Next Article in Journal
Response of the Desertification Landscape Patterns to Spatial–Temporal Changes of Land Use: A Case Study of Salaxi in South China Karst
Previous Article in Journal
Spatial Distributions of Yield Gaps and Production Increase Potentials of Spring Wheat and Highland Barley in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau
Previous Article in Special Issue
Phylogeny and Morphology Determine Vulnerability to Global Warming in Pristimantis Frogs
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Land
Volume 12
Issue 8
10.3390/land12081556
land-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Perspective

A Brave New World: Managing for Biodiversity Conservation under Ecosystem Transformation

by
Jennifer L. Wilkening
1,*,
Dawn Robin Magness
2,
Laura M. Thompson
3 and
Abigail J. Lynch
3
1
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuge System, Natural Resource Program Center, Fort Collins, CO 80525, USA
2
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, Soldotna, AK 99669, USA
3
U.S. Geological Survey, National Climate Adaptation Science Center, Reston, VA 20192, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2023, 12(8), 1556; https://doi.org/10.3390/land12081556
Submission received: 9 June 2023 / Revised: 26 July 2023 / Accepted: 29 July 2023 / Published: 5 August 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Climate Adaptation and Biodiversity Conservation)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Traditional conservation practices have primarily relied on maintaining biodiversity by preserving species and habitats in place. Many regions are experiencing unprecedented environmental conditions, shifts in species distribution and habitats, and high turnover in species composition, resulting in ecological transformation. Natural resource managers have lacked tools for identifying and selecting strategies to manage ecosystem transformation. A recently formalized decision support framework provides a way for managers to resist, accept, or direct (RAD) the trajectory of change. We begin by identifying how historical conservation practices are built into the RAD framework. Next, we describe how RAD can be used to implement climate change adaptation actions, using examples from the Mojave Desert to provide ecological context. Third, we discuss how the RAD framework can assist with the creation of conservation portfolios, facilitating the maintenance of overall biodiversity across a landscape. Preserving species assemblages in their current state, or restoring them to historical conditions, will not always be possible, and RAD allows for explicit deliberation about when and where to prioritize scarce resources. We conclude with a set of guidelines for conservation practitioners or managers moving forward. Although operating under an increasingly uncertain future is daunting, managers can utilize RAD to conserve biodiversity and effectively handle ecosystem transformation.

1. Unprecedented Ecosystem Transformation

Ecosystems around the world are increasingly being transformed primarily because of anthropogenic drivers such as contemporary climate change, land use change, and the spread of invasive species [1,2]. Ecosystem transformation can be defined as the emergence of a new system that differs in ecological composition, structure, and function [3], with changes accumulating gradually or occurring rapidly. When viewed through a palaeoecological lens, ecosystem transformation has happened repeatedly in the past when the climate has oscillated between glacial and interglacial periods, and few extant ecosystems are more than a few thousand years old [4]. Additionally, humans have been altering ecosystems for millennia through land use practices like hunting, fishing, foraging, agriculture, and fire [5]. However, as the human population size and technological footprint have increased exponentially over the last two centuries, anthropogenic impacts have resulted in unprecedented levels and rates of change [6,7].
Future ecosystems will continue to stray from historical conditions, which presents a profound challenge for natural resource managers who have traditionally relied upon historical baselines to establish benchmarks. Likewise, biodiversity conservation has focused heavily on conserving species and habitats in place by establishing protected areas or similar approaches based on relative ecosystem stationarity [8]. It is unlikely that these traditional approaches will always be effective in an increasingly uncertain and dynamic future. This may be particularly true for managers faced with novel ecosystems, composed of biological assemblages and abiotic conditions not experienced before [9]. Managers may be able to rely upon climate analogs to develop management objectives in response to biome shifts, but no such biological analog exists for novel ecosystems. Ecosystem transformations are more rapid, dynamic, and comprehensive than at any previous point in human history [10], and natural resource management paradigms based on historical variability may no longer be useful for management and conservation in a future that exceeds those bounds.
Here, we (1) discuss an overview of three management strategies that can be used for managing biodiversity under ecosystem transformation, (2) describe how these strategies can be used to address multiple management targets across multiple levels of biodiversity, (3) present a case study to illustrate how these strategies are being implemented in the Mojave Desert in the Southwestern U.S., and (4) provide guidance on how conservation practitioners or managers may use this framework for managing biodiversity in their systems.

2. The Resist–Accept–Direct (RAD) Framework

Intensifying global change is propelling many ecosystems toward irreversible transformations [1]. Natural resource managers face the complex task of conserving these important resources under unprecedented conditions and expanding uncertainty. As once familiar ecological conditions disappear, traditional management approaches that assume the future will reflect the past are becoming increasingly untenable. The RAD (resist–accept–direct) framework is designed to assist informed risk taking for transforming ecosystems by delineating the decision space into three possible pathways [3,11,12]:
  • Resist, where managers focus on maintaining current or historical ecosystem structure and function;
  • Accept, where managers do not intervene and allow the ecosystem structure and function to emerge from ongoing transformations;
  • Direct, where managers actively steer the transformation toward a particular ecosystem structure and function.
These three RAD pathways encompass the whole decision space. Response options can be binned into resist, accept, or direct with respect to the reference system. For example, if the goal of the action is to maintain a current or return to a historical state, the response is resist. If the goal is just accommodating a transformation, it is accept. And if the goal is aimed at an entirely new system, it is direct. Response options for some situations do not neatly categorize into one of the RAD bins (Figure 1). Ultimately, where a particular response option is categorized by RAD does not matter—the goal of RAD is to initiate conversations and acknowledge the full decision space for managers to address transformations.
Generally, managers are most comfortable considering resist because it is well aligned with precautionary approaches to management. However, by also explicitly identifying the accept and direct pathways, RAD opens the decision space beyond the range of resist options usually considered. RAD is not a prescriptive tool and does not order, value, or rank the options identified. However, RAD can be integrated with other decision support tools, such as scenario planning, structured decision making, and management strategy evaluation to inform the choice of a RAD management pathway.
It is also important to note that no RAD decision is final, and these choices will continually need revisiting [13]. Ecosystem transformation is not a one-time circumstance where systems will stabilize in an alternative stationary state. This is now a brave, new, nonstationary world. Managers will need to perpetually iterate through decision processes when triggered by a system threshold or tipping point to select new RAD pathways [14].

3. RAD and Biodiversity Conservation

The Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) defines biodiversity as “the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems”. This definition is inclusive, in that it considers many measures of diversity and levels of variability, including within and between species and ecosystems, as well as species interactions [15].
Many biodiversity measures exist (e.g., connectivity, distinctiveness), and they have been categorized in a variety of ways (e.g., structural, compositional, functional [16,17,18]). Indicators or tools used to summarize data on environmental issues are often used to assess status and trends in biodiversity [19]. Indicators are often informed by direct measures of biodiversity (e.g., species richness at a particular location (alpha diversity) or within a particular study area (gamma diversity) [20]) and can signal issues that need to be addressed through management or policy intervention [19]. For example, a within-species example of a diversity measure and an associated indicator is genetic diversity (e.g., heterozygosity, allelic richness) and the proportion of populations maintained within a species [21]. The idea behind this indicator is that a larger number of remaining populations may also represent a larger amount of evolutionary potential, which can be protected through changes in policy.
While managing lower levels of biodiversity, such as maintaining intraspecific variation (e.g., maintaining population connectivity and abundance) is familiar to natural resource managers, the management of higher levels (e.g., interspecific variation, ecosystem function, landscapes) may seem daunting. However, the RAD framework can be used to manage a variety of biodiversity attributes, the same as any other management target (Table 1). Resisting high-level biodiversity loss by protecting areas with desirable biotic attributes, such as endemism or habitat rarity, has a long history (e.g., [22]). It is now widely recognized that species distributions are no longer static, and the focus has shifted to protecting areas with certain abiotic attributes, including regions with low climate velocity (i.e., climate refugia) or high topographic diversity [23,24]. These areas have increased substantially after the CBD’s development of the Aichi Targets in 2010 (Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 [25]) and are intended to resist loss of biodiversity, as well as provide areas for new species to move in (a direct approach [23]). These areas may further increase under the recently adopted Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which incorporates a target of protecting and conserving 30% of the world’s biodiverse regions by 2030 (Target 3 [26]).
Occasionally, managers may find it more feasible to focus on the presence and/or population health of a species that can serve as a proxy for the condition of its environment and other species located there (i.e., indicator species) rather than higher-level biodiversity measures. Because the use of indicator species or other surrogates (e.g., keystones, umbrellas, flagships) as shortcuts for monitoring biodiversity can be problematic [28], greater scrutiny is often carried out for determining the appropriateness of indicator species (e.g., [29]. Declining lichen epiphyte populations, for example, were used as an indicator to monitor climate change vulnerability in ancient woodlands in the British Isles; the increasing heterogeneity of microhabitats has been suggested as a potential adaptation strategy to slow epiphyte (and woodland) declines (a resist strategy [30]). Furthermore, conservationists may choose to accept the loss of indicator species (and presumed associated biodiversity) in areas where resistance is no longer feasible. The American pika (Ochotona princeps), found in the Rocky Mountain regions of North America, is known as an indicator species [31] but has disappeared from many portions of its southern distribution [32]; because a large portion of pika populations and their unique talus habitats are still found farther north, managers have largely accepted this loss. In the Caribbean, managers carried out assisted gene flow across a large geographic barrier (a direct approach) to improve the adaptability and survivability of elkhorn coral (Acropora palmata), a keystone species that is important for supporting coral reef communities, by fertilizing the eggs of western Caribbean populations using cryopreserved sperm from central and eastern Caribbean populations [33].
The benefits of biodiversity, such as ecosystem structure, function, and/or services, can sometimes be the management targets of interest rather than an exact biodiversity measure or an associated indicator. For example, in the Great Bear Rainforest of British Columbia, Canada, managers have adopted an ecosystem-based management approach to maintain ecological integrity (a resist approach) that includes the maintenance of both terrestrial and hydroriparian attributes (e.g., water quality, fish habitat, stand structure, soils, and terrain [34]). In urban areas, the anticipation of the emerald ash borer (an exotic forest pest) impacts has led urban forestry planners to consider accepting some losses of ecosystem services provisioning (e.g., temperature regulation, air quality) in favor of a replanting strategy that provides a more resilient canopy to pests and climate change (a direct approach [35]). In central Mexico, concerns about loss of economically important forest ecosystem structure due to warming conditions have led managers to consider translocations as an adaptation option (a direct approach); however, because translocating entire ecosystems is extremely complex, managers have instead proposed focusing on important ecosystem components (“units of assisted migration of species ensembles”), which can include keystone species (e.g., pine (Pinus spp.), fir (Abies spp.)) and nurse plants (i.e., species that can facilitate migration [36]).
When managing landscapes, there may be multiple management targets that range across a variety of biodiversity levels. In these cases, a portfolio of RAD strategies can be used to achieve biodiversity management goals (see case study in Section 3.1). A management portfolio, similar to a financial portfolio, uses a variety of retrospective and prospective approaches for the purpose of spreading ecological risk and uncertainties associated with external stressors, such as climate change and the unintended consequences of management outcomes [37]. For example, in the Central Lakes region of Minnesota, USA, temperature changes are causing boreal forests to disappear, peatland water tables to decline, and commercial hardwood mortality, invasive subaquatic lake vegetation, weedy grasses, and peat fires to increase [38]. Managers have largely accepted boreal forest loss in the region (instead prioritizing their protection in areas farther north in the state); proposed resisting changes to other landcover types by thinning hardwood forests to reduce drought stress and remove invasive subaquatic vegetation; and directing change by facilitating oak expansions and grasslands on loamy soils and shallow/sandy soils, respectively [38].

3.1. Mojave Desert Case Study

The Mojave Desert is the smallest and driest desert in the North American desert complex, one of the five most biologically diverse wilderness areas in the world [39]. The ecoregion is climatically and topographically variable, which results in large numbers of endemic species, threatened and endangered species, and isolated and unique ecosystems [40]. The Mojave is projected to become warmer and drier with increasing frequency of extreme weather events [41,42,43], and biodiversity declines documented over the last century are expected to increase [44,45,46]. Additionally, desert flora and fauna are threatened by ongoing anthropogenic developments, which have expanded rapidly over the last three decades. Urbanization, an enlarged military footprint, and increased recreation activities (e.g., offroad vehicle use) are primary drivers of habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation. This is further exacerbated by development pressure from the renewable energy sector, as the construction of large-scale solar facilities continues to increase in the region [47,48].
In addition to habitat loss, Mojave Desert ecosystems are being transformed because of the synergistic effects of climate change and invasive species. The region has historically been characterized by patchy, small, infrequent fires, but the proliferation of an invasive annual grass (red brome, Bromus rubens) has increased fuel loads. This, in combination with warmer and drier conditions, has increased the frequency and severity of fires [49,50]. Native shrublands are being replaced by invasive annual grasslands because of large, continuous fires, and this altered fire regime is projected to continue under climate change [51,52,53].
Managers are resisting this conversion by treating with herbicides and replanting native vegetation post-fire in areas of high conservation value (Figure 2A). Similar actions have traditionally been utilized by conservation practitioners in the Mojave to conserve or restore areas of high biodiversity, climate refugia, critical habitats, and movement corridors [54,55,56,57]. These efforts are labor- and cost-intensive, however, and may be less effective in areas heavily impacted by anthropogenic activities (e.g., urban developments, offroad vehicle use). In regions where resistance is logistically challenging, prohibitively expensive, or less likely to succeed, managers have accepted the conversion of shrubland to invasive annual grassland (Figure 2B).
As desert vegetation biomes shift, managers may offset loss by facilitating the creation of Mojave Desert shrublands in new areas farther north. Spatial decision support tools that have been developed to aid in the selection of seeds and seedlings for restoration sites could be utilized. For example, the Climate Distance Mapper incorporates climatic variation and future projections, which allows for the matching of seeds and seedlings to predicted future climatic conditions at a site [58] and enables managers to direct change in vegetation communities. A conservation portfolio approach could be implemented, where various RAD actions are applied at different places and times to maximize conservation outcomes and increase biodiversity for the Mojave Desert landscape overall [59].
Although a plethora of tools exists for projecting future climate conditions, the site-specific translation of climate change effects into plausible ecological futures is still needed for many locales. Vegetation communities are predicted to shift according to altered temperature and precipitation patterns, but long-term studies have documented complex responses, where many species are moving in unexpected directions [60,61,62]. Pilot studies and experimentation can help identify viable RAD options while minimizing surprises. Pilot studies investigating the use of renewable energy facilities as wildlife habitats or biodiversity havens are increasingly being implemented in different regions [63,64]. One such pilot project in the Mojave Desert has documented site use by the federally threatened Mojave Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii), as well as other wildlife species (Figure 2C [65]). Likewise, common garden experiments (i.e., plantings from different geographic locations grown together under the same environmental conditions) can help identify which species or populations may be locally adapted to specific climate gradients [66,67], which can guide restoration efforts throughout the Mojave Desert post-fire (Figure 2D).
Land 12 01556 g002aLand 12 01556 g002bLand 12 01556 g002c
Figure 2. (A) The recently designated national monument of Avi Kwa Ame (Spirit Mountain) provides an important habitat for key desert species (e.g., Joshua trees, desert bighorn sheep, Gila monsters) while also protecting sacred spaces for spiritual use. Given the socio-ecological importance and high ability to sustain future biodiversity, managers primarily resist ecological transformation in this area. (B) Public lands outside of Las Vegas, Nevada, characterized by large amounts of an invasive annual grass (Bromus rubens). This recreational area is popular, as it provides a cooler, quieter respite from the nearby city; plus, remaining native plants provide habitats or food for wildlife. Given the heavy recreational use and reduced likelihood of restoration success, however, managers primarily accept ecological transformation in this area. Photo credit: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (C) A federally threatened Mojave Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) at a solar energy facility in southern Nevada. Suitable habitat areas were retained within the facility, and fence openings were designed to allow tortoises to move in and out. Photo credit: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (D) The 2005 Loop Fire in Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area in southern Nevada. Fires are becoming larger and more frequent in the Mojave Desert, and 2005 was a record-breaking year when more than 385,000 hectares burned [68]. As the size of burned areas continues to increase, RAD can be used to inform decisions related to restoration efforts. Photo credit: BLM Southern Nevada District, Fire, and Aviation Division.
Figure 2. (A) The recently designated national monument of Avi Kwa Ame (Spirit Mountain) provides an important habitat for key desert species (e.g., Joshua trees, desert bighorn sheep, Gila monsters) while also protecting sacred spaces for spiritual use. Given the socio-ecological importance and high ability to sustain future biodiversity, managers primarily resist ecological transformation in this area. (B) Public lands outside of Las Vegas, Nevada, characterized by large amounts of an invasive annual grass (Bromus rubens). This recreational area is popular, as it provides a cooler, quieter respite from the nearby city; plus, remaining native plants provide habitats or food for wildlife. Given the heavy recreational use and reduced likelihood of restoration success, however, managers primarily accept ecological transformation in this area. Photo credit: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (C) A federally threatened Mojave Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) at a solar energy facility in southern Nevada. Suitable habitat areas were retained within the facility, and fence openings were designed to allow tortoises to move in and out. Photo credit: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (D) The 2005 Loop Fire in Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area in southern Nevada. Fires are becoming larger and more frequent in the Mojave Desert, and 2005 was a record-breaking year when more than 385,000 hectares burned [68]. As the size of burned areas continues to increase, RAD can be used to inform decisions related to restoration efforts. Photo credit: BLM Southern Nevada District, Fire, and Aviation Division.
Land 12 01556 g002aLand 12 01556 g002bLand 12 01556 g002c

4. Natural Resource Management Guidance for Maximizing Biodiversity under RAD

In many cases, managers can still rely on traditional conservation practices to successfully minimize biodiversity loss, such as the establishment of protected areas, the facilitation of habitat connectivity, the identification of refugia, and the translocation of at-risk species. These kinds of actions will continue to form an important part of overall conservation portfolios, and RAD can guide decisions about when and where to implement them. For example, demographic models examining climate change effects on pinyon–juniper woodlands can be used in association with RAD to identify areas where ecological transformation is less likely, indicating locales able to successfully resist ecological transformation in the future [69]. RAD can also guide large-scale conservation introductions (e.g., the translocation of individuals) into refugial areas, which may need to increase in frequency to ensure the persistence of many species within a few decades [70]. Decisions related to genetic rescue, where increased gene flow leads to higher population fitness and reduced extinction probability [71], can also be informed by RAD.
In addition to the preservation of extant species and habitats in place, we can expand our focus to include safeguarding the mechanisms that promote evolutionary processes (e.g., speciation) to maintain biological complexity. This approach can be facilitated by maintaining, restoring, and fostering ecosystems that allow the biosphere to change and adapt as a whole [72]. Managers can strive to promote well-functioning and resilient ecosystems rather than preserving only components of those systems (e.g., specific species or habitats). With a holistic focus on conserving ecological and evolutionary functions or processes, we can maintain those conditions that allow systems to thrive [73].
Biodiversity may be increased overall in the future by facilitating range expansion, which promotes hybridization via interactions with new species [74]. New ecological interactions result in the creation of new niches and opportunities, and novel combinations of species can form successful biological communities [75]. Additionally, novel ecosystems have been shown to facilitate evolution and speciation, which maintain biological complexity [76]. Although many degraded systems are novel, the inverse is not always true, and many novel ecosystems enhance both biodiversity and ecosystem services [77]. For example, research related to endangered plants in Berlin, Germany, found that novel ecosystems in this urban area contained the highest number of plant species and the largest population sizes [78]. While biodiversity can remain high on some level in novel ecosystems, there is a risk of biotic homogenization on a global scale if species composition becomes the same for ecosystems around the world [79]. Managers may be able to define best practices or guard rails for biodiversity minimums in novel ecosystems based on existing guidelines for historical ecosystems. RAD can help facilitate this assessment and generate discussion about techniques to enrich overall biodiversity, such as the pros and cons of promoting speciation to create new species versus translocating existing species into environments beyond their historical range.
As managers embrace novelty and transition, it is important to remember that there will sometimes be biological gains (e.g., higher species richness), as changing ecological conditions will have a positive effect on some genes, populations, and species [73]. It appears possible to further limit biodiversity loss and ensure the provisioning of ecological services while staying within planetary bounds, defined as the boundary humanity must operate within to ensure the sustainable use of the planet’s resources [80], but it will require coordinated conservation efforts and fundamental changes in land use and agriculture [81]. Links between ecosystems and society are emerging that are changing people’s values and expectations of nature, and there is growing recognition that effective biodiversity preservation will depend on meeting human needs [82]. Not everyone views ecological services through the same lens, and biodiversity is often valued and used in different ways. A pluralistic perspective on biodiversity can acknowledge diverse perspectives and knowledge about nature while facilitating cross-disciplinary communication for effective conservation outcomes [83].

5. Conclusions

As biodiversity managers individually choose RAD strategies locally, it will still be important for institutions and assessments to track biodiversity globally. Biodiversity is the building block of opportunity for life to thrive in future conditions that are unknowable. Biodiversity provides the inherent variation needed to enable evolutionary adaptation to new conditions. Ultimately, it is a bet-hedging approach. Although it may not be possible to always conserve every component in each place of origin, complete species loss should be minimized. “To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering” [84], and reducing extinction and conserving phylogenetic diversity is still key. International organizations that assess global biodiversity trends will remain important, but the identification of local and regional targets that reflect their needs and cultural values is a key component of reaching international goals [85]. Likewise, existing biodiversity indicators that often overlook values emanating from human-modified systems [86] are being updated, such as the inclusion of modified habitats or urban ecosystems in biodiversity targets [26]. RAD facilitates these updated processes, as it provides space for values to be considered in decision making related to biodiversity.
A recent comprehensive assessment of biodiversity in the United States found that 40% of animals and 34% of plants are at risk of extinction, while 41% of ecosystems are facing range-wide collapse within the near future [87]. Although these statistics are daunting, it is not too late to reverse biodiversity declines. Ecosystem transformation will characterize the planet for centuries to come. Clearly, we need new approaches for effective responses, and adaptive techniques such as RAD offer practical options for minimizing loss while maintaining or increasing biodiversity. Along with the recognition that place-based conservation is not enough to maintain adequate biodiversity levels [88], managers can incorporate RAD into decision making to maximize biodiversity by
  • Recognizing that biological change maintains biodiversity and ecosystems during global upheaval;
  • Identifying refugia and relocating at-risk species;
  • Promoting evolutionary processes (e.g., speciation) to maintain biological complexity;
  • Managing for ecosystem function rather than system components;
  • Facilitating adaptation by removing barriers to species movement.
We can delineate desirable ecological futures that will maximize the survival of species and the persistence of habitats, thus enabling sound conservation decisions that maintain biodiversity for our descendants. Conservation practitioners and managers will need a clear understanding of ecosystem transformation impacts on biodiversity and society, as well as information about the range of plausible ecological trajectories to decide how to strive for desirable futures. Flexibility to act and systemic knowledge gained and shared among conservation practitioners will also be critical for informing decisions. RAD provides an iterative approach for managing ecological or evolutionary processes to respond to unavoidable environmental change and conserve as much biodiversity as possible.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.L.W. and D.R.M.; methodology, L.M.T. and A.J.L.; formal analysis, J.L.W., L.M.T. and A.J.L.; investigation, J.L.W., D.R.M., L.M.T. and A.J.L.; data curation, J.L.W. and L.M.T.; writing—original draft preparation, J.L.W., D.R.M., L.M.T. and A.J.L.; writing—review and editing, J.L.W., D.R.M., L.M.T. and A.J.L.; visualization, L.M.T. and A.J.L.; project administration, J.L.W. and L.M.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created for this research.

Acknowledgments

We thank the members of the USFWS RAD Working Group for thoughtful discussions that helped to inspire this work. Kate Malpeli contributed to the design of Figure 1. We also thank Sarah Weiskopf for helpful comments that improved the manuscript, as well as anonymous reviewers. The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Nolan, C.; Overpeck, J.T.; Allen, J.R.M.; Anderson, P.M.; Betancourt, J.L.; Binney, H.A.; Brewer, S.; Bush, M.B.; Chase, B.M.; Cheddadi, R.; et al. Past and future global transformation of terrestrial ecosystems under climate change. Science 2018, 361, 920–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Jaureguiberry, P.; Titeux, N.; Wiemers, M.; Bowler, D.E.; Coscieme, L.; Golden, A.S.; Guerra, C.A.; Jacob, U.; Takahashi, Y.; Settele, J.; et al. The direct drivers of recent global anthropogenic biodiversity loss. Sci. Adv. 2022, 8, eabm9982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Thompson, L.M.; Lynch, A.J.; Beever, E.A.; Engman, A.C.; Falke, J.A.; Jackson, S.T.; Krabbenhoft, T.J.; Lawrence, D.J.; Limpinsel, D.; Magill, R.T.; et al. Responding to Ecosystem Transformation: Resist, Accept, or Direct? Fisheries 2021, 46, 8–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Jackson, S.T. Conservation and Resource Management in a Changing World: Extending Historical Range of Variation Beyond the Baseline. Hist. Environ. Var. Conserve. Nat. Res. Manag. 2012, 1, 92–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ellis, E.C.; Kaplan, J.O.; Fuller, D.Q.; Vavrus, S.; Klein Goldewijk, K.; Verburg, P.H. Used planet: A global history. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 7978–7985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Vitousek, P.M. Beyond Global Warming: Ecology and Global Change. Ecology 1994, 75, 1861–1876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Díaz, S.; Settele, J.; Brondízio, E.S.; Ngo, H.T.; Agard, J.; Arneth, A.; Balvanera, P.; Brauman, K.A.; Butchart, S.H.M.; Chan, K.M.A.; et al. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science 2019, 366, eaax3100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Geldmann, J.; Manica, A.; Burgess, N.D.; Coad, L.; Balmford, A. A global-level assessment of the effectiveness of protected areas at resisting anthropogenic pressures. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 23209–23215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Seastedt, T.R.; Hobbs, R.J.; Suding, K.N. Management of novel ecosystems: Are novel approaches required? Front. Ecol. Environ. 2008, 6, 547–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Folke, C.; Carpenter, S.; Elmqvist, T.; Gunderson, L.; Holling, C.S.; Walker, B. Resilience and sustainable development: Building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations. AMBIO 2002, 31, 437–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Lynch, A.J.; Thompson, L.M.; Beever, E.A.; Cole, D.N.; Engman, A.C.; Hawkins Hoffman, C.; Jackson, S.T.; Krabbenhoft, T.J.; Lawrence, D.J.; Limpinsel, D.; et al. Managing for RADical ecosystem change: Applying the Resist-Accept-Direct (RAD) framework. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2021, 19, 461–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Schuurman, G.W.; Cole, D.N.; Cravens, A.E.; Covington, S.; Crausbay, S.D.; Hoffman, C.H.; Lawrence, D.J.; Magness, D.R.; Morton, J.M.; Nelson, E.A.; et al. Navigating Ecological Transformation: Resist–Accept–Direct as a Path to a New Resource Management Paradigm. Bioscience 2022, 72, 16–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Lynch, A.J.; Rahel, F.J.; Limpinsel, D.; Sethi, S.A.; Engman, A.C.; Lawrence, D.J.; Mills, K.E.; Morrison, W.; Peterson, J.O.; Porath, M.T. Ecological and social strategies for managing fisheries using the Resist-Accept-Direct (RAD) framework. Fish. Manag. Ecol. 2022, 29, 329–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Lynch, A.J.; Thompson, L.M.; Morton, J.M.; Beever, E.A.; Clifford, M.; Limpinsel, D.; Magill, R.T.; Magness, D.R.; Melvin, T.A.; Newman, R.A.; et al. RAD Adaptive Management for Transforming Ecosystems. Bioscience 2022, 72, 45–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Mace, G.M.; Norris, K.; Fitter, A.H. Biodiversity and ecosystem services: A multilayered relationship. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2012, 27, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Lausch, A.; Bannehr, L.; Beckmann, M.; Boehm, C.; Feilhauer, H.; Hacker, J.; Heurich, M.; Jung, A.; Klenke, R.; Neumann, C.; et al. Linking Earth Observation and taxonomic, structural and functional biodiversity: Local to ecosystem perspectives. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 70, 317–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Marshall, E.; Wintle, B.A.; Southwell, D.; Kujala, H. What are we measuring? A review of metrics used to describe biodiversity in offsets exchanges. Biol. Conserv. 2020, 241, 108250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Noss, R.F. Indicators for Monitoring Biodiversity: A Hierarchical Approach. Conserv. Biol. 1990, 4, 355–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Convention on Biological Diversity. Available online: https://www.cbd.int/indicators/intro.shtml (accessed on 7 June 2023).
  20. Hill, S.L.; Harfoot, M.; Purvis, A.; Purves, D.W.; Collen, B.; Newbold, T.; Burgess, N.D.; Mace, G.M. Reconciling Biodiversity Indicators to Guide Understanding and Action. Conserv. Lett. 2016, 9, 405–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Hoban, S.; Bruford, M.; Jackson, J.D.; Lopes-Fernandes, M.; Heuertz, M.; Hohenlohe, P.A.; Paz-Vinas, I.; Sjögren-Gulve, P.; Segelbacher, G.; Vernesi, C.; et al. Genetic diversity targets and indicators in the CBD post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework must be improved. Biol. Conserv. 2020, 248, 108654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Brooks, T.M.; Mittermeier, R.A.; Da Fonseca, G.A.B.; Gerlach, J.; Hoffmann, M.; Lamoreux, J.F.; Mittermeier, C.G.; Pilgrim, J.D.; Rodrigues, A.S.L. Global Biodiversity Conservation Priorities. Science 2006, 313, 58–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Carrasco, L.; Papeş, M.; Sheldon, K.S.; Giam, X. Global progress in incorporating climate adaptation into land protection for biodiversity since Aichi targets. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2021, 27, 1788–1801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Morelli, T.L.; Barrows, C.W.; Ramirez, A.R.; Cartwright, J.M.; Ackerly, D.D.; Eaves, T.D.; Ebersole, J.L.; Krawchuk, M.A.; Letcher, B.H.; Mahalovich, M.F.; et al. Climate-change refugia: Biodiversity in the slow lane. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2020, 18, 228–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Convention on Biological Diversity. Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020, Including Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Available online: https://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/ (accessed on 6 June 2023).
  26. Convention on Biological Diversity. Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Available online: https://www.cbd.int/gbf/ (accessed on 6 June 2023).
  27. Harrison, P.; Berry, P.; Simpson, G.; Haslett, J.; Blicharska, M.; Bucur, M.; Dunford, R.; Egoh, B.; Garcia-Llorente, M.; Geamănă, N.; et al. Linkages between biodiversity attributes and ecosystem services: A systematic review. Ecosyst. Serv. 2014, 9, 191–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Simberloff, D. Flagships, umbrellas, and keystones: Is single-species management passé in the landscape era? Biol. Conserv. 1998, 83, 247–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Wesner, J.S.; Belk, M.C. Habitat relationships among biodiversity indicators and co-occurring species in a freshwater fish community. Anim. Conserv. 2012, 15, 445–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ellis, C.J. Ancient woodland indicators signal the climate change risk for dispersal-limited species. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 53, 106–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hafner, D.J. Pikas and Permafrost: Post-Wisconsin Historical Zoogeography of Ochotona in the Southern Rocky Mountains, U.S.A. Arct. Alp. Res. 1994, 26, 375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Beever, E.A.; Perrine, J.D.; Rickman, T.; Flores, M.; Clark, J.P.; Waters, C.; Weber, S.S.; Yardley, B.; Thoma, D.; Chesley-Preston, T.; et al. Pika (Ochotona princeps) losses from two isolated regions reflect temperature and water balance, but reflect habitat area in a mainland region. J. Mammal. 2016, 97, 1495–1511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Hagedorn, M.; Page, C.A.; O’neil, K.L.; Flores, D.M.; Tichy, L.; Conn, T.; Chamberland, V.F.; Lager, C.; Zuchowicz, N.; Lohr, K.; et al. Assisted gene flow using cryopreserved sperm in critically endangered coral. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2021, 118, e2110559118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Price, K.; Roburn, A.; MacKinnon, A. Ecosystem-based management in the Great Bear Rainforest. For. Ecol. Manag. 2009, 258, 495–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Wood, S.; Dupras, J. Increasing functional diversity of the urban canopy for climate resilience: Potential tradeoffs with ecosystem services? Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 58, 126972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sáenz-Romero, C.; O’Neill, G.; Aitken, S.N.; Lindig-Cisneros, R. Assisted Migration Field Tests in Canada and Mexico: Lessons, Limitations, and Challenges. Forests 2020, 12, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Aplet, G.H.; Mckinley, P.S. A portfolio approach to managing ecological risks of global change. Ecosyst. Health Sustain. 2017, 3, e01261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Galatowitsch, S.; Frelich, L.; Phillips-Mao, L. Regional climate change adaptation strategies for biodiversity conservation in a midcontinental region of North America. Biol. Conserv. 2009, 142, 2012–2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mittermeier, C.G.; Konstant, W.R.; Lovich, R.E.; Lovich, J.E. The Mojave Desert. Wilderness: Earth’s Last Wild Places. USGC 2002, 1, 351–356. [Google Scholar]
  40. Randall, J.M.; Parker, S.S.; Moore, J.; Cohen, B.; Crane, L.; Christian, B.; Cameron, D.; MacKenzie, J.; Klausmeyer, K.; Mor-rison, S. Mojave Desert Ecoregional Assessment. Unpublished Report. The Nature Conservancy, San Francisco, California. 106 pages + Appendices. 2010. Available online: http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/mojave/documents/mojave-desertecoregional-2010/@@view.html (accessed on 7 June 2023).
  41. Seager, R.; Ting, M.; Held, I.; Kushnir, Y.; Lu, J.; Vecchi, G.; Huang, H.-P.; Harnik, N.; Leetmaa, A.; Lau, N.-C.; et al. Model projections of an imminent transition to a more arid climate in southwestern North America. Science 2007, 316, 1181–1184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Diffenbaugh, N.S.; Giorgi, F.; Pal, J.S. Climate change hotspots in the United States. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2008, 35, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Cook, B.I.; Ault, T.R.; Smerdon, J.E. Unprecedented 21st century drought risk in the American Southwest and Central Plains. Sci. Adv. 2015, 1, e1400082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Iknayan, K.J.; Beissinger, S.R. Collapse of a desert bird community over the past century driven by climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 8597–8602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Rich, L.N.; Furnas, B.J.; Newton, D.S.; Brashares, J.S. Acoustic and camera surveys inform models of current and future vertebrate distributions in a changing desert ecosystem. Divers. Distrib. 2019, 25, 1441–1456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Riddell, E.A.; Iknayan, K.J.; Hargrove, L.; Tremor, S.; Patton, J.L.; Ramirez, R.; Wolf, B.O.; Beissinger, S.R. Exposure to climate change drives stability or collapse of desert mammal and bird communities. Science 2021, 371, 633–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hernandez, R.R.; Hoffacker, M.K.; Murphy-Mariscal, M.L.; Wu, G.C.; Allen, M.F. Solar energy development impacts on land cover change and protected areas. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 13579–13584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Grodsky, S.M.; Hernandez, R.R. Reduced ecosystem services of desert plants from ground-mounted solar energy development. Nat. Sustain. 2020, 3, 1036–1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Brooks, M.L. Alien annual grasses and fire in the Mojave Desert. Madroño 1999, 46, 13–19. [Google Scholar]
  50. Brooks, M.; Matchett, J. Spatial and temporal patterns of wildfires in the Mojave Desert, 1980–2004. J. Arid. Environ. 2006, 67, 148–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Hereford, R.; Webb, R.; Longpré, C. Precipitation history and ecosystem response to multidecadal precipitation variability in the Mojave Desert region, 1893–2001. J. Arid. Environ. 2006, 67, 13–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Abatzoglou, J.T.; Kolden, C.A. Climate Change in Western US Deserts: Potential for Increased Wildfire and Invasive Annual Grasses. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 2011, 64, 471–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Tagestad, J.; Brooks, M.; Cullinan, V.; Downs, J.; McKinley, R. Precipitation regime classification for the Mojave Desert: Implications for fire occurrence. J. Arid. Environ. 2016, 124, 388–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Cameron, D.R.; Cohen, B.S.; Morrison, S.A. An Approach to Enhance the Conservation-Compatibility of Solar Energy Development. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e38437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Kreitler, J.; Schloss, C.A.; Soong, O.; Hannah, L.; Davis, F.W. Conservation Planning for Offsetting the Impacts of Development: A Case Study of Biodiversity and Renewable Energy in the Mojave Desert. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0140226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Hromada, S.J.; Esque, T.C.; Vandergast, A.G.; Dutcher, K.E.; Mitchell, C.I.; Gray, M.E.; Chang, T.; Dickson, B.G.; Nussear, K.E. Using movement to inform conservation corridor design for Mojave desert tortoise. Mov Ecol. 2020, 8, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Harju, S.; Cambrin, S.; Jenkins, K. Mapping Low-Elevation Species Richness and Biodiversity in the Eastern Mojave Desert. Nat. Areas J. 2023, 43, 53–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Shryock, D.F.; DeFalco, L.A.; Esque, T.C. Spatial decision-support tools to guide restoration and seed-sourcing in the Desert Southwest. Ecosphere 2018, 9, e02453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Magness, D.R.; Wilkening, J.L.; Smetzer, J.; Guilbeau, K.; Miles, W. Climate change adaptation in action: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can take action to resist, accept, and direct change. Wildl. Prof. 2022, 16, 34–38. [Google Scholar]
  60. Alexander, J.M.; Chalmandrier, L.; Lenoir, J.; Burgess, T.I.; Essl, F.; Haider, S.; Kueffer, C.; McDougall, K.; Milbau, A.; Nuñez, M.A.; et al. Lags in the response of mountain plant communities to climate change. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2018, 24, 563–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Rumpf, S.B.; Hülber, K.; Zimmermann, N.E.; Dullinger, S. Elevational rear edges shifted at least as much as leading edges over the last century. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2019, 28, 533–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Rubenstein, M.A.; Weiskopf, S.R.; Bertrand, R.; Carter, S.L.; Comte, L.; Eaton, M.J.; Johnson, C.G.; Lenoir, J.; Lynch, A.J.; Miller, B.W.; et al. Climate change and the global redistribution of biodiversity: Substantial variation in empirical support for expected range shifts. Environ. Evid. 2023, 12, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Nordberg, E.J.; Caley, M.J.; Schwarzkopf, L. Designing solar farms for synergistic commercial and conservation outcomes. Sol. Energy 2021, 228, 586–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Nordberg, E.J.; Schwarzkopf, L. Developing conservoltaic systems to support biodiversity on solar farms. Austral Ecol. 2023, 48, 643–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Wilkening, J.L.; Rautenstrauch, K. Can solar farms be wildlife friendly? A facility in the southwest hopes to find the answer. Wildl. Prof. 2019, 13, 46–50. [Google Scholar]
  66. Custer, N.A.; Schwinning, S.; DeFalco, L.A.; Esque, T.C. Local climate adaptations in two ubiquitous Mojave Desert shrub species, Ambrosia dumosa and Larrea tridentata. J. Ecol. 2022, 110, 1072–1089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Schwinning, S.; Lortie, C.J.; Esque, T.C.; DeFalco, L.A. What common-garden experiments tell us about climate responses in plants. J. Ecol. 2022, 110, 986–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Abella, S.R.; Engel, E.C.; Lund, C.L.; Spencer, J.E. Early Post-Fire Plant Establishment on a Mojave Desert Burn. BioOne 2009, 56, 137–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Noel, A.R.; Shriver, R.K.; Crausbay, S.D.; Bradford, J.B. Where can managers effectively resist climate-driven ecological transformation in pinyon–juniper woodlands of the US Southwest? Glob. Chang. Biol. 2023, 29, 4327–4341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Butt, N.; Chauvenet, A.L.; Adams, V.M.; Beger, M.; Gallagher, R.V.; Shanahan, D.F.; Ward, M.; Watson, J.E.M.; Possingham, H.P. Importance of species translocations under rapid climate change. Conserv. Biol. 2021, 35, 775–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Bell, D.A.; Robinson, Z.L.; Funk, W.C.; Fitzpatrick, S.W.; Allendorf, F.W.; Tallmon, D.A.; Whiteley, A.R. The Exciting Potential and Remaining Uncertainties of Genetic Rescue. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2019, 34, 1070–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Gardner, C.J.; Bullock, J.M. In the Climate Emergency, Conservation Must Become Survival Ecology. Front. Conserv. Sci. 2021, 2, 659912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Thomas, C.D. The development of Anthropocene biotas. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 2020, 375, 20190113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Pfennig, K.S.; Kelly, A.L.; Pierce, A.A. Hybridization as a facilitator of species range expansion. Proc. R. Soc. B 2016, 283, 20161329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Kennedy, P.L.; Fontaine, J.B.; Hobbs, R.J.; Johnson, T.; Boyle, R.; Lueders, A.S. Do novel ecosystems provide habitat value for wildlife? Revisiting the physiognomy vs. floristics debate. Ecosphere 2018, 9, e02172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Hendry, A.P.; Gotanda, K.M.; Svensson, E.I. Human influences on evolution, and the ecological and societal con-sequences. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 2017, 372, 20160028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Evers, C.R.; Wardropper, C.B.; Branoff, B.; Granek, E.F.; Hirsch, S.L.; Link, T.E.; Olivero-Lora, S.; Wilson, C. The ecosystem services and biodiversity of novel ecosystems: A literature review. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2018, 13, e00362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Planchuelo, G.; von Der Lippe, M.; Kowarik, I. Untangling the role of urban ecosystems as habitats for endangered plant species. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019, 189, 320–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Vellend, M.; Baeten, L.; Myers-Smith, I.H.; Elmendorf, S.C.; Beauséjour, R.; Brown, C.D.; De Frenne, P.; Verheyen, K.; Wipf, S. Global me-ta-analysis reveals no net change in local-scale plant biodiversity over time. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 19456–19459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Steffen, W.; Richardson, K.; Rockström, J.; Cornell, S.E.; Fetzer, I.; Bennett, E.M.; Biggs, R.; Carpenter, S.R.; de Vries, W.; de Wit, C.A.; et al. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 2015, 347, 1259855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Leclère, D.; Obersteiner, M.; Barrett, M.; Butchart, S.H.M.; Chaudhary, A.; De Palma, A.; DeClerck, F.A.J.; Di Marco, M.; Doelman, J.C.; Dürauer, M.; et al. Bending the curve of terrestrial biodiversity needs an integrated strategy. Nature 2020, 585, 551–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Schlaepfer, M.A.; Lawler, J.J. Conserving biodiversity in the face of rapid climate change requires a shift in priorities. WIREs Clim. Chang. 2023, 14, e798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Pascual, U.; Adams, W.; Diaz, S.; Lele, S.; Mace, G.M.; Turnhout, E. Biodiversity and the challenge of pluralism. Nat. Sustain. 2021, 4, 567–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Leopold, A. Round River; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1972. [Google Scholar]
  85. Obura, D.O.; Katerere, Y.; Mayet, M.; Kaelo, D.; Msweli, S.; Mather, K.; Harris, J.; Louis, M.; Kramer, R.; Teferi, T.; et al. Integrate biodiversity targets from local to global levels. Science 2021, 373, 746–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Schlaepfer, M.A. Do non-native species contribute to biodiversity? PLOS Biol. 2018, 16, e2005568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. NatureServe 2023. Available online: https://www.natureserve.org/biodiversity-in-focus/story (accessed on 7 June 2023).
  88. Rosenzweig, M.L. Win-Win Ecology How the Earth’s Species Can Survive in the Midst of Human Enterprise, 1st ed.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2003; pp. 1–2. [Google Scholar]
Land 12 01556 g001
Figure 1. The RAD (resist–accept–direct) decision space envisioned as a triangle. Note that these colors are an intentional shift away from positive and negative color connotations of an earlier interpretation [3] to emphasize that no RAD pathway is inherently preferred over any other. The colors also blend to show that the classification of a particular RAD pathway can be open to interpretation.
Figure 1. The RAD (resist–accept–direct) decision space envisioned as a triangle. Note that these colors are an intentional shift away from positive and negative color connotations of an earlier interpretation [3] to emphasize that no RAD pathway is inherently preferred over any other. The colors also blend to show that the classification of a particular RAD pathway can be open to interpretation.
Land 12 01556 g001
Table 1. Example RAD strategies that can target varying levels of biodiversity (including compositional, structural, and functional; sensu [18]) using various management targets. RAD management targets may closely align with levels of biodiversity or services or may include multiple levels of biodiversity and its benefits as part of a landscape/portfolio approach.
Table 1. Example RAD strategies that can target varying levels of biodiversity (including compositional, structural, and functional; sensu [18]) using various management targets. RAD management targets may closely align with levels of biodiversity or services or may include multiple levels of biodiversity and its benefits as part of a landscape/portfolio approach.
Management TargetBiodiversity Level or Its Benefits *
Genes/Populations/SpeciesCommunities/EcosystemsEcosystem Services
Species or indicator (and other surrogate) speciesExample metric/indicator: Gene diversity
Land 12 01556 i001Resist: Improve corridors between populations to increase gene flow and genetic diversity
Land 12 01556 i002Accept: Allow decline of gene flow between populations at range edge because the climate is no longer suitable
Land 12 01556 i003Direct: Conservation introductions to encourage hybridization and increase evolutionary potential
Multiple species or communities Example metric/indicator:
Species richness
Land 12 01556 i001Resist: Protect regions with high species richness (e.g., biodiversity hotspots)
Land 12 01556 i002Accept: Allow loss of biodiverse regions where climate exposure and other land use changes are increasingly intense
Land 12 01556 i003Direct: Protect regions that may yield future species richness, such as areas with topographic complexity
Ecosystem services Example metric/indicator: Area of available wildlife habitat in coastal wetland
Land 12 01556 i001Resist: Restore coastal forests; manipulate river channels to allow for freshwater spill
Land 12 01556 i002Accept: Allow loss of habitat where inundation is increasingly frequent
Land 12 01556 i003Direct: Develop habitat farther inland to allow for the migration of wildlife populations
Landscapes (management portfolio)Example metric/indicator: Trend in forest species abundance
Land 12 01556 i001Resist: Minimize invasive species abundance to promote natives
Land 12 01556 i002Accept: Allow decline of keystone species affected by climate exposure
Land 12 01556 i003Direct: Assist migration of potential alternative keystone species into the range		Example metric/indicator:
Forest diversity
Land 12 01556 i001Resist: Reforest degraded areas to maintain the diversity of forest types
Land 12 01556 i002Accept: Allow vulnerable groups of species to disappear
Land 12 01556 i003Direct: Promote migration of non-native climate-resilient forest types to increase forest diversity 		Example metric/indicator: Freshwater fishing
Land 12 01556 i001Resist: Restore riparian areas to promote stream cooling for popular game species and aesthetic fishing experiences
Land 12 01556 i002Accept: Allow loss of coldwater stream fishes at lower elevations
Land 12 01556 i003Direct: Introduce non-native coolwater/warmwater fishes to provide alternative fishing targets
* There are often linkages between levels of biodiversity [27], and management at one level has the potential to affect multiple levels.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wilkening, J.L.; Magness, D.R.; Thompson, L.M.; Lynch, A.J. A Brave New World: Managing for Biodiversity Conservation under Ecosystem Transformation. Land 2023, 12, 1556. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12081556

AMA Style

Wilkening JL, Magness DR, Thompson LM, Lynch AJ. A Brave New World: Managing for Biodiversity Conservation under Ecosystem Transformation. Land. 2023; 12(8):1556. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12081556

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wilkening, Jennifer L., Dawn Robin Magness, Laura M. Thompson, and Abigail J. Lynch. 2023. "A Brave New World: Managing for Biodiversity Conservation under Ecosystem Transformation" Land 12, no. 8: 1556. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12081556

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop