Comment on Functional landscape connectivity for a select few: Linkages do not consistently predict wildlife movement or occupancy. Autumn R. Iverson, David Waetjen, Fraser Shilling

• Published in: Landscape and urban planning 2025-01, Vol.253, p.105217, Article 105217
• Main Authors: Keeley, A.T.H., Beier, P., Belote, R.T., Clark, M., Clevenger, A.P., Creech, T.G., Ehlers, L., Faselt, J., Gogol-Prokurat, M., Hall, K.R., Hardy, M.A., Hilty, J.A., Jones, A., Nuñez, T.A., Penrod, K., Poor, E.E., Schloss, C., Theobald, D.M., Smith, T., Spencer, W.D., Sutherland, R., Tabor, G.M., Zeller, K.A.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• ISSN: 0169-2046
• DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2024.105217

Ecological connectivity is increasingly acknowledged as crucial for biodiversity conservation. Iverson et al. suggest that increasing stewardship to ensure permeability is a better approach than protecting linkages between protected areas. We argue that the optimal approach depends on the landscape context, conservation goals, and species involved and suggest that linkage plans can prioritize specific places for protection and improved management. However, when using connectivity models as predictive tools, model validation is vital. We commend Iverson et al. for assessing whether modeled linkages were important predictors of species presence. We disagree, though, with the authors’ conclusion that their findings challenge the theory and practice of modeling linkages and explain that the reason may be the misalignment of the validation assumptions with model objectives. We offer our perspective on best practices for conducting validation studies and note factors to consider with respect to data used for model validation and model expectations.