|
<br />Biological issues, comment to SWSI, August 2004
<br />
<br />9
<br />
<br />.,
<br />}
<br />
<br />Best, L.B., K.E. Freemark, J.J. Dinsmore, and M. Camp, 1995, A Review and Synthesis of
<br />Habitat Use by Breeding Birds in Agricultural Landscapes of Iowa. 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, shelter 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.
<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 sUNey, more than half of landowners contacted would not
<br />allow biological sUNey 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 (Preble's
<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 wOfSe) of
<br />government or conservation organizations.
<br />Chamberlain, D.E., et aI., 2000, Changes in the Abundance of Farmland Birds in Relation to the
<br />Timing of Agricultural Intensification in England and Wales. Journal of Aoolied Ecoloav 37:
<br />n1.788. 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. Ecoloov 80(7}: 2397-2407. Although this survey was more
<br />concerned with riparian invasives, it is important to note a{so how difficult the grassland issues
<br />are. This was a long-term view, not surprising to weed and cheatgrass observers. Notable for
<br />inclusion of impacts on C and N cycles in soU storage, and changes in the above-ground
<br />vefSUS below-ground biomass. They found that the role of a disturbance was, in the long
<br />term, less important than the ro{e of the species that dominate after the disturbance, showing
<br />that merely removing obstac{es to disturbance (allowing fire. etc.) may be necessary but not
<br />sufficient for normal senses of restoration. Links the weedlinvasive grasses work to the ideas
<br />of environmental 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 controJ1ed experiment on impacts of livestock on
<br />riparian and wetland resOUC8S.
<br />Collinge, S.K., 1996, Ecological consequences of habitat fragmentation: Implications for
<br />landscape architecture and planning. landscaDe and Urban Plan nino 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 />CornDrehensive Removal or Tamarisk and the Coordinated Restoration of Colorado's 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 Development, Water International 27(4):
<br />492~503. Important for SWSI because of the unusual study reported on the amount of riparian
<br />habitat created by ditches, (may be 1/5 in the foothill Boulder County, even with all the
<br />mountain drainages, and water body surface attributable to human creati~99%!. Similar
<br />studies have not appeared to the author, unfortunately, for other parts of Colorado.
<br />Debinsky, D.M. and A.D. Holt, 2000, A Survey and Overview of Habitat Fragmentation
<br />Experiments. Conservation Biolcov 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 conseNation are more complex than drawing thick lines between patches on a map.
<br />The results of other studies and other contemporary arguments are compatible, including
<br />those works calling for much richer analyses of connections (see Amoros and Bornette 2002,
<br />
<br />-,
<br />
<br />,....\~~:.
<br />
|