Ask a Librarian

Threre are lots of ways to contact a librarian. Choose what works best for you.

HOURS TODAY

10:00 am - 3:00 pm

Reference Desk

CONTACT US BY PHONE

(802) 656-2022

Voice

(802) 503-1703

Text

MAKE AN APPOINTMENT OR EMAIL A QUESTION

Schedule an Appointment

Meet with a librarian or subject specialist for in-depth help.

Email a Librarian

Submit a question for reply by e-mail.

WANT TO TALK TO SOMEONE RIGHT AWAY?

Library Hours for Thursday, March 28th

All of the hours for today can be found below. We look forward to seeing you in the library.
HOURS TODAY
8:00 am - 12:00 am
MAIN LIBRARY

SEE ALL LIBRARY HOURS
WITHIN HOWE LIBRARY

MapsM-Th by appointment, email govdocs@uvm.edu

Media Services8:00 am - 7:00 pm

Reference Desk10:00 am - 3:00 pm

OTHER DEPARTMENTS

Special Collections10:00 am - 6:00 pm

Dana Health Sciences Library7:30 am - 11:00 pm

 

CATQuest

Search the UVM Libraries' collections

UVM Theses and Dissertations

Browse by Department
Format:
Print
Author:
Johnson, Michelle L.
Dept./Program:
Natural Resource Planning Program
Year:
2004
Degree:
M.S.
Abstract:
We examined reserve design scenarios for a watershed (199,759 ha) in northern New England, USA, to address the questions of (1) how much of the watershed should be managed as habitat to protect wildlife diversity, and (2) can adequate protection for wildlife habitat exist in concert with other land uses. Goals of this reserve design exercise were to maximize habitat diversity, maintain species persistence, ensure feasibility, and limit economic impacts to the greater region. Because there were no consistent species occurrence data across the watershed, we collected presence/absence data on bird species as a surrogate for wildlife diversity. We used these data to model distributions of 104 species of birds across the study area. In C-Plan, a reserve design software package, we created four alternate scenarios for highlighting areas that could adequately protect wildlife habitat.
We set two types of targets for reserve design algorithms: area-based and presence-based. Targets were weighted, with more emphasis assigned to species of greater concern and species with higher model accuracy. We included masks for land ownership and forest management activities in some scenarios, to assess whether incorporating land use constraints could provide a solution that still met the targets. The area- and presence-based targets resulted in dramatically different selections. Area-based targets selected 15% of the study area for protection in a spatially connected manner; presence-based targets selected 8% of the study area without any spatial cohesion. These percentages are estimates of the amount of land needed for persistence of wildlife populations in northern New England. Targets were still met or nearly met when preferred forest management and unsuitable land ownership planning units were excluded from selection for wildlife habitat conservation. Thus, ensuring that habitat needs are met for species in this watershed of study does not appear to be incompatible with competing land uses.