P., and Bannerman, R.. 2001. Impacts of urbanization on stream habitat and fish across multiple spatial scales. Environmental Management 28:255–266CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weiss, A. D. 2000. A GIS algorithm for topographic position index. Poster presented at ESRI Users' Conference, San Diego, CA. Available online at aweiss@induscorp.com
Willson, J. D., and Dorcas, M. E.. 2003. Effects of habitat disturbance on stream salamanders: implications for buffer zones and watershed management. Conservation Biology 17:763–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×