@article {897,
	title = {Carnivore Use of Avocado Orchards across an Agricultural-Wildland Gradient},
	journal = {PLoS ONE},
	volume = {8},
	year = {2013},
	chapter = {e68025},
	abstract = {<p>Wide-ranging species cannot persist in reserves alone. Consequently, there is growing interest in the conservation value of agricultural lands that separate or buffer natural areas. The value of agricultural lands for wildlife habitat and connectivity varies as a function of the crop type and landscape context, and quantifying these differences will improve our ability to manage these lands more effectively for animals. In southern California, many species are present in avocado orchards, including mammalian carnivores. We examined occupancy of avocado orchards by mammalian carnivores across agricultural-wildland gradients in southern California with motion-activated cameras. More carnivore species were detected with cameras in orchards than in wildland sites, and for bobcats and gray foxes, orchards were associated with higher occupancy rates. Our results demonstrate that agricultural lands have potential to contribute to conservation by providing habitat or facilitating landscape connectivity.</p>
},
	url = {http://www.plosone.org/article/info\%3Adoi\%2F10.1371\%2Fjournal.pone.0068025},
	author = {Nogeire, Theresa and Davis, Frank W. and Duggan, Jennifer M and Crooks, Kevin R. and Boydston, Erin E.}
}
@article {899,
	title = {Cross-scale modeling of surface temperature and tree seedling establishment in mountain landscapes},
	journal = {Ecological Processes},
	volume = {2},
	year = {2013},
	chapter = {doi:10.1186/2192-1709-2-30},
	author = {Dingman, John R and Sweet, Lynn C and McCullough, Ian and Davis, Frank W. and Flint, A. L. and Franklin, J.F. and Flint, L. E.}
}
@inbook {879,
	title = {Summary: Building a broader base for conservation planning},
	booktitle = {Conservation Planning: Shaping the Future},
	year = {2013},
	publisher = {ESRI Press},
	organization = {ESRI Press},
	chapter = {15},
	address = {Redlands, CA},
	author = {Davis, Frank W. and Craighead, L. and Convis, C.}
}
@article {800,
	title = {Modeling wildlife and other trade-offs with biofuel crop production},
	journal = {GCB Bioenergy},
	volume = {4},
	year = {2012},
	month = {2012},
	pages = {330-341},
	abstract = {Biofuels from agricultural sources are an important part of California{\textquoteright}s strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and dependence on foreign oil. Land conversion for agricultural and urban uses has already imperiled many animal species in the state. This study investigated the potential impacts on wildlife of shifts in agricultural activity to increase biomass production for transportation fuels. We applied knowledge of the suitability of California{\textquoteright}s agricultural landscapes for wildlife species to evaluate wildlife effects associated with plausible scenarios of expanded production of three potential biofuel crops (sugar beets, bermudagrass, and canola). We also generated alternative, spatially explicit scenarios that minimized loss of habitat for the same level of biofuel production. We explored trade-offs to compare the marginal changes per unit of energy for transportation costs, wildlife, land and water-use, and total energy produced, and found that all five factors were influenced by crop choice. Sugar beet scenarios require the least land area: 3.5 times less land per liter of gasoline equivalent than bermudagrass and five times less than canola. Canola scenarios had the largest impacts on wildlife but the greatest reduction in water use. Bermudagrass scenarios resulted in a slight overall improvement for wildlife over the current situation. Relatively minor redistribution of lands converted to biofuel crops could produce the same energy yield with much less impact on wildlife and very small increases in transportation costs. This framework provides a means to systematically evaluate potential wildlife impacts of alternative production scenarios and could be a useful complement to other frameworks that assess impacts on ecosystem services and greenhouse gas emissions.},
	keywords = {agroecosystems, biofuels, biomass feedstock, California Wildlife Habitat Relationships system, geographic information systems, habitat suitability, Marxan, renewable energy, trade-offs, water demand},
	isbn = {1757-1707},
	url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01130.x},
	author = {Stoms, David M. and Davis, Frank W. and Jenner, Mark W. and Nogeire, Theresa M. and Kaffka, Stephen R.}
}
@article {474,
	title = {A State-based national network for effective wildlife conservation},
	journal = {Bioscience},
	volume = {62},
	year = {2012},
	month = {11/2012},
	type = {policy forum},
	chapter = {970},
	keywords = {SWAP state wildlife action plans},
	author = {Meretsky, Vicky J. and Maguire, Lynn and Davis, Frank W. and Stoms, David and Scott, J. Michael and Figg, Dennis and Goble, Dale D. and Griffith, Brad and Henke, Scott E. and Vaughn, Jacqueline and Yaffee, Steve}
}
@article {666,
	title = {Consumer control of oak demography in a Mediterranean-climate savanna},
	journal = {Ecosphere},
	volume = {2},
	year = {2011},
	month = {2011},
	pages = {art108},
	isbn = {2150-8925},
	url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ES11-00187.1},
	author = {Davis, Frank W. and Tyler, Claudia M. and Mahall, Bruce E.}
}
@article {898,
	title = {Biofuels and Biodiversity in California: A Framework for Conducting a Trade-Off Analysis},
	year = {2010},
	month = {08/2013},
	institution = {California Energy Commission},
	type = {Contract Report},
	address = {Sacramento, California},
	keywords = {biodiversity, biofuels, CWHR, energy},
	issn = {CEC-500-2013-032},
	url = {http://www.energy.ca.gov/2013publications/CEC-500-2013-032/CEC-500-2013-032.pdf},
	author = {Stoms, David M. and Nogeire, Theresa M. and Davis, Frank W.}
}
@article {406,
	title = {Forest composition and tree mortality in Big Sur, California},
	journal = {Forest Ecology and Management},
	volume = {259},
	number = {12},
	year = {2010},
	pages = {2342-2354},
	abstract = {Mixed-evergreen forests of central coastal California are being severely impacted by the recently introduced plant pathogen, Phytophthora ramorum. We collected forest plot data using a multi-scale sampling design to characterize pre-infestation forest composition and ongoing tree mortality along environmental and time-since-fire gradients. Vegetation pattern was described using trend surface analysis, spatial autocorrelation analysis and redundancy analysis. Species-environment associations were modeled using non-parametric multiplicative regression (NPMR). Tanoak (Lithocarpus densiflorus) mortality was analyzed with respect to environmental and biotic factors using trend surface analysis and multivariate regression. Mixed-evergreen forest occurs throughout the Big Sur region but is most widespread in the north, on north facing slopes, at mid-elevations near the coast. Relative basal area of the dominant tree species changes fairly predictably from north to south and from coast to interior in relation to mapped patterns of precipitation, temperature factors and soil characteristics. Most dominant tree species sprout vigorously after fire. The forests experience a mixed-fire regime in this region ranging from low severity understory burns to high severity crown fires, with the latter increasing above the marine inversion layer and at more interior locations. Ceanothus spp. can dominate mixed-evergreen sites for several decades after severe fires. All of the dominant broadleaf evergreen tree species are hosts of P. ramorum, although not all will die from infection. Tanoak mortality decreases from northwest to southeast and is significantly correlated with climate, especially growing degree days and mean annual precipitation, and with basal area of the foliar host bay laurel (Umbellularia californica) in a 0.5{\textendash}1 ha neighborhood. Adaptive management of mixed-evergreen forest to mitigate P. ramorum impacts in the region will need to consider large local and regional variation in forest composition and the potentially strong interactions between climate, fire, forest composition and disease severity.},
	keywords = {SODS sudden oak death mixed evergreen forest Species distribution models Landscape disease pattern Community ordination Spatial autocorrelation Chaparral},
	author = {Davis, Frank W. and Borchert, Mark and Rizzo, David and Meentemeyer, Ross}
}
@article {489,
	title = {Short distance dispersal patterns of pollen in California valley oak, Quercus lobata (Fagaceae)},
	journal = {Forest Ecology and Management},
	volume = {258},
	number = {5},
	year = {2009},
	pages = {735-744},
	abstract = {Short distance pollen dispersal shapes the local genetic structure of plant populations and determines the opportunity for genetic drift and local selection. In this paper we focus on short distance dispersal (SDD) of pollen in a low-density stand of a savannah oak, Quercus lobata Nee. Specifically, we are interested in the proportional contributions of pollen donors, the pollen dispersal kernel that describes local matings, the extent to which wind influences mating success, and the extent to which pollen sources vary within the large canopy of these trees. Using maximum likelihood paternity analysis, we assigned sires for 474 outcrossed progeny of five seed trees, representing 120 of 160 potential mating pairs within a 250 m radius of each focal tree (ca. 20 ha plots). We first established that the effective number of pollen donors for progeny with sires within the plot was about 10 individuals, with average weighted pollination distances of 114.1 m. We estimated 18.5\% pollen immigration into the 20 ha plots. We next established that the SDD portion of the dispersal kernel is best described by the exponential power, inverse power, and Weibull functions, all that capture high local dispersal with steep decay. Two of these models suggest that long distance dispersal is abundant, represented by a fat tail, while the Weibull indicates depauperate long distance dispersal, represented by a thin tail. The addition of a directional component corresponding to the predominant wind axis had no meaningful impact on these models. Finally, we established that different parts of an individual tree canopy of Q. lobata sample from the same homogeneous pollen pool showing no bias towards pollen sources near that part of the canopy. Overall findings suggest low-density Q lobata populations show steep decay of SDD. Policies and ordinances governing the amount of allowable tree removal of savannah oak populations should recommend the preservation of local clusters of adults, as well as some connectivity among clusters.},
	keywords = {Dispersal kernel Paternity analysis SSR markers TwoGENER Valley oak},
	author = {Pluess, Andrea R. and Sork, Victoria L. and Dolan, Brian and Davis, Frank W. and Grivet, Delphine and Merg, Kurt and Papp, Jeanette and Smouse, Peter E.}
}
@article {573,
	title = {The relative importance of factors affecting age-specific seedling survival of two co-occurring oak species in southern California},
	journal = {Forest Ecology and Management},
	volume = {255},
	number = {7},
	year = {2008},
	note = {TY - JOUR},
	pages = {3063-3074},
	abstract = {As has been reported in other oak habitats throughout the Northern Hemisphere, natural recruitment rates of young oaks in California are very low for some species and in some regions. The majority of experimental studies that contribute to our understanding of this oak recruitment pattern in California have been relatively short-term, conducted on a small-scale. Thus, while we have valuable information about the array of factors that are able to limit seedling establishment, we know much less about their relative importance, and how they vary across years, sites, or age classes. To investigate the impacts of factors limiting seedling and sapling establishment of valley oak (Quercus lobata) and coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) across a landscape and over time we replicated experiments in four different years in Santa Barbara County, California. Experimental factors manipulated included cattle grazing, and access by deer and small mammals. Plots were distributed across three sites with a cumulative area of 200-ha, and seedling survival was recorded for a minimum of 5 years. We used classification and regression tree analysis (CART) to examine the relative importance of factors influencing survival of planted oaks at different life stages. The relative importance of limiting factors varied among age classes for both species. For initial seedling emergence and survival to 6 months planting year was the most important factor and rodent access was the second most important factor for both Q. lobata and Q. agrifolia. For survival of seedlings through their 1st year rodents, planting year, and site were major limiting factors, though their relative importance varied between the two species. For survival from 1.5 to 5 years, Q. lobata was strongly affected by rodents and site, while Q. agrifolia was mainly affected by site, deer browsing (which reduced survival), and indirect effects of winter-spring cattle grazing (which improved survival). Contrary to our expectations, based on observed patterns of natural recruitment, Q. agrifolia had equivalent or lower survivorship than Q. lobata in all seedling age classes. Overall, in addition to other factors, there were strong year and site effects controlling oak seedling emergence and survival and the relative importance of limiting factors depended on seedling age. Our results suggest that large-scale, long-term experiments encompassing multiple sites will improve our understanding of controls on recruitment in oak woodlands in California and elsewhere.},
	keywords = {Quercus lobata Quercus agrifolia Mediterranean CART Classification and regression tree Inter-annual variation Seed predation Herbivory Browsing Limiting factors Oak recruitment},
	author = {Tyler, Claudia M. and Davis, Frank W. and Mahall, Bruce E.}
}
@article {742,
	title = {Comprehensive criteria for biodiversity evaluation in conservation planning},
	journal = {Biodiversity and Conservation},
	volume = {16},
	year = {2007},
	month = {2007},
	pages = {2715-2728},
	abstract = {In this paper we present the results of a multi-criteria decision analysis used to identify a comprehensive set of criteria for assigning biodiversity value to sites for conservation planning. For effective conservation management, biodiversity value needs to be a composite of biotic and abiotic factors. However, in the reserve design literature, conservation value is assigned with a limited set of metrics usually based on comprehensiveness, representativeness and persistence which may be insufficient at fully capturing biodiversity value. A group of conservation specialists in California, USA, used a multi-criteria decision making framework to elucidate and weight criteria for scoring biodiversity value at sites. A formal model for consensus and negotiation was applied to aggregate individuals{\textquoteright} criteria weights across all group members. The group identified ecological condition, followed by biotic composition as the most important contributors to site conservation value. Long- and short-term threats causing fragmentation and degradation are also important criteria to consider. Key criteria are identified for which further data collection would serve the greatest purpose in prioritizing sites and the role of prioritization criteria in the larger context of systematic conservation planning is discussed. With the recognition that biodiversity value plays an important role in conservation decisions, the criteria presented here represents a comprehensive suite of factors to consider when assigning biodiversity value to sites for conservation planning. These can serve as an encompassing list which other groups can customize for the purpose of biodiversity evaluation for alternative conservation planning contexts.},
	keywords = {AHP, Biodiversity value, conservation planning, Group decision making, MCDM, MCE, Multi-criteria decision making},
	url = {http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/bioc/2007/00000016/00000009/00009100DOI	10.1007/s10531-006-9100-3},
	author = {Regan, Helen M. and Davis, Frank W. and Andelman, Sandy J. and Widyanata, Astrid and Freese, Mariah}
}
@inbook {339,
	title = {Agricultural and urban landscapes},
	booktitle = {The Endangered Species Act at Thirty: Conserving Biodiversity in Human-Dominated Landscapes},
	volume = {2},
	year = {2006},
	note = {ESA Conference at UCSB},
	pages = {256-274},
	publisher = {Island Press},
	organization = {Island Press},
	address = {Washington},
	keywords = {farmland working landscapes Wildlife habitat relationships CalFlora},
	author = {Brosi, B. J. and Daily, G. C. and Davis, F. W.},
	editor = {Scott, J. Michael and Goble, Dale D. and Davis, Frank W.}
}
@inbook {601,
	title = {Agricultural and urban landscapes},
	booktitle = {The Endangered Species Act at Thirty: Conserving Biodiversity in Human-Dominated Landscapes},
	volume = {2},
	year = {2006},
	note = {ESA Conference at UCSB},
	month = {2006},
	pages = {256-274},
	publisher = {Island Press},
	organization = {Island Press},
	address = {Washington},
	keywords = {CalFlora, farmland, Wildlife habitat relationships, working landscapes},
	author = {Brosi, B. J. and Daily, G. C. and Davis, F. W.},
	editor = {Scott, J. Michael and Goble, Dale D. and Davis, Frank W.}
}
@inbook {425,
	title = {Conserving biodiversity in human-dominated landscapes},
	booktitle = {The Endangered Species Act at Thirty: Conserving Biodiversity in Human-Dominated Landscapes},
	volume = {2},
	year = {2006},
	note = {ESA Conference at UCSB},
	pages = {288-290},
	publisher = {Island Press},
	organization = {Island Press},
	address = {Washington},
	author = {Goble, Dale D. and Scott, J. Michael and Davis, F. W.},
	editor = {Scott, J. Michael and Goble, Dale D. and Davis, Frank W.}
}
@inbook {683,
	title = {Conserving biodiversity in human-dominated landscapes},
	booktitle = {The Endangered Species Act at Thirty: Conserving Biodiversity in Human-Dominated Landscapes},
	volume = {2},
	year = {2006},
	note = {ESA Conference at UCSB},
	month = {2006},
	pages = {288-290},
	publisher = {Island Press},
	organization = {Island Press},
	address = {Washington},
	author = {Goble, Dale D. and Scott, J. Michael and Davis, F. W.},
	editor = {Scott, J. Michael and Goble, Dale D. and Davis, Frank W.}
}
@booklet {751,
	title = {The Endangered Species Act at Thirty: Conserving Biodiversity in Human-Dominated Landscapes},
	volume = {2},
	year = {2006},
	month = {2006},
	pages = {360},
	publisher = {Island Press},
	address = {Washington},
	keywords = {conservation planning, critical habitat, endangered species, habitat recovery plans, incentives, working landscapes},
	author = {Scott, J. Michael and Goble, Dale D. and Davis, Frank W.}
}
@book {505,
	title = {The Endangered Species Act at Thirty: Conserving Biodiversity in Human-Dominated Landscapes},
	volume = {2},
	year = {2006},
	publisher = {Island Press},
	organization = {Island Press},
	address = {Washington},
	keywords = {Endangered species habitat recovery plans critical habitat incentives working landscapes conservation planning},
	author = {Scott, J. Michael and Goble, Dale D. and Davis, Frank W.}
}
@book {426,
	title = {The Endangered Species Act at Thirty: Renewing the Conservation Promise},
	volume = {1},
	year = {2006},
	publisher = {Island Press},
	organization = {Island Press},
	address = {Washington},
	keywords = {Endangered species habitat recovery plans critical habitat incentives working landscapes conservation planning},
	author = {Goble, Dale D. and Scott, J. Michael and Davis, Frank W.}
}
@booklet {684,
	title = {The Endangered Species Act at Thirty: Renewing the Conservation Promise},
	volume = {1},
	year = {2006},
	month = {2006},
	pages = {372},
	publisher = {Island Press},
	address = {Washington},
	keywords = {conservation planning, critical habitat, endangered species, habitat recovery plans, incentives, working landscapes},
	url = {http://www.bren.ucsb.edu/news/FirstVoumeofEndangeredSpeciesActatThirty.htm},
	author = {Goble, Dale D. and Scott, J. Michael and Davis, Frank W.}
}
@inbook {804,
	title = {Endangered species time line},
	booktitle = {The Endangered Species Act at Thirty: Conserving Biodiversity in Human-Dominated Landscapes},
	volume = {2},
	year = {2006},
	note = {ESA Conference at UCSB},
	month = {2006},
	pages = {24-35},
	publisher = {Island Press},
	organization = {Island Press},
	address = {Washington},
	author = {Svancara, Leona K. and Scott, J. Michael and Goble, Dale D. and Davis, F. W. and Brewer, Donna},
	editor = {Scott, J. Michael and Goble, Dale D. and Davis, Frank W.}
}
@inbook {559,
	title = {Endangered species time line},
	booktitle = {The Endangered Species Act at Thirty: Conserving Biodiversity in Human-Dominated Landscapes},
	volume = {2},
	year = {2006},
	note = {ESA Conference at UCSB},
	pages = {24-35},
	publisher = {Island Press},
	organization = {Island Press},
	address = {Washington},
	author = {Svancara, Leona K. and Scott, J. Michael and Goble, Dale D. and Davis, F. W. and Brewer, Donna},
	editor = {Scott, J. Michael and Goble, Dale D. and Davis, Frank W.}
}
@booklet {554,
	title = {Defining a marginal value function for setting conservation priorities in NatureServe Vista},
	year = {2005},
	month = {March 2005},
	publisher = {University of California Santa Barbara},
	type = {Final Report to NatureServe},
	abstract = {This function measures cost-effectiveness for conservation planning as a way to prioritize of planning units. How it is calculated in Vista depends on the user{\textquoteright}s concepts of "cost" and "effectiveness." Depending on the user{\textquoteright}s choices about several factors, this function can create a useful array of conservation measures. Planners generally consider four different types of cost values. The simplest is to ignore costs (essentially assume that costs are equal) or to only consider costs at a later step in the planning/implementation process. In this case, the measure focuses strictly on the biological values of a site. Slightly more sophisticated is to adjust the biological benefits by the size of the site as a proxy for actual costs (assume equal cost per unit area). Some planners further refine this measure with factors that affect the management suitability of the site, such as how disturbed the site is or whether it is publicly or privately owned. In other words, an index that relates management costs to suitability. And last, planners may need to consider the actual (or estimated) costs to conserve a site in order to set priorities for the most cost-effective sites. How Vista measures effectiveness is actually based on three factors, each with several options to meet the user{\textquoteright}s needs. The first factor answers the question: effective for what? There are many different strategies or objectives that may be important for planning. Vista currently supports three of these: fine-filter hotspots, coarse-filter representation, and making small reserves large enough to be viable. Users can select which of these are important by choosing a set of weights. The second factor looks at the gain or benefit of conservation. The simplest option merely sums the biodiversity that is present in a site. This "richness" value may be modified by the viability/integrity for each element and/or the weight assigned to the elements so that sites receive highest scores if the contain high quality occurrences of many highly imperiled species and ecological systems. The second option only counts the element values for a site if the site{\textquoteright}s management is compatible with that element{\textquoteright}s persistence. That is, if current management is incompatible, the element cannot effectively be conserved at that site. Both these options can also be weighted by protection status, so that only unprotected sites receive conservation value. The third option considers the net gain that conservation would provide (either in loss prevented in the case of protection or of improvement of viability in the case of restoration practices). For this, the user needs a scenario of what would happen to the site without conservation. The final factor calculates the social value or utility of adding more conservation as a function of how rare an element is and how well it is already protected. The simplest option is to assume that the utility is based solely on the presence of an element and does not change in relation to management decisions. The second option is similar, except that it assumes there would be no utility once the conservation goal for the element was reached. The final option uses an economics perspective of diminishing returns, so that more emphasis is given to elements that are rare with the least compatible management in setting priorities. The best choices for these options will depend on what task you want to perform. Here we describe three common tasks and the options that would be chosen to perform them. Suppose you want to identify biologically important sites for the set of elements you have identified. This would be a map of element richness, perhaps weighted by elements and by their viability in each site. Vista calls this a Conservation Value Summary. Therefore, you would choose the simplest options for costs (equal or none), for biological objectives (but not expansion of reserves), for presence or amount of each element (without consideration of protection or compatible management), and for constant utility (independent of goals). Another common task is to select sites to achieve conservation goals efficiently, based on the complementarity of the site to the biodiversity already protected. In this case, you might pick whichever measure of cost you want to minimize. You would want to choose either the amount of each element present unless the site is already protected. In that case, the site could not contribute further to the reserve system. You would also choose the goal-limited utility option because you don{\textquoteright}t want to credit a site for elements that have already met their goals. A map produced with these options would show which sites would contribute most effectively towards the conservation goals. Another important task you may want to perform is the prioritize sites for conservation by their cost-effectiveness in order to maximize the biodiversity that remains in the future under a land use scenario. Here, estimated costs of conservation are critical. You would also want to consider the loss of biodiversity that conservation would achieve by considering the change in compatibility between a conservation practice and the expected practices in a land use scenario. That is, a site would get no credit if the future use would be compatible anyway or if the conservation practice would not be compatible. Finally, you might want to select the diminishing returns form of utility so that the most imperiled elements get protected first. Of course, these three tasks represent some benchmarks along a continuum. One can select different combinations of options to achieve intermediate products that suit your task and database more effectively.},
	keywords = {marginal conservation value VISTA decision support system conservation planning cost-effectiveness utility},
	author = {Stoms, David M. and Davis, Frank W.}
}
@article {798,
	title = {Defining a marginal value function for setting conservation priorities in NatureServe Vista},
	year = {2005},
	month = {2005},
	pages = {29},
	institution = {University of California Santa Barbara},
	abstract = {This function measures cost-effectiveness for conservation planning as a way to prioritize of planning units. How it is calculated in Vista depends on the user{\textquoteright}s concepts of "cost" and "effectiveness." Depending on the user{\textquoteright}s choices about several factors, this function can create a useful array of conservation measures. Planners generally consider four different types of cost values. The simplest is to ignore costs (essentially assume that costs are equal) or to only consider costs at a later step in the planning/implementation process. In this case, the measure focuses strictly on the biological values of a site. Slightly more sophisticated is to adjust the biological benefits by the size of the site as a proxy for actual costs (assume equal cost per unit area). Some planners further refine this measure with factors that affect the management suitability of the site, such as how disturbed the site is or whether it is publicly or privately owned. In other words, an index that relates management costs to suitability. And last, planners may need to consider the actual (or estimated) costs to conserve a site in order to set priorities for the most cost-effective sites. How Vista measures effectiveness is actually based on three factors, each with several options to meet the user{\textquoteright}s needs. The first factor answers the question: effective for what? There are many different strategies or objectives that may be important for planning. Vista currently supports three of these: fine-filter hotspots, coarse-filter representation, and making small reserves large enough to be viable. Users can select which of these are important by choosing a set of weights. The second factor looks at the gain or benefit of conservation. The simplest option merely sums the biodiversity that is present in a site. This "richness" value may be modified by the viability/integrity for each element and/or the weight assigned to the elements so that sites receive highest scores if the contain high quality occurrences of many highly imperiled species and ecological systems. The second option only counts the element values for a site if the site{\textquoteright}s management is compatible with that element{\textquoteright}s persistence. That is, if current management is incompatible, the element cannot effectively be conserved at that site. Both these options can also be weighted by protection status, so that only unprotected sites receive conservation value. The third option considers the net gain that conservation would provide (either in loss prevented in the case of protection or of improvement of viability in the case of restoration practices). For this, the user needs a scenario of what would happen to the site without conservation. The final factor calculates the social value or utility of adding more conservation as a function of how rare an element is and how well it is already protected. The simplest option is to assume that the utility is based solely on the presence of an element and does not change in relation to management decisions. The second option is similar, except that it assumes there would be no utility once the conservation goal for the element was reached. The final option uses an economics perspective of diminishing returns, so that more emphasis is given to elements that are rare with the least compatible management in setting priorities. The best choices for these options will depend on what task you want to perform. Here we describe three common tasks and the options that would be chosen to perform them. Suppose you want to identify biologically important sites for the set of elements you have identified. This would be a map of element richness, perhaps weighted by elements and by their viability in each site. Vista calls this a Conservation Value Summary. Therefore, you would choose the simplest options for costs (equal or none), for biological objectives (but not expansion of reserves), for presence or amount of each element (without consideration of protection or compatible management), and for constant utility (independent of goals). Another common task is to select sites to achieve conservation goals efficiently, based on the complementarity of the site to the biodiversity already protected. In this case, you might pick whichever measure of cost you want to minimize. You would want to choose either the amount of each element present unless the site is already protected. In that case, the site could not contribute further to the reserve system. You would also choose the goal-limited utility option because you don{\textquoteright}t want to credit a site for elements that have already met their goals. A map produced with these options would show which sites would contribute most effectively towards the conservation goals. Another important task you may want to perform is the prioritize sites for conservation by their cost-effectiveness in order to maximize the biodiversity that remains in the future under a land use scenario. Here, estimated costs of conservation are critical. You would also want to consider the loss of biodiversity that conservation would achieve by considering the change in compatibility between a conservation practice and the expected practices in a land use scenario. That is, a site would get no credit if the future use would be compatible anyway or if the conservation practice would not be compatible. Finally, you might want to select the diminishing returns form of utility so that the most imperiled elements get protected first. Of course, these three tasks represent some benchmarks along a continuum. One can select different combinations of options to achieve intermediate products that suit your task and database more effectively.},
	keywords = {conservation planning, cost-effectiveness, decision support system, marginal conservation value, utility, VISTA},
	author = {Stoms, David M. and Davis, Frank W.}
}
@article {799,
	title = {Integrated coastal reserve planning: making the land-sea connection},
	journal = {Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment},
	volume = {3},
	year = {2005},
	month = {2005},
	pages = {429-436},
	abstract = {Land use, watershed processes, and coastal biodiversity can be strongly coupled. Land-sea interactions are ignored, however, when selecting terrestrial and marine reserves with existing models, with the risk that reserves will fail to achieve their conservation objectives. The conceptual model underlying existing reserve selection models presumes each site is a closed ecological system, unaffected by inputs from elsewhere. As a short-term objective, we recommend extending land conservation analyses to account for effects on marine biodiversity by consideration of linkages between them. This level of integration seems tractable and directly relevant to agencies and conservancies engaged in protecting coastal lands. We propose an approach that evaluates terrestrial sites based on whether they benefit or harm marine species or habitats. We then illustrate the approach with an example on the Central Coast of California, USA. Whether the effort will produce more effective terrestrial reserves needs to be proven.},
	keywords = {coastal ecosystems, integrated planning, open ecosystems, reserve selection, spatial interactions},
	url = {http://www.esajournals.org/esaonline/?request=get-abstract\&issn=1540-9295\&volume=003\&issue=08\&page=0429<Go to ISI>://000232295800016},
	author = {Stoms, David M. and Davis, Frank W. and Andelman, Sandy J. and Carr, Mark H. and Gaines, Steven D. and Halpern, Benjamin S. and Hoenicke, Rainer and Leibowitz, Scott G. and Leydecker, Al and Madin, Elizabeth M. P. and Tallis, Heather and Warner, Robert R.}
}
@article {721,
	title = {Santa Barbara County Oak Restoration Program: August 1994 - August 2005},
	year = {2005},
	month = {2005},
	institution = {University of California Santa Barbara},
	address = {Santa Barbara},
	abstract = {The Santa Barbara County Oak Restoration Program was funded as alternative mitigation for the loss of more than 2000 oaks during installation of the All American Pipeline (AAPL). As described in the original request for proposals, this program was intended to promote the regeneration of oak habitats within Santa Barbara County through fencing and cattle grazing management. Initiated in 1995 by investigators at the University of California at Santa Barbara, the Oak Restoration Program was designed as a program of research and restoration that would give practical guidance to resource managers and land owners concerned with management and restoration of local oak woodlands. This report provides a summary of the research findings and work completed within the initial 10-year contract period.},
	author = {Mahall, Bruce E. and Davis, Frank W. and Tyler, Claudia M.}
}
@booklet {473,
	title = {Santa Barbara County Oak Restoration Program: August 1994 - August 2005},
	year = {2005},
	month = {October 2005},
	publisher = {University of California Santa Barbara},
	type = {Final Report to County of Santa Barbara Department of Planning and Development, Energy Division},
	abstract = {The Santa Barbara County Oak Restoration Program was funded as alternative mitigation for the loss of more than 2000 oaks during installation of the All American Pipeline (AAPL). As described in the original request for proposals, this program was intended to promote the regeneration of oak habitats within Santa Barbara County through fencing and cattle grazing management. Initiated in 1995 by investigators at the University of California at Santa Barbara, the Oak Restoration Program was designed as a program of research and restoration that would give practical guidance to resource managers and land owners concerned with management and restoration of local oak woodlands. This report provides a summary of the research findings and work completed within the initial 10-year contract period.},
	author = {Mahall, Bruce E. and Davis, Frank W. and Tyler, Claudia M.}
}
@article {797,
	title = {TAMARIN: A landscape framework for evaluating economic incentives for rainforest restoration},
	journal = {Landscape and Urban Planning},
	volume = {68},
	year = {2004},
	month = {2004},
	pages = {95-108},
	abstract = {The rapid disappearance of the remaining Atlantic rainforest in Brazil exemplifies the need for efficient conservation planning in fragmented habitats under intense human pressure. Such planning needs to address key conservation criteria: representation, redundancy, and resilience. It also needs to recognize the opportunity cost of devoting land to conservation. Yet most existing planning frameworks fail to incorporate all three conservation criteria, and few allow for spatially variable opportunity costs of land. This paper presents a GIS-based spatial decision support system{\textendash}{\textendash}TAMARIN{\textendash}{\textendash}that incorporates all these features. TAMARIN can be used to evaluate particular landscape configurations, such as proposed enhancements to a conservation reserve network. It also allows simulation and assessment of market-based economic policies to promote conservation, such as rental or purchase of conservation easements. These may be particularly important in minimizing costs and securing landholder compliance in populous areas with highly fragmented natural habitats. Although TAMARIN was tailored to the planning issues and data sources of the south Bahia portion of the Atlantic rainforest, the ecological and economic underpinnings make it adaptable to many other locations.},
	keywords = {Biodiversity conservation planning, Brazil, GIS, Mata Atl{\^a}ntica, Opportunity costs, Spatial decision support system},
	url = {<Go to ISI>://000220414700006},
	author = {Stoms, David M. and Chomitz, Kenneth M. and Davis, Frank W.}
}
@article {803,
	title = {Fuzzy assessment of land suitability for scientific research reserves},
	journal = {Environmental Management},
	volume = {29},
	year = {2002},
	month = {2002},
	pages = {545-558},
	abstract = {Evaluating the characteristics of a set of sites as potential scientific research reserves is an example of land suitability assessment. Suitability in this case is based upon multiple criteria, many of which can be linguistically imprecise and often incompatible. Fuzzy logic is a useful method for characterizing imprecise suitability criteria and for combining criteria into an overall suitability rating. The Ecosystem Management Decision Support software combined a fuzzy logic knowledge base we developed to represent the assessment problem with a GIS database providing site-specific data for the assessment. Assessment of sites as a potential natural reserve for the new University of California campus at Merced demonstrates the benefits of fuzzy suitability assessment. The study was conducted in three stages of successively smaller assessment regions with increasingly fine spatial resolution and specificity of criteria. Several sites were identified that best satisfy the suitability criteria for a reserve to represent vernal pool habitat.},
	keywords = {Ecosystem Management Decision Support software, EMDS, fuzzy logic, GIS, knowledge base, knowledge-base, land suitability, Merced, Netweaver, NRS, research reserves, University of California Natural Reserve System, vernal pools},
	url = {http://link.springer.de/link/service/journals/00267/bibs/2029004/20290545.html<Go to ISI>://000174557600008},
	author = {Stoms, David M. and McDonald, Jennifer M. and Davis, Frank W.}
}
@article {750,
	title = {Nature reserves: Do they capture the full range of America{\textquoteright}s biological diversity?},
	journal = {Ecological Applications},
	volume = {11},
	year = {2001},
	note = {JOURNAL ARTICLE},
	month = {2001},
	pages = {999-1007.},
	abstract = {Less than 6\% of the coterminous United States is in nature reserves. Assessment of the occurrence of nature reserves across ranges of elevation and soil productivity classes indicates that nature reserves are most frequently found at higher elevations and on less productive soils. The distribution of plants and animals suggests that the greatest number of species is found at lower elevations. A preliminary assessment of the occurrence of mapped land cover types indicates that approximates60\% of mapped cover types have < 10\% of their area in nature reserves. Land ownership patterns show that areas of lower elevation and more productive soils are most often privately owned and already extensively converted to urban and agricultural uses. Thus any effort to establish a system of nature reserves that captures the full geographical and ecological range of cover types and species must fully engage the private sector.},
	keywords = {(General Biology--Conservation, Resource Management), Animalia-Unspecified, biological diversity, Cover Type, Elevation, Land Ownership Patterns, Nature Reserves, Plantae-Unspecified, Soil Productivity},
	author = {Scott, J. Michael and Davis, Frank W. and McGhie, R. Gavin and Wright, R. Gerald and Groves, Craig and Estes, John}
}
@booklet {557,
	title = {Knowledge-based site suitability assessment for new NRS reserves for the proposed UC Merced campus},
	year = {2000},
	publisher = {University of California},
	keywords = {Merced EMDS Netweaver knowledge base fuzzy logic},
	author = {Stoms, David M. and McDonald, Jennifer M. and Davis, Frank W.}
}
@article {802,
	title = {Knowledge-based site suitability assessment for new NRS reserves for the proposed UC Merced campus},
	year = {2000},
	month = {2000},
	institution = {University of California},
	address = {Santa Barbara},
	keywords = {EMDS, fuzzy logic, knowledge base, Merced, Netweaver},
	url = {http://www.biogeog.ucsb.edu/projects/snner/nrs_report.pdf},
	author = {Stoms, David M. and McDonald, Jennifer M. and Davis, Frank W.}
}
@booklet {413,
	title = {Confronting Climate Change in California: Ecological Impacts on the Golden State},
	year = {1999},
	month = {November 1999},
	publisher = {Union of Concerned Scientists and Ecological Society of America},
	abstract = {Over the past century, human activities have dramatically altered the natural land-scape of California. Our historical legacy includes severe shrinkage and isolation of natural habitats, altered flows in streams and rivers, extensive introductions of non-native plants and animals, and pollution of the air, land, and water. As we enter the 21st century, a powerful new agent{\textemdash}global climate change{\textemdash}will increasingly interact with the human pressures that continue to stress California{\textquoteright}s ecosystems. In the future, direct impacts generated by the state{\textquoteright}s rapidly growing human population will be intensified by the impacts of climate change. Confronting Climate Change in California provides the California public and policy makers with insights drawn from the best available science{\textemdash}insights that may help us safeguard both our ecological heritage and our economic future. This summary highlights key findings.},
	author = {Field, Christopher B. and Daily, Gretchen C. and Davis, Frank W. and Gaines, Steven and Matson, Pamela A. and Melack, John and Miller, Norman L.}
}
@article {407,
	title = {Modeling alternative portfolios of conservation sites for the Columbia Plateau Ecoregion},
	journal = {Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America},
	volume = {78},
	number = {4 SUPPL.},
	year = {1997},
	note = {JOURNAL ARTICLE; CONFERENCE LITERATURE},
	pages = {11.},
	keywords = {(General Biology{\textendash}Conservation, Documentation, Resource Management) (General Biology{\textendash}Information, Retrieval and Computer Applications) Columbia Plateau Computer Models Conservation Conservation Planning},
	author = {Davis, Frank W. and Stoms, David}
}
