SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Table S1. Localized species considered in Zonation reserve selection analysis for the Pacific Northwest. Species with less than 10 locations after thinning of locations to >1 km separation were excluded from further analysis.

Table S2. List of candidate models compared in Maxent modeling of old-growth associated species in the Pacific Northwest.

Table S3. Patterns of change in the proportion of each ecoprovince within priority areas for old-growth associated species in the Pacific Northwest as identified by the Zonation solutions. Ecoprovince abbreviations are as used in Fig. 1.

Table S4. Correlations between priority rankings produced by Zonation runs based on localized species and on Northern Spotted Owl habitat in the Pacific Northwest. Unconstrained solutions identified priority areas irrespective of management category, whereas constrained solutions could reallocate reserve status within the matrix and LSR categories only.

Figure S1. Proportion of each ecoprovince within the Zonation solution (network of priority areas) under a) unconstrained, and b) constrained composite-goal scenarios 1 (current habitat), 2 (near-future habitat), 3 (interacting current and near-future habitat), 4 (distant future habitat), and 5 (interacting current and distant future habitat). Constrained Zonation solutions could reallocate reserve status within the matrix and LSR categories only whereas unconstrained solutions allocated reserve areas irrespective of existing management category.

Figure S2. Distribution of priority areas identified by Zonation for conservation of the Northern Spotted Owl and 130 localized species under unconstrained scenarios 1 (current habitat), 2 (near-future habitat), 3 (interacting current and near-future habitat), 4 (distant future habitat), and 5 (interacting current and distant future habitat). Unconstrained Zonation solutions could reallocate reserve status irrespective of existing management category. Area of the reserve network was set equal to that of the current system of congressional reserves and late-successional reserves (∼28% of analysis area).

Figure S3. Distribution of priority areas identified by Zonation for conservation of the Northern Spotted Owl and 130 localized species under constrained scenarios 1 (current habitat), 2 (near-future habitat), 3 (interacting current and near-future habitat), 4 (distant future habitat), and 5 (interacting current and distant future habitat). Constrained Zonation solutions could reallocate reserves equal in area to the extent of LSR (13.9% of analysis area) within the matrix and LSR categories only. Total area of the reserve network, as in Fig. S3, was set equal to that of the current system of congressional reserves and late-successional reserves (∼28% of analysis area).

Figure S4. The mean proportion of the Zonation solution required to capture 90% of the predicted occurrence value of a species contained within the entire Zonation solution. The average was taken over all 131 species considered. Results from three scenarios (scenario 1 (current), scenario 2 (near-future), scenario 4 (distant future), and scenario 1 using an additive-benefit selection function) are shown under three contrasting Zonation goals sets: localized species only, owl only, and composite goals. A solution that requires a larger proportion of the total solution to encompass 90% of the total value per species is opting against core areas of high occurrence value for particular species in favor of larger areas of moderate value for multiple species.

Please note: Wiley-Blackwell are not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting materials supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing material) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.

FilenameFormatSizeDescription
GCB_1965_sm_Supplementary_Material.pdf1382KSupporting info item

Please note: Wiley Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.