Zentelis & Lindenmayer () contend military training areas (MTAs) “have the potential to make a significant formal contribution to biodiversity conservation,” yet their conservation value has not been rigorously assessed. We believe their paper is an important step in raising awareness of the potential conservation value of MTAs to policy makers, scientists, and conservation professionals. Here, we offer an empirical evaluation of their statements regarding size, distribution, and representation of ecological systems (i.e., vegetation communities) within MTAs for the contiguous United States (CONUS) by comparing MTAs with lands managed by other U.S. federal agencies.
We used lands managed by Department of Defense (DoD) as a proxy for MTAs. By combining the Protected Areas Database of the U.S. (PAD‐US; USGS‐GAP ) and the National GAP Land Cover (USGS‐GAP ), we determined total number of ecological systems across all units of DoD and other agencies; and proportion of each ecological system that each agency represents across all lands.
DoD lands occur in every state (Figure S1) and represent 467 of 565 total ecological systems within CONUS on 8.1 million hectares (Table S1). This ecological diversity is exceeded only by the National Park Service (NPS), which represents 479 ecological systems across 10.2 million hectares. In contrast, U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands, despite being 8.5 and 8.6 times larger than DoD lands, represent only 458 and 293 ecosystems, respectively. Therefore, even though DoD lands comprise only 5% of the total area of federal lands, they represent 82.6% of the diversity of ecological systems, whereas USFS and BLM comprise 42% and 43% of the total federal land area, but neither represents as much diversity as DoD lands. Similarly, Stein et al. () found DoD lands disproportionately represented more imperiled species (e.g., vascular plants) per unit area than other federal lands.
DoD lands also contribute to total representation of ecological systems on federal lands, as three ecological systems occur on DoD lands only. These ecological systems are relatively rare (i.e., occur on <10,000 hectares throughout CONUS) and have >50–100% of their area on federal lands within DoD. Similar to other federal agencies, the majority of ecological systems have <10% of their entire or federal distribution within DoD lands (Figure S2, USFS is an exception). As part of the entire collective of federal lands, DoD lands increase federal representation of 50 ecological systems by >5% (Figure S3).
Our results are likely a consequence of a mandate that DoD lands be intentionally distributed across the U.S. to train the military under a variety of geographic conditions. They contrast with lands managed by BLM, NPS, USFS, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), which have been obtained through various opportunities and agency‐specific conservation priorities (Aycrigg et al. ) and not specifically established to maximize biological diversity (Scott et al. ). Our empirical analysis of DoD lands within CONUS support the contentions of Zentelis & Lindenmayer () that DoD lands (i.e., MTAs) contribute to biodiversity conservation and should be considered a conservation asset.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
© 2015. This work is published under (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Abstract
Here, we offer an empirical evaluation of their statements regarding size, distribution, and representation of ecological systems (i.e., vegetation communities) within MTAs for the contiguous United States (CONUS) by comparing MTAs with lands managed by other U.S. federal agencies. By combining the Protected Areas Database of the U.S. (PAD‐US; USGS‐GAP ) and the National GAP Land Cover (USGS‐GAP ), we determined total number of ecological systems across all units of DoD and other agencies; and proportion of each ecological system that each agency represents across all lands. [...]U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands, despite being 8.5 and 8.6 times larger than DoD lands, represent only 458 and 293 ecosystems, respectively. [...]even though DoD lands comprise only 5% of the total area of federal lands, they represent 82.6% of the diversity of ecological systems, whereas USFS and BLM comprise 42% and 43% of the total federal land area, but neither represents as much diversity as DoD lands.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Department of Fish and Wildlife Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, USA
2 The Wilderness Society, Bozeman, Montana, USA
3 The Wilderness Society, San Francisco, California, USA
4 The Wilderness Society, Denver, Colorado, USA
5 U.S. Army Engineer R&D Center, Environmental Lab, Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA