figshare
Browse

Software for prioritizing habitat linkages based on climate gradients, climate analogs, or a balanced blend

Download (1.71 MB)
Version 6 2025-01-14, 15:29
Version 5 2021-09-03, 20:55
Version 4 2021-06-30, 23:53
Version 3 2021-06-30, 23:42
Version 2 2021-06-30, 23:40
Version 1 2019-02-07, 17:44
preprint
posted on 2025-01-14, 15:29 authored by John GalloJohn Gallo

[See also the presentation video and slides: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.9161864 and a related presentation in 2025 to the Corridors, Connectivity, and Crossings Conference, link to be created and available upon request]

Previously in the Linkage Priority Tool of Linkage Mapper (v 2.0.0), we gave core pairs that have a large climate envelope difference a high linkage priority value. The larger the difference, the higher the priority. This prioritized for linkages that will connect cores that might become too hot/dry in the future with cores that are cooler/wetter, allowing species to “move to higher ground.” This is often referred to as range shift connectivity (Keeley et al. 2018).


But for some situations and audiences, this was too much of a long term view and too blunt. Meanwhile, others (e.g. Littlefield et al. 2017) have been giving higher priority to linkages with the destination core having the same predicted climate signature at future time T (e.g. 2050), as the climate signature in the source core at the current time. This is often referred to as climate analog connectivity (Keeley et al. 2018). This approach is a bit simplistic in the other extreme, as it implies that there will not be climate change after time T, or if there is, that we cannot predict the directionality. (It is most likely going to get hotter/drier for many decades to come, and probably centuries.) Regardless, we wanted to add an option in Linkage Priority Tool that addresses both of these logical arguments, and allows for end users to target one, or the other, or a compromise between the two approaches.


Looking at the big picture, we realized these are two examples of the same universal function, with different parameter values. In other words, we programmed the tool to be flexible to the assumptions of the end user, allowing for either of the two above logics to be followed, or a blend between the two. We also added an entirely new concept, not seen elsewhere to our knowledge, of “preferred climate” as part of defining linkage priority.


Suggested Citation:


Gallo, J.A. 2025. White Paper: Software for prioritizing habitat linkages based on climate gradients, climate analogs, or a balanced blend. Conservation Biology Institute https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.7689080

Funding

Megan Jennings via California Department of Fish and Game

Conservation Biology Institute

Charlotte Martin Foundation

History

Usage metrics

    Licence

    Exports

    RefWorks
    BibTeX
    Ref. manager
    Endnote
    DataCite
    NLM
    DC