|
<br />Biological issues; comment to SWSI, August 2004
<br />
<br />9
<br />
<br />"\
<br />
<br />J
<br />
<br />Best, L~B., K.E. Freemarkt J.J. Dinsmore, afld M. Camp, 1995. A Review and Synthesis of
<br />Habitat Use by Breeding Birds in Agricultural Landscapes of lowa~ American Midland
<br />Naturalist 134(1}: 1.29~ Compare this with Chamberlain 2000, and rest of Ecological
<br />Applications special issue introduced by Ormerod and Watkinson 2000. Although this study
<br />focused on Iowa, the imparlance of the riparian forest even there in a much wetter climate
<br />than that of Colorado was an outstanding result. Also, confirms value of strip habitats
<br />(fencerows, sheffer belts, etc.) compared to farm fields (lowest) and riparian habitat (highest)..
<br />Not surprising, but helps nail the case for private incentives to maintain needed habitat and
<br />resources 4
<br />Brook, A.., M. Zint, and R. de Young, 2003, Landowners. Responses to an Endangered Species
<br />Act Usting and Implications for Encouraging Conservation. Conservation Bioloav 17(6): 1638-
<br />1649. Among those responding to survey, more than ha" of landowners contacted would not
<br />allow biological survey of their land; more than one fourth would try to harm an endangered
<br />species present Not encouraging for hopes of conservation behavior in Colorado (PrebJels
<br />mouse was species, well before recent controversy ,over whether species is distinct or not)..
<br />Not much expectation for successful protection on private lands. Distrust (or wOlSe) of
<br />government or conservation organizations.
<br />Chamberlain, D.E., et al., 2000, Changes in the Abundance of Farmland Birds in Relation to the
<br />Timing of Agricultural Intensification in England and Wales. Journal of Aoolied Ecoloov 37:
<br />771-788. British review of some issues, in a special issue on birds and agriculture. Proposes
<br />a threshold model relating habitat changes to lagged responses and reactions. Large shifts in
<br />crop choices and intensification of agriculture are related farmland bird losses~
<br />Christian, J.M., and S.D. Wilson, 1999, Long-term Ecosystem Impacts of an Introduced Grass in
<br />the Northern Great Plains. Ecoloav 80(7): 2397-24074 Although this sUlVey was more
<br />concerned with riparian invasives, it is important to note afso how difficult the grassland issues
<br />are. This was a long-tenn view, not sUlprising to weed and cheatgrass observers. Notable for
<br />inclusion of impacts on C and N cycles in soil storage, and changes in the above-ground
<br />versus below-ground biomass. They found that the role of a disturbance was, in the long
<br />term, less important than the role of the species that dominate after the disturbance, shoWing
<br />that merely removing obstacles to disturbance (allowing fire, eter) may be necessary but not
<br />sufficient for normal senses of restoration. Links the weed/invasive grasses work to the ideas
<br />of environmenta/legacy, and ecosystem memory.
<br />Clary, W.P. and J.W. Kinney, 2002, Streambank and Vegetation Response to Simulated Cattle
<br />Grazing~ Wetlands 22(1): 139-148.. Effort in controlled experiment on impacts of livestock on
<br />riparian and wetland resouces~
<br />Collinge.. S.K., 1996. Ecological consequences of habitat fragmentation: Implications for
<br />landscape architecture and planning. landscaoe and Urban Plannino 36(1): 59-77.
<br />Applications of connectivity to urban choices.
<br />Collinge, S.K., 2000. Effects of grassland fragmentation on insect species loss, colonization, and
<br />movement patterns. Ecoloav 81 (8): 2211-2226.
<br />Colorado Department of Natural Resources, 2004, Ten Year Strateaic Plan On the
<br />Comorehensive Removal or Tamarisk and the Coordinated Restoration of Coloradols Native
<br />Rioarian Ecosvstems (available from DNR website). It is not clear how this applies flow
<br />management or restoration for invasive management, or how leasing and transfers might
<br />relate to the problem.
<br />Crifasi, R., 2002, The Political Ecology of Water Use and Developmentt Water International 27(4):
<br />492..503. Important for SWSI because of the unusual study reporled on the amount of riparian
<br />habitat created by ditches, (may be 1/5 in the foothill Bou/der County, even with all the
<br />mountain drainages, and water body sulface attributable to human creation-99%!. Similar
<br />studies have not appeared to the author, unfortunately, for other parts of Colorado.
<br />Debinsky, O.M. and R.D. HoItJ 2000. A SUNey and Overview of Habitat Fragmentation
<br />Experiments. Conservation Bioloav 14(2): 342-355. This is a scientifically interesting study
<br />analyzing 20 experiments on the effects of fragmentation of habitat, and showing that the
<br />needs for conselVstion are more complex than drawing thick lines between patches on a map~
<br />The results of other s~udies and other contemporary arguments are compatible, including
<br />those works calling for much richer analyses of connections (see Am~rqs and Barnette 2002,
<br />
<br />,
<br />
<br />.........~- ~:.
<br />
|