Skip to main content
Log in

GAP management status and regional indicators of threats to biodiversity

  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Conservation assessment requires quantitative criteria for evaluating the relative degree of threat faced by species or ecological communities. Identifying appropriate criteria for communities is complicated because the species inhabiting them can have many different responses to land uses and other forms of environmental stress. The Gap Analysis Program (GAP) uses summary data on the proportion of the community that is protected as an estimate of its vulnerability. Management status from a gap analysis of California was compared with three ecological indicators (permitted land uses, human population growth, and the spatial extent of road effects) that more directly represent impacts on biodiversity. The classification of management status appears to provide a crude first approximation of these three indicators. Public and private lands that are not formally protected were susceptible to extensive land use conversion or resource extraction in both rural and urban settings. Some plant community types are more susceptible to future infringement by human population increases that were not well predicted by management status alone. Other community types have a high road density despite being moderately well protected. It is suggested that indicators such as future growth and current road effects could complement status in rating the potential vulnerability of plant communities and setting conservation priorities. The choice of indicators will depend on the threatening processes in a given region and the availability of spatial data to map or model them.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Awimbo, J.A., Norton, D.A. and Overmars, F.B. 1996. An evaluation of representativeness for nature conservation, Hokitika Ecological District, New Zealand. Biol. Cons. 75: 177–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beardsley, K. and Stoms, D.M. 1993. Compiling a digital map of areas managed for biodiversity in California. Natural Areas J. 13: 177–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bureau of the Census. 1989. TIGER/Line precensus files, 1990: technical documentation. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • California Department of Finance. 1997. Interim County Population Projections, April, 1997. Sacramento. [http://www.dof.ca.gov/html/Demograp/plnetar.htm]

  • Chomitz, K.M. and Gray, D.A. 1996. Roads, land use, and deforestation: A spatial model applied to Belize. World Bank Economic Rev. 10: 487–512.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, K.C., Hoppen, S. and Gaydos, L. 1997. A self-modifying cellular automaton model of historical urbanization in the San Francisco Bay area. Env. Planning B-Planning Design 24: 247–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cogan, C. 1997. The California Biodiversity Project: Application of ecological data sets to biodiversity analysis. Proceedings of the 17th Annual ESRI User Conference. [http://www.esri.com/base/common/userconf/proc97/PROC97/TO250/PAP235/P235.HTM]

  • Dale, V.H., O'Neill, R.V., Southworth, F. and Pedlowski, M. 1994. Modeling effects of land management in the Brazilian Amazonian settlement of Rondônia. Cons. Biol. 8: 196–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, F.W. and Stoms, D.M. 1996. Sierran vegetation: A gap analysis. pp. 671–689. In Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress, vol. II, Assessments and scientific basis for management options. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildlands Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, F.W., Stoms, D.M., Church, R.L., Okin, W. J. and Johnson, K.N. 1996. Selecting biodiversity management areas. pp. 1503–1528. In Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress, vol. II, Assessments and scientific basis for management options. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildlands Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, F.W., Stoms, D.M., Hollander, A.D., Thomas, K.A., Stine, P.A., Odion, D., Borchert, M.I., Thorne, J.H., Gray, M.V., Walker, R.E., Warner, K. and Graae, J. 1998. The California Gap Analysis Project: Final Report. University of California, Santa Barbara. [http://www.biogeog.ucsb.edu/projects/gap/gap_rep.html].

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinerstein, E. and Wikramanayake, E. D. 1993. Beyond ‘hotspots’: How to prioritize investments to conserve biodiversity in the Indo-Pacific region. Cons. Biol. 7: 53–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duane, T.P. 1996. Human settlement, 1850–2040. pp. 235–359. In Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress, vol. II, Assessments and scientific basis for management options. University of California, Centers for Water and Wildlands Resources, Davis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forman, R.T.T. 1998. Road ecology: A solution for the giant embracing us. Landscape Ecol. 13: iii–v.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forman, R.T.T. and Alexander, L.E. 1998. Roads and their major ecological effects. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 29: 207–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forman, R.T.T. and Deblinger, R.D. 1998. The ecological roadeffect zone for transportation planning and a Massachusetts highway example. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Wildlife Ecology and Transportation. FL-ER-69-98. pp. 78–96. Edited by G.L. Evink, P. Garrett, D. Zeigler, and J. Berry. Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, Florida.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forman, R.T.T., Friedman, D.S., Fitzhenry, D., Martin, J.D., Chen, A.S. and Alexander, L.E. 1997. Ecological effects of roads: Toward three summary indices and an overview for North America. In Habitat Fragmentation and Infrastructure. pp. 40–54. Edited by K. Canters. Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, Delft, the Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzales-Rebeles, C., Burke, V.J., Jennings, M.D., Ceballos, G. and Parker, N.C. 1998. Transnational gap analysis of the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande region. Photog. Eng. Remote Sensing 64: 1115–1118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, K.B., Riitters, K.H., Wickham, J.D., Tankersley, R.D., Jr., O'Neill, R.V., Chaloud, D.J., Smith, E.R. and Neale, A.C. 1997. An Ecological Assessment of the United States Mid-Atlantic Region. EPA/600/R-97/130. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klopatek, J.M., Olson, R.J., Emerson, C.J. and Joness, J.L. 1979. Land-use conflicts with natural vegetation in the United States. Env. Cons. 6: 191–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuitunen, M., Rossi, E. and Stenroos, A. 1998. Do highways influence density of land birds? Env. Manag. 22: 297–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurance, W.F. 1991. Ecological correlates of extinction proneness in Australian tropical rain forest mammals. Cons. Biol. 5: 79–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyon, L.J. 1983. Road density models describing habitat effectiveness for elk. J. Forestry 81: 592–595, 613.

    Google Scholar 

  • Master, L.L. 1991. Assessing threats and setting conservation priorities. Cons. Biol. 5: 559–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millsap, B.A., Gore, J.A., Runde, D.E. and Cerulean, S.I. 1990. Setting priorities for the conservation of fish and wildlife species in Florida. Wildlife Monographs 111: 1–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mladenoff, D.J., Sickley, T.A., Haight, R.G. and Wydeven, A.P. 1995. A regional landscape analysis and prediction of favorable Gray wolf habitat in the northern Great Lakes Region. Cons. Biol. 9: 279–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moyle, P.B. and Randall, P.J. 1998. Evaluating the biotic integrity of watersheds in the Sierra Nevada, California. Cons. Biol. 12: 1318–1326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, N. 1988. Threatened biotas: ‘Hotspots’ in tropical forests. Environmentalist 8: 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nantel, P., Bouchard, A., Brouillet, L. and Hay, S. 1998. Selection of areas for protecting rare plants with integration of land use conflicts: A case study for the west coast of Newfoundland, Canada. Biol. Cons. 84: 223–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noss, R.F. 1987. From plant communities to landscapes in conservation inventories: A look at The Nature Conservancy (USA). Biol. Cons. 41: 11–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noss, R.F. 1996. Protected areas: How much is enough? In National Parks and Protected Areas: Their Role in Environmental Protection. pp. 91–120. Edited by R.G. Wright and J. Lemmons. Blackwell Science, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noss, R.F., LaRoe, E.T., III and Scott, J.M. 1995. Endangered ecosystems of the United States: A preliminary assessment of loss and degradation. Biological Report 28. National Biological Service, Washington, DC. 58 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed, R.A., Johnson-Barnard, J. and Baker, W.L. 1996. The contribution of roads to forest fragmentation in the Rocky Mountains. Cons. Biol. 10: 1098–1106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rich, A.C., Dobkin, D.S. and Niles, L.J. 1994. Defining forest fragmentation by corridor width: The influence of narrow forestdividing corridors on forest-nesting birds in southern New Jersey. Cons. Biol. 8: 1109–1121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schonewald-Cox, C. and Buechner, M. 1992. Park protection and public roads. In Conservation Biology: The Theory and Practice of Nature Conservation, Preservation, and Management, pp. 373–395. Edited by P.L. Fiedler and S.K. Jain. Chapman and Hall, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J.M., Davis, F., Csuti, B., Noss, R., Butterfield, B., Groves, C., Anderson, H., Caicco, S., D'Erchia, F., Edwards, T.C., Jr., Ulliman, J. and Wright, R.G. 1993. Gap analysis: A geographic approach to protection of biological diversity. Wildlife Monographs 123: 1–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spies, T.A., Ripple, W.J. and Bradshaw, G.A. 1994. Dynamics and pattern of a managed coniferous forest landscape in Oregon. Ecol. Appl. 4: 555–568.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoms, D.M., Davis, F.W., Driese, K.L., Cassidy, K.M. and Murray, M.P. 1998. Gap analysis of the vegetation of the Intermountain Semi-Desert Ecoregion. Great Basin Nat. 58: 199–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strittholt, J.R. and Boerner, R.E.J. 1995. Applying biodiversity gap analysis in a regional nature reserve design for the Edge of Appalachia, Ohio. Cons. Biol. 9: 1492–1505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiel, R.P. 1985. Relationships between road densities and wolf habitat in Wisconsin. Am. Midland Nat. 113: 404–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tinker, D.B., Resor, C.A.C., Beauvais, G.P., Kipfmueller, K.F., Fernandes C.I. and Baker, W.L. 1998. Watershed analysis of forest fragmentation by clearcuts and roads in a Wyoming forest. Landscape Ecol. 13: 149–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, M.G., Wear, D.N. and Flamm, R.O. 1996. Land ownership and land-cover change in the southern Appalachian Highlands and the Olympic Peninsula. Ecol. Appl. 6: 1150–1172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Usher, M. B. 1986.Wildlife Conservation Evaluation. Chapman and Hall, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • USDA Forest Service. 1998. Forest Service Roads: A Synthesis of Scientific Information (Draft). April 2, 1998 version published electronically at http://www.fs.fed.us/news/roads/science.html.

  • White, D., Minotti, P.G., Barczak, M.J., Sifneos, J.C., Freemark, K.E., Santelmann, M.V., Steinitz, C.F., Kiester, A.R. and Preston, E.M. 1997. Assessing risks to biodiversity from future landscape change. Cons. Biol. 11: 349–360.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stoms, D.M. GAP management status and regional indicators of threats to biodiversity. Landscape Ecology 15, 21–33 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008105026956

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008105026956

Navigation