This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Errors identified by the software have been corrected;
however, some errors may remain.
Biodiversity and Land Use
Neil E. West 1
Abstract - Biodiversity is a multifaceted phenomenon that is increasingly
incorporated into the inventory, planning, management and monitoring of
wildlands throughout the world. A view of all facets of biodiversity, at multiple
scales in \ime and space, is required to understand the tradeoffs that come
from either a manager's action or inaction. It is impossible to simultaneously
optimize for all aspects of biodiversity. All biotic and environmental variables
are dynamic, preventing us from ever bringing biodiversity into stasis. We
are thus being forced into prioritizing which features of biodiversity take
precedence at particular places and times. Earlier choices influence later
options possible, especially if extinction ensues. Since these are ultimately
moral choices, far more than scientific understanding is involved. Conserving
and enhancing biodiversity must become an integral part of all land
management, not just on passively mismanaged reserves. Both public and
private lands hold and benefit from biodiversity. Management with sensitivity
to biodiversity will require partnerships, cooperation and integration beyond
any past experience. The California Council of Biological Diversity is a
leading example of how this might be done.
INTRODUCTION
developments. The world's forests occupy about 31% of the
land. The remaining 31% is occupied by deserts, tundras, rocky
barrens or ice or snow where hunting and mineral extraction
can still occur (Solbrig 1993).
With the development of more efficient growing and
harvesting techniques constantly emerging, combined with
exponential growth of the human population and both their real
and perceived needs, the rates of land alteration and loss of
biodiversity have become magnified and are leading well beyond
the largely localized impacts of the past. We have recently come
to realize that establishing and managing conselVation and
preselVation type reselVes will never be sufficient to maintain
biodiversity. There is also an upper limit to how much of a
landscape people will tolerate being put in reselVes. We thus
have to learn how to accommodate biodiversity in the
management of multiple use and agricultural lands (Franklin
1993), both publically and privately owned.
Biodiversity is currently one of the most frequently used
tenus in both popular and scientific discussion Concerns for
biodiversity started out in the 1970's with focus on threatened
and endangered species~butrbas been progressively broadened
until all facets of the vahety of life on earth have been included.
The burgeoning of public interest has far out paced the abilities
of both scientists and land managers to define, evaluate, and
manage for biodiversity. The publicly perceived needs are so
great that we scientists and managers have not been given much
time to carefully think through the issues. Consequently, there
has been some confoundment of defmition with application
(Landres 1992). It is my first purpose here to try and separate
defmitions from applications, particularly with regard to land
management.
While humans have been using lands for a long time, the
degree of use and extent of transformation has been accelerating.
Today, there is no part of the earth that escapes at least secondary
human impacts. The regions of earth differ only in the degree
of alteration. Today, about 11% of the earth's land swface is in
intensive agricultural use, about 24% is grazed by domestic
animals, and about 3% is occupied by mban and industrial
DEFINITIONS
Before we
accommodate
landscapes, we
cluster (Figure
1 Neil E. West is Professor, Department of Range Science, Utah
State University, Logan, UT.
21
can begin to adjust land management to
biodiversity on the vast majority of our
need to realize that biodiversity is a concept
1). That is, many separate and yet interlinked
I
I
Species Populations
Genes & Genomes
. . . . ----1
Local People
Indigenous
Knowledge
I
I Ecosystems
I
Regions
Landscapes
Figure 1. -
Communities
Components of biodiversity.
phenomena are involved, from gene flow between individuals
to ecosystem processes. These phenomena all operate on widely
different but covarying scales in space and time.
Phenomena that occur at larger spatial scales tend to occur
at longer temporal scales, although important exceptions arise.
For instance, ecosystem phenomena can occur within organisms
as well as over large expanses of land (Allen and Hoekstra
1992). Mankind has forced many processes off the natural
tendencies expressed by the slope of usual temporal-spatial
expectations. For instance, extinction has usually been a slow
process occurring over geological eras. Our activities have now
greatly accelerated pennanent loss of species.
Human size, visual acuity, and life span bias us toward certain
obselVables which are not necessarily the most important
features or processes. Our past excessive focus on charismatic
megafauna is an example of this. Detection of gradual changes
at larger spatial (e.g., regions) and longer temporal scales (e.g.,
several decades) is inherently difficult because we can't directly
sense them.
We have also begun to realize that the linear, hierarchial view
of biodiversity (Figure 2a) is flawed. Considerations of larger
scaled phenomena need not always "bubble up" from lower
levels. Important interactions frequently transcend the simpler
hierarchy visualized by Figure 2a, allowing acknowledgement
of important feedbacks such as species introductions on
ecosystem functions, predation on gene flow of prey
populations, etc. (Figure 2b).
Another flaw in the usual hierarchial view of biodiversity
(Fig. 2a) is that it implies a mechanistic view of ecosystems
(Botkin 1990). Ecosystems are more than simply a sum of their
parts. The interactions and net activity are the important
consequences. Managing for species misses this point. For
(a)
(b)
LANDSCAPE
LANDSCAPE
~
ECOSYSTEM
~
COMMUNITY k"'411---I--+---+-----i~ ECOSYSTEM
COMMUNITY
~
SPECIES
~
POPULATION
POPULATION ~I-------\---+---+-----i~ SPECIES
~
GENES
GENES
Figure 2. - Comparison of (a) linear, hierarchial view of the
elements of biodiversity, and (b) interactive view of the
elements of biodiversity, showing all possible pair-wise
combinations of interactions (from Landres 1992).
instance, while managing for a long-lived "umbrella" species
will likely maintain the appearance of fully functioning
ecosystems over a single human lifetime, processes such as
nutrient cycling and evolution may be impeded if crucial
influences such as ftre and hydrologic regimes are altered. Thus,
managing with biodiversity in mind involves much more than
simply maintaining native species or ecosystem processes. All
levels and all interactions must be considered kinetically. That
is, nature is dynamic with only tendencies toward equilibria that
are usually never reached (Kaufmann 1993). Changing climates,
genetic pools and mixes of species in communities ensure that
stability is wishful thinking.
22
ACCOMMODATING BIODIVERSITY IN
LAND MANAGEMENT
The discounted notion of the balance of nature as a
single static point of ecosystem development is very
recalcitrant (Pimm 1991). Renewable natural resource
scientists have much educating to do in explaining the
more complex notions of modem ecology to both resource
managers and the public (Kaufmann 1993).
Few care to consider triage in dealing with biodiversity
because it admits being party to some loss of human control.
The inertia associated with the human population already here
and the unlikelihood that it will stabilize anytime soon makes
inevitable much loss of biodiversity especially in developing
countries (West 1993), Americans should not be telling the rest
of the world what to do if they can't lead by example.
Accordingly, let's tum to how we in the U.S. can cope with
diminishing biodiversity while simultaneously managing land
for more direct values.
John Wesley Powell warned us in the last century that we
would be wise to make boundaries of political subdivisions
congruent with natural ones. This advice wasn't taken and we're
now paying the price for some expediency taken by our
predecessors. Biodiversity issues are forcing us to forge new
institutions to deal with the reality of natural boundaries.
Development of these institutions is most urgent in the most
rapidly developing parts of our countIy because 'the results of
continued fragmentation and other alterations of landscapes are
most apparent there. I feel that it behooves those in the relatively
less impacted Intennountain West and Great Plains to become
aware of how biodiversity is being dealt with elsewhere.
Learning from both successes and failures could enhance our
ability to deal with these emerging issues. California Governor
Pete Wilson's style of "preventive government" is worth
obselVing (Wheeler, in press).
INTERACTIONS OF BIODIVERSITY AND
LAND USE
Trying to globally generalize about how biodiversity is
related to land use is overwhelniing. Each situation draws
a unique combination of biota, environment and
sociological economical and political circumstances.
Unique combinations of biota, and environments, are
juxtaposed against sets of specialists speaking their own
jargon, preferring their own familiar measurements and
pushing their own agendas, hidden or open.
In general, there has been a trend toward biological
simplification and cosmopolitization. Accelerated erosion,
salinization and pollution of soils, have generally had
negative down stream impacts on water bodies, both at and
below the soil surface. Mankind has appropriated up to
70% of the world's net primary productivity (Vitousek et
al. 1986) and is placing increasing emphasis on fewer and
less genetically diverse primary producers.
Diminishment in vegetation richness, structure and
production usually leads to diminishment of animal and
microbial contributions as well. This is because plants are
both food resources and habitat for heterotrophic
organisms. The relationships are, however, far from simple
and linear. Some treasured species are dependent on
disturbances caused by others. For instance, the
blackfooted ferret is a carnivore dependent on prairie dogs.
Prairie dogs thrive only where prairie is heavily grazed by
either bison or cattle (Archer et a1. 1987). Because of
perceived competition between cattle and prairie dogs for
forage, the rodents have been reduced to the point that now
occupy only about 2% of the area they covered prior to
the coming of European man to North America. Hence, the
endangerment of the ferret. This is a good example of the
principle that not all facets of biodiversity can be
simultaneously optimized with economically viable human
use of the land. The challenge is to find the levels of
compromise that will accommodate both some retained
biodiversity and human needs now and into the future. The
details of how this is done will vary enormously across the
globe.
The California Example
A political majority in California fmally came to realize that
sustaining in acceptable condition its enonnous biodiversity was
a prerequisite for maintaining its economic prosperity. Rather
than continue focusing protection efforts on particular species at
specific sites, California has found means to identify and deal
with whole biogeographical regions involving many ownerships
and political jurisdictions. This action has been taken after
several decades of tortuous, expensive, piece-meal activities
focused on individual species, sites, and resources. A more
effective approach was conceived as the bioregional strategy.
Statewide
The bioregional strategy involves a hierarchial approach,
allowing co-ordination, information exchange, conflict
resolution, and collaboration at state to local levels. The top
most group is the statewide Executive Council on Biodiversity.
This council is chaired by the Secretary of the Resources Agency
23
of California and is made up of the highest officials of the
California State Departments of Fish and Game, ForesUy and
Fire Protection, Pms and Recreation, State Lands Commission,
the University of California's Division of Agriculture and
Natural Resources, the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, National Pm SelVice, and the Bureau of Land
Management.
'The executive council sets statewide goals for the protection
of biological diversity, recommends consistent statewide
standards and guidelines, encourages cooperative projects and
sharing of resources and cooperation in developing biodiversity
related policies and regulations, land management, land use
planning, land reserve acquisition and exchange, private
landowner assistance, educational outreach, public relations, and
staff training, monitoring, inventory and assessment, restoration
and research and teclmological development. The council meets
quarterly to review progress in accomplishing its mission
Representatives of other state and federal agencies and special
interest groups are frequently invited to participate in these
meetings to help enhance consensus and participation in the
adoption of bioregional strat~gies.
Bioregional
One of the earliest outputs of the statewide council was the
establishment of bioregional boundaries (Figure 3) and
associated bioregional councils. The bioregional councils are
composed of regional administrators of the signatory agencies.
These ten regional councils develop regional biodiversity
I
,-
~LAMATHI
'.
GENERALIZED
:!
,,-
NORTH COAST
MODOC
l
BIOREGIONAL AREAS
.-~
•.-or
J \
,
I
\
i
I
...... ,
,.~r
.,I
~
\
,_
-,.-'
.---<:
"
!
\
£.
\
I
\
SACRAMENTO}
---...... ,.. IVALLEY~
\.- /" '(
~
l ... _._....
\
\
\...1
BAY AREAl
DELTA
\.
~
'\"
".
"v ... -
,
"
"\
..)
SIERRA
! "
/~.-I
(
f
\
\
I
\
'.
\
\
.....
..
\
\
......
....
j
J
\
SOUTH \.
-,
CENTRAL \. SAN
'\
COAST ;JOAOUIH;
) VALLEY /
"
I
: .... J
1
I~
{
~
I
.....i
f
I
~
\
....
!..
",
.. ,
I
\
,.~
MOJAVE
--'"--~,,.,.
r ...
".
SOUTH
COAST
-r , -..
!
,-:1
"
COLORADO
DESERT
I...
SCALE 1: 1,NI,I"
1
!
Figure 3. -
Bioregions of California.
24
r
under a Memorandum of Understanding among the Bureau of
Land Management, US Fish and Wildlife SeIVice, California
Department of Fish and Game, Department of Patks and
Recreation, and the Nature ConselVancy, the latter which acts
as the coordinating agency.
Many other completed and on-going local efforts could be
show-cased, but space is limited here. We can conclude from
the California experience that maintaining both biodiversity and
economic viability involves a landscape approach. Actively
managed reselVes retain as much biodiversity as possible while
more sensitive management of the remaining, much higher
fraction of the landspape in the multiple use or agricultural
categories provides buffers to the reselVes and integrity for the
entire wildland portion Part of the landscape must continue in
intensive use for food production and space for human
occupancy, travel and transportation comdors (Figure 4). While
little biodiversity remains in the tamed areas, the biodiversity
that they once contained is now largely present on the wildlands
and not lost entirely. While ~ resulting mix of land use
categories is not like that prior to when European man entered
the scene, the strategy allows the current human population to
live while considering what will be around for future
generations.
strntegies that incorporate the policies, principles and activities
of the state coWlCil. Regional solutions to regional issues and
needs are encouraged, consistent with statewide goals and
standards. The regional cOWlCils wolk with regional and local
(mostly county) authorities to implement biodiversity policies.
The regional councils, in turn actively encourage the
development of watershed or landscape associations to assist in
implementing regional strategies applying to part of each region
Local
Local staffs of signatory agencies assist in fonnation of
watershed or landscape associatioqs. Along with local public,
landowner and private organizations, specific cooperative
projects are devised to achieve objectives. that translate upwani
to the region and state.
There has already been a relatively long history of locally
coordinated land or resource mana~ement planning going on in
the western U.S. where mingled ownership and disproportionate
use or impacts has provided incentives to cooperate (Anderson
1977a&b). What is new is the addition of concern for
biodiversity. Since local biodiversity is inevitably tied into
regional, state, national and even global concerns, California is
showing us a way of expanding coordinated resource
management planning upwards.
Most people first learn of biodiversity when a local
controversy emerges. The usual scenario has been when a listed
species impedes economic development. Rather than continuing
these costly and exhausting species by species battles, it is time
to consolidate and coordinate infonnation and plan more general,
longer-lasting solutions. Better public education, dialogue, and
participation could minimize the disruption of human
communities and expectations.
Guidance from regional and state cOWlCils is helpful in setting
standards for defining and measuring baselines of biodiversity
and providing experience in negotiating solutions. The tools
include mitigation, development banks, planning and zoning
authorities, land and reselVe acquisition, incentives to private
landowners (e.g. purchase of conservation easements),
alternative land management practices, restoration and fees and
regulation
Tamed
Lands
Wild
Lands
Figure 4. - A compartment model of land use categories for
planning and land management based on ecological theory.
Modified from Odum (1989).
The Future
I wish to complete my oveIView of this topic by speculating
on how I think biodiversity will be accommodated in the U.S.
in the future. Mainly because actions aren't usually taken until
species are on the brink of extinction, dissatisfaction with the
Endangered Species Act is building. It seems that an Endangered
Ecosystems 3ndIor Landscapes law will eventually replace it
(Orians 1993). Major land management agencies such as the
Forest SelVice and Bureau of Land Management are already
rapidly moving toward a focus on ecosystems as a basis for
management, making this possibility somewhat easier.
It seems only logical that a California-like approach to dealing
with biodiversity will come into use elsewhere. California's great
inherent biodiversity, plus large and rapidly growing human
population has forced them into earlier action The severe loss
of total area of some ecosystem types and rapid fragmentation
of others, means that there is little time to waste in preselVing
Coachella Valley
There have already been several successfully resolved local
biodiversity situations in California. One example is the
Coachella Valley PreselVe System near Palm Springs. This
solution was provoked by need to preselVe habitat for the
fringe-toed lizard (Uma notata). A 13,000 acre sanctuary was
created while allowing for managed development of human use
in part of the lizard's habitat. This cooperative effort involved
federal, state and local government as well as citizen groups and
private developers. The PreselVe is jointly owned and managed
25
Anderson, E.W. 1977a. Planning the use and management of
renewable resources. Rangeman's Journal 4(4):99-102.
Anderson, E.W. 1977b. Part II - Planning the use and
management of renewable resources. Rangeman's Journal
4(5):144-147.
Archer, S.; Garrett, M.G.; Oetting, 1.K. 1987. Rates of vegetation
change associated with prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus)
grazing in North American mixed grass prairie. Vegetatio
72:159-166.
Botkin, D.B. 1990. Discordant Harmonies: A New Ecology for
the Twenty-fIrst Centwy. Oxford University Press, New
Yolk.
Franklin, J.F. 1993. Preserving biodiversity: Species,
ecosystems, or landscapes? Ecological Applications
3:202-205.
Kaufmann, W. 1993. How nature really wolks. Amer. Forests.
March/April, pp. 17-19.
Landres, P.B. 1992. Temporal scale perspectives in managing
biological diversity. Tf3Il:S. 57th N.A. Wildlife & Nat. Res.
Conference Spec. Session 5, Wildlife Mgt. Institute, Wash.
D.C.
Mann, C.C.; Plummer, M.L. 1993. The high cost of biodiversity.
Science. 260 (5116): 1868-187l.
Messer, 1.J.; Linthurst, RA.; Overton, W:S. 1991. An EPA
program for monitoring ecological status and trends.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 17:67-78.
Odum, E.P. 1969. Air-Land-Water = An Ecological Whole.
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 24:101-104.
Orians, G.H. 1993. Endangered at what level? Ecological
Applications 3:206-208.
Pimm, S.L. 1991. The Balance of Nature? Ecological Issues in
the Conservation of Species and Communities. Univ. Chicago
Press, Chicago.
Scott, M. in press. Gap Analysis in R.S. Szaro (ed.). Biodiversity
in Managed Landscapes, Oxford Univ. Press.
Solbrig, O.T. 1993. Biodiversity and global change. Earth Quest,
Spring issue, pp. 1-3, 16.
Vitousek, P.M.; Ehrlich, P.R.; Ehrlich, A.N.; Matson, P.A. 1986.
Human appropriation of the products of photosynthesis.
BioScience 36(6):3368West, N.E. 1993. Biodiversity of rangelands. Journal of Range
Management. 46(1):2-13.
Wheeler, D.P. in press. Developing an environmental vision in
RS. Szaro (ed.) Biodiversity in Managed Landscapes. Oxford
University Press.
biodiversity in California. It is cheaper, but not necessarily
easier, to take a proactive stance, such as California has done,
rather than wait until most natural systems are lost and then
expensively try to restore some semblance of a natural system
later. Extinction of critical species could make restoration or
even rehabilitation impossible.
The recent Wildlands Project for the Coast Range of western
Oregon is an even bolder attempt than California has taken to
be proactive concerning biodiversity (Mann and Plummer 1993).
This proposed zoning into core areas, buffer zones and corridors
would displace humans now living on some of that land. The
fate of this proposal will reflect both the strength of our science
and the will of the American public on this topic.
It also seems inevitable that some national leadership is
needed to deal with biodiversity issues that cross state
boundaries. This seems to be a natural role for the proposed
new Bureau of Biological or Ecological Survey within the U.S.
Deparbnent of Interior. Along with other agencies such as the
Forest Service, the Enviro~ntal Protection Agency, and the
Deparbnent of Defense, they could co-<>rdinate on multi-state
scales and complete the hierarchy that state and federal
governments have established in California. The Nature
Conservancy is a natural for an expanded role in meditating
interstate disputes.
The data generated by the GAP analysis (Scott, in press) gives
us a start in identifying and ranking land areas for closer
management of biodiversity values. The Environmental
Protection Agency's EMAP (Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program, Messer et al. 1991) should begin to bring
us nationwide feedback on biodiversity, as well as environmental
conditions nationwide.
These are the kinds of efforts that we can begin to showcase
worldwide. When we can concretely demonstrate our
willingness to adjust American land use practices in the interests
of biodiversity, then we can legitimately begin to offer assistance
to developing nations to begin taking similar actions.
LITERATURE CITED
Allen, T.F.H.; Hoekstra T.W. 1992. Toward a Unified Ecology.
Columbia Univ. Press, New Yolk.
26