Nathaniel E. Seavy

Conserving migratory birds effectively requires full annual cycle strategies that identify where on-the-ground efforts can have the greatest impact. Here, we present a hemispheric spatial framework to identify priority areas for 112 migratory bird species across the Americas. Building on full annual cycle prioritizations, we defined finer-scale spatial planning units that reflect differences in migratory and congregational behaviors between shorebirds and landbirds. We compiled population data for each planning unit and focal species and applied conservation planning tools to design area-efficient portfolios of sites and landscapes that secure 10% of each species’ population within the Americas’ flyways. The resulting minimum area portfolios include 175 shorebird sites and 80 landbird landscapes optimized to meet the species-specific 10% representation targets across breeding, non-breeding, and passage seasons. We also identified a broader set of complementary solutions, ranked by an importance score, to provide decision-makers with flexible options for strategic resource allocation. This framework provides the scientific foundation for the Americas Flyways Initiative (AFI), which aims to catalyze investment in nature-based solutions and bird-friendly infrastructure to enhance the conservation of migratory birds and strengthen the resilience of the Americas’ flyways by 2050.

Human activities have profound impacts on ecological systems and biodiversity worldwide. Estimating wildlife response to those activities across broad spatial scales is challenging, yet effective conservation measures require an understanding of where and when these activities are contributing to population declines. We investigated the relationship between exposure to human activities (conservation challenges) and population trends of migratory warblers (Parulidae) that breed in the United States and Canada. Our four‐stage approach (1) summarizes the literature describing the sensitivity of species to conservation challenges; (2) estimates weekly species' exposure across the full annual cycle; (3) quantifies spatial correlations among species' exposure to conservation challenges; and (4) quantifies the relationships between seasonal exposure to conservation challenges and warbler population trends. Exposure during post‐breeding migration, followed by the stationary non‐breeding season and pre‐breeding migration, explained the most variation in warbler population trends. Within the post‐breeding migratory season, the conservation challenges with the greatest total seasonal exposure values were roads, light pollution, communication towers, forest management, and livestock management. During this season, species undergoing the steepest declines were associated with exposure to light pollution, communication towers, urban and suburban areas, livestock management, and agriculture. Notably, exposure to conservation challenges during the breeding season was not an important predictor of warbler population trends. Our results provide hemispheric, full annual cycle information for prioritizing conservation investments and additional research for warblers, specifically the importance of addressing challenges to which birds are exposed during post‐breeding migration. More broadly, this framework can be used to assess spatiotemporal conservation challenges impacting migratory species trends globally.

Global agreements to reduce the extinction risk of migratory species depend critically on intersecting migratory connectivity—the linking of individuals between regions in different seasons—and spatial patterns of environmental change. Here we integrate movement data from >329,000 migratory birds of 112 species to develop a parameter representing exposure to global change: multispecies migratory connectivity. We then combine exposure with projected climate and land-cover changes as a measure of hazard and species conservation assessment scores as a metric of vulnerability to estimate the relative risk of migratory bird population declines across the Western Hemisphere. Multispecies migratory connectivity (exposure) is the strongest driver of risk relative to hazard and vulnerability, indicating the importance of synthesizing connectivity across species to comprehensively assess risk. Connections between breeding regions in Canada and non-breeding regions in South America are at the greatest risk, which underscores the particular susceptibility of long-distance migrants. Over half (54%) of the connections categorized as very high risk include breeding regions in the eastern United States. This three-part framework serves as an ecological risk assessment designed specifically for migratory species, providing both decision support for global biodiversity conservation and opportunities for intergovernmental collaboration to sustain migratory bird populations year-round.

The conservation of migratory birds poses a fundamental challenge, their conservation requires coordinated action across the hemisphere, but those actions must be designed and implemented locally. To address this challenge, we describe a multilevel framework for linking broad‐scale, full annual cycle prioritizations to local conservation actions for migratory birds. We developed hemisphere‐scale spatial prioritizations for the full annual cycle of migratory birds that breed in six different ecosystems in North America. The full annual cycle prioritizations provide a hemispheric context within which regional priorities can be identified. Finer resolution, regional prioritizations can then inform local conservation actions more effectively. We describe the importance of local conservation practitioner contributions at each level of the process and provide two examples of regional spatial prioritizations that were developed to guide local action. The first example focused on coastal North and South Carolina, USA, and used information on marsh birds, shorebirds, ecological integrity, and co‐benefits for people to identify Cape Romain, South Carolina as a high‐priority site for conservation action. The second example in Colombia used information on migrant and resident birds to identify the Cauca Valley as a high‐priority site. The multilevel conceptual framework we describe is one pathway for identifying sites for implementation of local conservation actions that are guided by conservation priorities for migratory birds across their full annual cycle.

The conservation of migratory birds poses a fundamental challenge: their conservation requires coordinated action across the hemisphere, but those actions must be designed and implemented locally. To address this challenge, we describe a multi-level framework for linking broad-scale, full annual cycle prioritizations to local conservation actions for migratory birds. We developed hemisphere-scale spatial prioritizations for the full annual cycle of migratory birds that breed in six different ecosystems in North America. The full annual cycle prioritizations provide a hemispheric context within which regional priorities can be identifieed. Finer resolution, regional prioritizations can then inform local conservation actions more effectively. We describe the importance of local conservation practitioner contributions at each level of the process and provide two examples of regional spatial prioritizations that were developed to guide local action. The fierst example focused on coastal North and South Carolina, USA, and used information on marsh birds, shorebirds, ecological integrity, and co-benefiets for people to identify Cape Romain, South Carolina as a high-priority site for conservation action. The second example in Colombia used information on migrant and resident birds to identify the Cauca Valley as a high priority site. The multi-level conceptual framework we describe is one pathway for identifying sites for implementation of local conservation actions that are guided by conservation priorities for migratory birds across their full annual cycle.

For many avian species, spatial migration patterns remain largely undescribed, especially across hemispheric extents. Recent advancements in tracking technologies and high‐resolution species distribution models (i.e., eBird Status and Trends products) provide new insights into migratory bird movements and offer a promising opportunity for integrating independent data sources to describe avian migration. Here, we present a three‐stage modeling framework for estimating spatial patterns of avian migration. First, we integrate tracking and band re‐encounter data to quantify migratory connectivity, defined as the relative proportions of individuals migrating between breeding and nonbreeding regions. Next, we use estimated connectivity proportions along with eBird occurrence probabilities to produce probabilistic least‐cost path (LCP) indices. In a final step, we use generalized additive mixed models (GAMMs) both to evaluate the ability of LCP indices to accurately predict (i.e., as a covariate) observed locations derived from tracking and band re‐encounter data sets versus pseudo‐absence locations during migratory periods and to create a fully integrated (i.e., eBird occurrence, LCP, and tracking/band re‐encounter data) spatial prediction index for mapping species‐specific seasonal migrations. To illustrate this approach, we apply this framework to describe seasonal migrations of 12 bird species across the Western Hemisphere during pre‐ and postbreeding migratory periods (i.e., spring and fall, respectively). We found that including LCP indices with eBird occurrence in GAMMs generally improved the ability to accurately predict observed migratory locations compared to models with eBird occurrence alone. Using three performance metrics, the eBird + LCP model demonstrated equivalent or superior fit relative to the eBird‐only model for 22 of 24 species–season GAMMs. In particular, the integrated index filled in spatial gaps for species with over‐water movements and those that migrated over land where there were few eBird sightings and, thus, low predictive ability of eBird occurrence probabilities (e.g., Amazonian rainforest in South America). This methodology of combining individual‐based seasonal movement data with temporally dynamic species distribution models provides a comprehensive approach to integrating multiple data types to describe broad‐scale spatial patterns of animal movement. Further development and customization of this approach will continue to advance knowledge about the full annual cycle and conservation of migratory birds.

A new term, Multiple‐Benefit Conservation, has emerged in the conservation community, but has not been defined. We define Multiple‐Benefit Conservation as conservation efforts designed to simultaneously benefit local communities of people, enhance ecological function, and improve habitat quality for fish and wildlife . Its key features are setting ecological and societal goals at the outset and defining success as achieving these goals simultaneously. This is in contrast to efforts aimed at one goal that may also produce co‐benefits; it is inclusive of ecosystem services but not limited by a focus solely on human benefit. Strengths of this approach include that it is constructive, inclusive of multiple worldviews, easily communicated, solutions‐oriented, and compelling. Multiple‐Benefit Conservation as we define and describe it here appears to provide a pathway useful for designing conservation efforts that are more likely to be inclusive, that will quantify trade‐offs among goals, and can embrace pluralistic conservation leadership.

Migration is an important component of some species full annual cycle. California’s Central Valley and the Colorado River Delta provide important riparian and wetland habitats for migrating waterbirds in the arid west of North America, but little is known about whether these locations are important at the population level to migrating landbirds. We used eBird Status and Trends abundance data to quantify the importance of the Central Valley and Colorado River Delta to landbirds by estimating the proportion of the breeding population of 112 species that use each site during migration. We found that ~17 million landbirds use the Colorado River Delta in the spring and ~14 million in the fall. Across 4 study regions in the Central Valley, up to ~65 million landbirds migrate through in the spring and up to ~48 million in the fall. In the spring and fall, respectively, up to 37 and up to 30 species had at least 1% of their continental population migrate through the study regions. We also quantified the spatial concentration of each species across latitudinal transects to determine the extent to which study regions were acting as migratory bottlenecks. Landbird abundances were spatially concentrated in study regions 29.4% of all migration weeks, indicating that each study region acts as a migratory bottleneck. This application of eBird data is a powerful approach to quantifying the importance of sites to migrating birds. Our results provide evidence of population-level importance of the Central Valley and Colorado River Delta for many migratory landbirds.

Restoration of deforested and degraded landscapes is a globally recognized strategy to sequester carbon, improve ecological integrity, conserve biodiversity, and provide additional benefits to human health and well‐being. Investment in riparian forest restoration has received relatively little attention, in part due to their relatively small spatial extent. Yet, riparian forest restoration may be a particularly valuable strategy because riparian forests have the potential for rapid carbon sequestration, are hotspots of biodiversity, and provide numerous valuable ecosystem services. To inform this strategy, we conducted a global synthesis and meta‐analysis to identify general patterns of carbon stock accumulation in riparian forests. We compiled riparian biomass and soil carbon stock data from 117 publications, reports, and unpublished data sets. We then modeled the change in carbon stock as a function of vegetation age, considering effects of climate and whether or not the riparian forest had been actively planted. On average, our models predicted that the establishment of riparian forest will more than triple the baseline, unforested soil carbon stock, and that riparian forests hold on average 68–158 Mg C/ha in biomass at maturity, with the highest values in relatively warm and wet climates. We also found that actively planting riparian forest substantially jump‐starts the biomass carbon accumulation, with initial growth rates more than double those of naturally regenerating riparian forest. Our results demonstrate that carbon sequestration should be considered a strong co‐benefit of riparian restoration, and that increasing the pace and scale of riparian forest restoration may be a valuable investment providing both immediate carbon sequestration value and long‐term ecosystem service returns.

Climate change and biodiversity loss are two global challenges that can be addressed simultaneously through reforestation of previously cleared land. However, carbon markets can encourage reforestations that focus on maximizing carbon storage, potentially at the expense of biodiversity conservation. To identify opportunities to optimize reforestation design and management to meet both goals, we examined the forest stand features associated with carbon stocks in biomass and soil, as well as bird abundance and diversity, in remnant and restored riparian forest stands in central California, U.S.A. Within three decades of reforestation, both planted and naturally regenerating riparian forest stands provided significantly greater carbon storage and avian biodiversity benefits compared to baseline conditions. They were also similar to a remnant riparian forest stand. We identified a synergy between carbon storage and biodiversity benefits in their positive associations with understorey cover, but we also identified a trade‐off in their relationships to forest stand density. Biomass carbon stocks were strongly positively related to stand density, while bird density and diversity suffered at the highest stand densities. The variability in understorey cover across forest stands indicates an opportunity for further enhancement of carbon and biodiversity benefits in areas where understorey cover is low, while the variability in stand density suggests an opportunity to re‐examine reforestation goals and consider thinning to achieve those goals. Synthesis and applications. We identified synergies and trade‐offs between carbon storage and biodiversity in their relationships to forest stand features, indicating opportunities to optimize reforestation design and management to achieve multiple goals. Our approach can be adapted to other reforestation efforts intended to simultaneously address the global challenges of climate change and biodiversity loss.