gap analysis and comprehensive conservation strategy for riverine ecosystems of Missouri

North America harbors an astounding proportion of the world's freshwater species, but it is facing a freshwater biodiversity crisis. A first step to slowing the loss of biodiversity involves identifying gaps in existing efforts to conserve biodiversity and prioritizing opportunities to fill the...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Ecological monographs 2007-08, Vol.77 (3), p.301-334
Hauptverfasser: Sowa, S.P, Annis, G, Morey, M.E, Diamond, D.D
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 334
container_issue 3
container_start_page 301
container_title Ecological monographs
container_volume 77
creator Sowa, S.P
Annis, G
Morey, M.E
Diamond, D.D
description North America harbors an astounding proportion of the world's freshwater species, but it is facing a freshwater biodiversity crisis. A first step to slowing the loss of biodiversity involves identifying gaps in existing efforts to conserve biodiversity and prioritizing opportunities to fill these gaps. In this monograph we detail two separate, but complementary, conservation planning efforts—a Gap Analysis (GAP) and a State Wildlife Action Plan (WAP)—for Missouri that address this first step. The goal of the Missouri Aquatic GAP Project was to identify riverine ecosystems, habitats, and species not adequately represented (i.e., gaps) within existing conservation lands. The goal of the freshwater component of the Missouri Wildlife Action Plan was to identify and map a set of conservation-opportunity areas (COAs) that holistically represent all riverine ecosystems, habitats, and species in Missouri. Since conservation planning is a geographical exercise, both efforts utilized geographic information systems (GIS). Four principal GIS data sets were used in each planning effort: (1) a hierarchical riverine ecosystem classification, (2) predicted species distributions, (3) public ownership/stewardship, and (4) a human-threat index. Results of the gap analyses are not encouraging. Forty five, mostly rare, threatened, or endangered, species are not represented in lands set aside for conserving biodiversity. Results also illustrate the fragmented nature of conservation lands, which are mainly situated in the uplands and fail to provide connectivity among riverine habitats. Furthermore, many conservation lands are severely threatened by an array of human disturbances. In contrast, results of the WAP provide hope that relatively intact riverine ecosystems still exist. A total of 158 COAs, representing ∼6% of the total kilometers of stream in Missouri, were selected for the WAP. This illustrates that a wide spectrum of biodiversity can be represented within a small portion of the total resource base, but the area of conservation concern is often much larger. Identifying priority riverscapes for conservation is an important first step toward effective biodiversity conservation. Yet, achieving the ultimate goal of conserving biodiversity will require vigilance on the part of all responsible parties, with particular attention to addressing and coordinating the many remaining logistical tasks.
doi_str_mv 10.1890/06-1253.1
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_20171046</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>27646091</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>27646091</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4081-79ce8c56bec6fe3c74ed1f62407d25adf79eef492a7c8628640cd0ceedac1e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kEGLFDEQhYMoOK4e_AFiI7jgoddK0km6j8uwrsIuHlbBW4jpypihpzOmelb635umFwXBU1XxvveSKsZecrjgbQfvQddcKHnBH7ENV8rUBrh6zDYAXNSd5uope0a0h2Xuug37tnPHyo1umClSafrKp8Mx4w8cKd5jmUbCfO-mmMaKpuwm3M1VSLnKRc5xxAp9opkmPFCVQnUbidIpx-fsSXAD4YuHesbuPlx92X6sbz5ff9pe3tS-gZbXpvPYeqW_o9cBpTcN9jxo0YDphXJ9MB1iaDrhjG-1aHUDvgeP2DvPUZ6x8zX1mNPPE9JkD5E8DoMbMZ3ICuCGQ6ML-OYfcF9-WfYujJS8UcKIAr1bIZ8TUcZgjzkeXJ4tB7uc14K2y3ktL-zbh0BH3g0hu9FH-mtoOy05V4VrVu5XHHD-f6C92t4KAGOMlLDEv1pte5pS_mMTRjcaukV_verBJet2uTz99a5sKwFa2YqS8httWJ0e</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>233145272</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>gap analysis and comprehensive conservation strategy for riverine ecosystems of Missouri</title><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><creator>Sowa, S.P ; Annis, G ; Morey, M.E ; Diamond, D.D</creator><creatorcontrib>Sowa, S.P ; Annis, G ; Morey, M.E ; Diamond, D.D</creatorcontrib><description>North America harbors an astounding proportion of the world's freshwater species, but it is facing a freshwater biodiversity crisis. A first step to slowing the loss of biodiversity involves identifying gaps in existing efforts to conserve biodiversity and prioritizing opportunities to fill these gaps. In this monograph we detail two separate, but complementary, conservation planning efforts—a Gap Analysis (GAP) and a State Wildlife Action Plan (WAP)—for Missouri that address this first step. The goal of the Missouri Aquatic GAP Project was to identify riverine ecosystems, habitats, and species not adequately represented (i.e., gaps) within existing conservation lands. The goal of the freshwater component of the Missouri Wildlife Action Plan was to identify and map a set of conservation-opportunity areas (COAs) that holistically represent all riverine ecosystems, habitats, and species in Missouri. Since conservation planning is a geographical exercise, both efforts utilized geographic information systems (GIS). Four principal GIS data sets were used in each planning effort: (1) a hierarchical riverine ecosystem classification, (2) predicted species distributions, (3) public ownership/stewardship, and (4) a human-threat index. Results of the gap analyses are not encouraging. Forty five, mostly rare, threatened, or endangered, species are not represented in lands set aside for conserving biodiversity. Results also illustrate the fragmented nature of conservation lands, which are mainly situated in the uplands and fail to provide connectivity among riverine habitats. Furthermore, many conservation lands are severely threatened by an array of human disturbances. In contrast, results of the WAP provide hope that relatively intact riverine ecosystems still exist. A total of 158 COAs, representing ∼6% of the total kilometers of stream in Missouri, were selected for the WAP. This illustrates that a wide spectrum of biodiversity can be represented within a small portion of the total resource base, but the area of conservation concern is often much larger. Identifying priority riverscapes for conservation is an important first step toward effective biodiversity conservation. Yet, achieving the ultimate goal of conserving biodiversity will require vigilance on the part of all responsible parties, with particular attention to addressing and coordinating the many remaining logistical tasks.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0012-9615</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1557-7015</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1890/06-1253.1</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ECMOAQ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington, DC: Ecological Society of America</publisher><subject>Animal and plant ecology ; Animal, plant and microbial ecology ; aquatic ecological classification ; Biodiversity ; Biodiversity conservation ; biogeography ; Biological and medical sciences ; conservation areas ; Conservation biology ; conservation planning ; crayfish ; ecoregions ; Ecosystem studies ; Ecosystems ; Environmental conservation ; Environmental protection ; fish ; freshwater ; freshwater biodiversity ; Freshwater ecology ; Freshwater ecosystems ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; gap analysis ; General aspects ; geographic information systems ; geographical distribution ; Habitat conservation ; human-threat index ; land use ; length ; limnology ; Missouri (USA) aquatic gap-analysis project ; mussels ; National Gap Analysis Program (GAP) ; planning ; predicted species distributions ; Protected areas ; public stewardship mapping ; riverine ecosystem protection ; riverine habitat ; spatial data ; Species ; species diversity ; statistical analysis ; Streams ; Synecology ; watersheds ; wetlands ; wildlife action plan ; Wildlife conservation</subject><ispartof>Ecological monographs, 2007-08, Vol.77 (3), p.301-334</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2007 Ecological Society of America</rights><rights>2007 by the Ecological Society of America</rights><rights>2007 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright Ecological Society of America Aug 2007</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4081-79ce8c56bec6fe3c74ed1f62407d25adf79eef492a7c8628640cd0ceedac1e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4081-79ce8c56bec6fe3c74ed1f62407d25adf79eef492a7c8628640cd0ceedac1e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/27646091$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/27646091$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,804,1418,27929,27930,45579,45580,58022,58255</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=18963115$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sowa, S.P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Annis, G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morey, M.E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Diamond, D.D</creatorcontrib><title>gap analysis and comprehensive conservation strategy for riverine ecosystems of Missouri</title><title>Ecological monographs</title><description>North America harbors an astounding proportion of the world's freshwater species, but it is facing a freshwater biodiversity crisis. A first step to slowing the loss of biodiversity involves identifying gaps in existing efforts to conserve biodiversity and prioritizing opportunities to fill these gaps. In this monograph we detail two separate, but complementary, conservation planning efforts—a Gap Analysis (GAP) and a State Wildlife Action Plan (WAP)—for Missouri that address this first step. The goal of the Missouri Aquatic GAP Project was to identify riverine ecosystems, habitats, and species not adequately represented (i.e., gaps) within existing conservation lands. The goal of the freshwater component of the Missouri Wildlife Action Plan was to identify and map a set of conservation-opportunity areas (COAs) that holistically represent all riverine ecosystems, habitats, and species in Missouri. Since conservation planning is a geographical exercise, both efforts utilized geographic information systems (GIS). Four principal GIS data sets were used in each planning effort: (1) a hierarchical riverine ecosystem classification, (2) predicted species distributions, (3) public ownership/stewardship, and (4) a human-threat index. Results of the gap analyses are not encouraging. Forty five, mostly rare, threatened, or endangered, species are not represented in lands set aside for conserving biodiversity. Results also illustrate the fragmented nature of conservation lands, which are mainly situated in the uplands and fail to provide connectivity among riverine habitats. Furthermore, many conservation lands are severely threatened by an array of human disturbances. In contrast, results of the WAP provide hope that relatively intact riverine ecosystems still exist. A total of 158 COAs, representing ∼6% of the total kilometers of stream in Missouri, were selected for the WAP. This illustrates that a wide spectrum of biodiversity can be represented within a small portion of the total resource base, but the area of conservation concern is often much larger. Identifying priority riverscapes for conservation is an important first step toward effective biodiversity conservation. Yet, achieving the ultimate goal of conserving biodiversity will require vigilance on the part of all responsible parties, with particular attention to addressing and coordinating the many remaining logistical tasks.</description><subject>Animal and plant ecology</subject><subject>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</subject><subject>aquatic ecological classification</subject><subject>Biodiversity</subject><subject>Biodiversity conservation</subject><subject>biogeography</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>conservation areas</subject><subject>Conservation biology</subject><subject>conservation planning</subject><subject>crayfish</subject><subject>ecoregions</subject><subject>Ecosystem studies</subject><subject>Ecosystems</subject><subject>Environmental conservation</subject><subject>Environmental protection</subject><subject>fish</subject><subject>freshwater</subject><subject>freshwater biodiversity</subject><subject>Freshwater ecology</subject><subject>Freshwater ecosystems</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>gap analysis</subject><subject>General aspects</subject><subject>geographic information systems</subject><subject>geographical distribution</subject><subject>Habitat conservation</subject><subject>human-threat index</subject><subject>land use</subject><subject>length</subject><subject>limnology</subject><subject>Missouri (USA) aquatic gap-analysis project</subject><subject>mussels</subject><subject>National Gap Analysis Program (GAP)</subject><subject>planning</subject><subject>predicted species distributions</subject><subject>Protected areas</subject><subject>public stewardship mapping</subject><subject>riverine ecosystem protection</subject><subject>riverine habitat</subject><subject>spatial data</subject><subject>Species</subject><subject>species diversity</subject><subject>statistical analysis</subject><subject>Streams</subject><subject>Synecology</subject><subject>watersheds</subject><subject>wetlands</subject><subject>wildlife action plan</subject><subject>Wildlife conservation</subject><issn>0012-9615</issn><issn>1557-7015</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kEGLFDEQhYMoOK4e_AFiI7jgoddK0km6j8uwrsIuHlbBW4jpypihpzOmelb635umFwXBU1XxvveSKsZecrjgbQfvQddcKHnBH7ENV8rUBrh6zDYAXNSd5uope0a0h2Xuug37tnPHyo1umClSafrKp8Mx4w8cKd5jmUbCfO-mmMaKpuwm3M1VSLnKRc5xxAp9opkmPFCVQnUbidIpx-fsSXAD4YuHesbuPlx92X6sbz5ff9pe3tS-gZbXpvPYeqW_o9cBpTcN9jxo0YDphXJ9MB1iaDrhjG-1aHUDvgeP2DvPUZ6x8zX1mNPPE9JkD5E8DoMbMZ3ICuCGQ6ML-OYfcF9-WfYujJS8UcKIAr1bIZ8TUcZgjzkeXJ4tB7uc14K2y3ktL-zbh0BH3g0hu9FH-mtoOy05V4VrVu5XHHD-f6C92t4KAGOMlLDEv1pte5pS_mMTRjcaukV_verBJet2uTz99a5sKwFa2YqS8httWJ0e</recordid><startdate>200708</startdate><enddate>200708</enddate><creator>Sowa, S.P</creator><creator>Annis, G</creator><creator>Morey, M.E</creator><creator>Diamond, D.D</creator><general>Ecological Society of America</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7TN</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>H97</scope><scope>L.G</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200708</creationdate><title>gap analysis and comprehensive conservation strategy for riverine ecosystems of Missouri</title><author>Sowa, S.P ; Annis, G ; Morey, M.E ; Diamond, D.D</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4081-79ce8c56bec6fe3c74ed1f62407d25adf79eef492a7c8628640cd0ceedac1e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Animal and plant ecology</topic><topic>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</topic><topic>aquatic ecological classification</topic><topic>Biodiversity</topic><topic>Biodiversity conservation</topic><topic>biogeography</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>conservation areas</topic><topic>Conservation biology</topic><topic>conservation planning</topic><topic>crayfish</topic><topic>ecoregions</topic><topic>Ecosystem studies</topic><topic>Ecosystems</topic><topic>Environmental conservation</topic><topic>Environmental protection</topic><topic>fish</topic><topic>freshwater</topic><topic>freshwater biodiversity</topic><topic>Freshwater ecology</topic><topic>Freshwater ecosystems</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>gap analysis</topic><topic>General aspects</topic><topic>geographic information systems</topic><topic>geographical distribution</topic><topic>Habitat conservation</topic><topic>human-threat index</topic><topic>land use</topic><topic>length</topic><topic>limnology</topic><topic>Missouri (USA) aquatic gap-analysis project</topic><topic>mussels</topic><topic>National Gap Analysis Program (GAP)</topic><topic>planning</topic><topic>predicted species distributions</topic><topic>Protected areas</topic><topic>public stewardship mapping</topic><topic>riverine ecosystem protection</topic><topic>riverine habitat</topic><topic>spatial data</topic><topic>Species</topic><topic>species diversity</topic><topic>statistical analysis</topic><topic>Streams</topic><topic>Synecology</topic><topic>watersheds</topic><topic>wetlands</topic><topic>wildlife action plan</topic><topic>Wildlife conservation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sowa, S.P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Annis, G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morey, M.E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Diamond, D.D</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Oceanic Abstracts</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy &amp; Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 3: Aquatic Pollution &amp; Environmental Quality</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><jtitle>Ecological monographs</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sowa, S.P</au><au>Annis, G</au><au>Morey, M.E</au><au>Diamond, D.D</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>gap analysis and comprehensive conservation strategy for riverine ecosystems of Missouri</atitle><jtitle>Ecological monographs</jtitle><date>2007-08</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>77</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>301</spage><epage>334</epage><pages>301-334</pages><issn>0012-9615</issn><eissn>1557-7015</eissn><coden>ECMOAQ</coden><abstract>North America harbors an astounding proportion of the world's freshwater species, but it is facing a freshwater biodiversity crisis. A first step to slowing the loss of biodiversity involves identifying gaps in existing efforts to conserve biodiversity and prioritizing opportunities to fill these gaps. In this monograph we detail two separate, but complementary, conservation planning efforts—a Gap Analysis (GAP) and a State Wildlife Action Plan (WAP)—for Missouri that address this first step. The goal of the Missouri Aquatic GAP Project was to identify riverine ecosystems, habitats, and species not adequately represented (i.e., gaps) within existing conservation lands. The goal of the freshwater component of the Missouri Wildlife Action Plan was to identify and map a set of conservation-opportunity areas (COAs) that holistically represent all riverine ecosystems, habitats, and species in Missouri. Since conservation planning is a geographical exercise, both efforts utilized geographic information systems (GIS). Four principal GIS data sets were used in each planning effort: (1) a hierarchical riverine ecosystem classification, (2) predicted species distributions, (3) public ownership/stewardship, and (4) a human-threat index. Results of the gap analyses are not encouraging. Forty five, mostly rare, threatened, or endangered, species are not represented in lands set aside for conserving biodiversity. Results also illustrate the fragmented nature of conservation lands, which are mainly situated in the uplands and fail to provide connectivity among riverine habitats. Furthermore, many conservation lands are severely threatened by an array of human disturbances. In contrast, results of the WAP provide hope that relatively intact riverine ecosystems still exist. A total of 158 COAs, representing ∼6% of the total kilometers of stream in Missouri, were selected for the WAP. This illustrates that a wide spectrum of biodiversity can be represented within a small portion of the total resource base, but the area of conservation concern is often much larger. Identifying priority riverscapes for conservation is an important first step toward effective biodiversity conservation. Yet, achieving the ultimate goal of conserving biodiversity will require vigilance on the part of all responsible parties, with particular attention to addressing and coordinating the many remaining logistical tasks.</abstract><cop>Washington, DC</cop><pub>Ecological Society of America</pub><doi>10.1890/06-1253.1</doi><tpages>34</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0012-9615
ispartof Ecological monographs, 2007-08, Vol.77 (3), p.301-334
issn 0012-9615
1557-7015
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_20171046
source Access via Wiley Online Library; JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing
subjects Animal and plant ecology
Animal, plant and microbial ecology
aquatic ecological classification
Biodiversity
Biodiversity conservation
biogeography
Biological and medical sciences
conservation areas
Conservation biology
conservation planning
crayfish
ecoregions
Ecosystem studies
Ecosystems
Environmental conservation
Environmental protection
fish
freshwater
freshwater biodiversity
Freshwater ecology
Freshwater ecosystems
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
gap analysis
General aspects
geographic information systems
geographical distribution
Habitat conservation
human-threat index
land use
length
limnology
Missouri (USA) aquatic gap-analysis project
mussels
National Gap Analysis Program (GAP)
planning
predicted species distributions
Protected areas
public stewardship mapping
riverine ecosystem protection
riverine habitat
spatial data
Species
species diversity
statistical analysis
Streams
Synecology
watersheds
wetlands
wildlife action plan
Wildlife conservation
title gap analysis and comprehensive conservation strategy for riverine ecosystems of Missouri
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-14T07%3A19%3A47IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=gap%20analysis%20and%20comprehensive%20conservation%20strategy%20for%20riverine%20ecosystems%20of%20Missouri&rft.jtitle=Ecological%20monographs&rft.au=Sowa,%20S.P&rft.date=2007-08&rft.volume=77&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=301&rft.epage=334&rft.pages=301-334&rft.issn=0012-9615&rft.eissn=1557-7015&rft.coden=ECMOAQ&rft_id=info:doi/10.1890/06-1253.1&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E27646091%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=233145272&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=27646091&rfr_iscdi=true