Where can wildlife live?

Creating wildlife corridors has complex flaws according to new scientific research

By Annette J Beveridge

As a species, humans place considerable pressure on wildlife. Although this is well known, the demand for land and places to live means this pressure is likely to continue - so where will wildlife live?

For the long term survival of many species, interlocking undeveloped areas through the creation of corridors to connect vital habitats has long been talked about as a solution but new research reveals flaws in this plan.

A study by the University of Maryland (UMD) has revealed that current methods of designing and evaluating wildlife corridors may not be adequate - not if wildlife protection is the aim. Best Management Practices should include analysing corridors with a smarter and more thorough framework.

As an example, researchers tested different wildlife corridor designs against black bear movement data in Florida. The study found each design achieved very different results, but none captured all black bear movements.

Jennifer Mullinax is an associate professor in the Department of Environmental Science and Technology at UMD. Senior author of the study, she said: “If we don't get these corridors right, our efforts at conservation will be wasted, and we could see more human-wildlife conflicts.

“In Florida, black bear populations were once threatened, but have been rebounding, and continue to spread. Better methods are urgently needed, because it takes a lot of time to do it right, and in the case of endangered or threatened species, we could build corridors and still not provide protections for those animals."

One issue is that to create any corridors there is a need for government agencies, non profits or municipalities to purchase land and to ensure protection from development.

Land chosen for conservation will be determined by scientific modelling and based on the landscape along with animal movement needs. This sounds reasonable but when you consider the number of species and each species’ needs, it becomes much more complex.

Some new habitats may be designed and created to enable a species to expand, while another aim may be to improve genetic diversity, thereby connecting isolated populations.

The research team combined information on bear habitats and where they are likely to live, and utilised landscape features along with the ease or difficulty of movement. The conclusion was that it is difficult to define ease of movement or to use this as a way to develop the parameters of wildlife corridors.

What works for some species will not work for others. Research indicated the most likely flow of bear movement in Florida. Consider it a road map of multiple bear "roads" and "highways" with more or less likely bear traffic.

The Florida Wildlife Corridor was used as this is considered a multi-species corridor covering a large area. But it included fewer bears per square km than the bear-specific model corridors the team had designed.

The outcome of the study suggests complex needs. More research is needed to be sure that wildlife corridors provide the best results for wildlife, resources, and the financial investment.

This is especially important considering the pressure we humans are placing on wildlife and habitat all around the world.