Loading…

Aeroconservation for the Fragmented Skies

From birds to bacteria, airborne organisms face substantial anthropogenic impacts. The airspace provides essential habitat for thousands of species, some of which spend most of their lives airborne. Despite recent calls to protect the airspace, it continues to be treated as secondary to terrestrial...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Conservation letters 2017-11, Vol.10 (6), p.773-780
Main Authors: Davy, Christina M., Ford, Adam T., Fraser, Kevin C.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3377-1afa80b6383c704d94760d5b1bbf71029583375b5871895d92c460e9695680703
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3377-1afa80b6383c704d94760d5b1bbf71029583375b5871895d92c460e9695680703
container_end_page 780
container_issue 6
container_start_page 773
container_title Conservation letters
container_volume 10
creator Davy, Christina M.
Ford, Adam T.
Fraser, Kevin C.
description From birds to bacteria, airborne organisms face substantial anthropogenic impacts. The airspace provides essential habitat for thousands of species, some of which spend most of their lives airborne. Despite recent calls to protect the airspace, it continues to be treated as secondary to terrestrial and aquatic habitats in policy and research. Aeroconservation integrates recent advances in aeroecology and habitat connectivity, and recognizes aerial habitats and threats as analogous to their terrestrial and aquatic counterparts. Aerial habitats are poorly represented in the ecological literature and are largely absent from environmental policy, hindering protection of aerial biodiversity. Here, we provide a framework for defining aerial habitats to advance the study of aeroconservation and the protection of the airspace in environmental policy. We illustrate how current habitat definitions explicitly disadvantage aerial species relative to non‐aerial species, and review key areas of conflict between aeroconservation and human use of the airspace. Finally, we identify opportunities for research to fill critical knowledge gaps for aeroconservation. For example, aerial habitat fragmentation may impact biodiversity and ecosystem function similarly to terrestrial habitat fragmentation, and we illustrate how this can be investigated by extending existing methods and paradigms from terrestrial conservation biology up into the airspace.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/conl.12347
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2289706613</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2289706613</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3377-1afa80b6383c704d94760d5b1bbf71029583375b5871895d92c460e9695680703</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kD9PwzAQxS0EElXpwieIxARSytmO_41VRAEpogMgsVlO4kBKGhc7BfXb4xIGJt5yN_ze3dND6BzDHEddV67v5pjQTByhCRaMpYTTl-M_-ymahbCGKEqkYtkEXS6sd9EYrP80Q-v6pHE-Gd5ssvTmdWP7wdbJ43trwxk6aUwX7Ox3TtHz8uYpv0uL1e19vijSilIhUmwaI6HkVNJKQFarTHCoWYnLshEYiGIycqxkUuAYoVakyjhYxRXjEgTQKboY7269-9jZMOi12_k-vtQkhhbAOaaRuhqpyrsQvG301rcb4_cagz60oQ9t6J82IoxH-Kvt7P4fUuerh2L0fAO0Fl65</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2289706613</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Aeroconservation for the Fragmented Skies</title><source>Wiley Online Library Open Access</source><source>Publicly Available Content Database</source><creator>Davy, Christina M. ; Ford, Adam T. ; Fraser, Kevin C.</creator><creatorcontrib>Davy, Christina M. ; Ford, Adam T. ; Fraser, Kevin C.</creatorcontrib><description>From birds to bacteria, airborne organisms face substantial anthropogenic impacts. The airspace provides essential habitat for thousands of species, some of which spend most of their lives airborne. Despite recent calls to protect the airspace, it continues to be treated as secondary to terrestrial and aquatic habitats in policy and research. Aeroconservation integrates recent advances in aeroecology and habitat connectivity, and recognizes aerial habitats and threats as analogous to their terrestrial and aquatic counterparts. Aerial habitats are poorly represented in the ecological literature and are largely absent from environmental policy, hindering protection of aerial biodiversity. Here, we provide a framework for defining aerial habitats to advance the study of aeroconservation and the protection of the airspace in environmental policy. We illustrate how current habitat definitions explicitly disadvantage aerial species relative to non‐aerial species, and review key areas of conflict between aeroconservation and human use of the airspace. Finally, we identify opportunities for research to fill critical knowledge gaps for aeroconservation. For example, aerial habitat fragmentation may impact biodiversity and ecosystem function similarly to terrestrial habitat fragmentation, and we illustrate how this can be investigated by extending existing methods and paradigms from terrestrial conservation biology up into the airspace.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1755-263X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1755-263X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/conl.12347</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington: John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>aerial habitat ; Air pollution ; Aircraft ; Airspace ; Altitude ; Anthropogenic factors ; Aquatic habitats ; Biodiversity ; Bird migration ; Birds ; Conservation biology ; Endangered &amp; extinct species ; Environmental impact ; Environmental policy ; Environmental protection ; habitat classification scheme ; habitat connectivity ; Habitat fragmentation ; Habitats ; IUCN ; Legislation ; Microorganisms ; Mortality ; Researchers ; Seeds ; Species ; status assessment ; Terrestrial environments ; Unmanned aerial vehicles ; Vehicles</subject><ispartof>Conservation letters, 2017-11, Vol.10 (6), p.773-780</ispartof><rights>Copyright and Photocopying: © 2017 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</rights><rights>2017. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3377-1afa80b6383c704d94760d5b1bbf71029583375b5871895d92c460e9695680703</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3377-1afa80b6383c704d94760d5b1bbf71029583375b5871895d92c460e9695680703</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2289706613/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2289706613?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,11553,25744,27915,27916,37003,44581,46043,46467,74887</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Davy, Christina M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ford, Adam T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fraser, Kevin C.</creatorcontrib><title>Aeroconservation for the Fragmented Skies</title><title>Conservation letters</title><description>From birds to bacteria, airborne organisms face substantial anthropogenic impacts. The airspace provides essential habitat for thousands of species, some of which spend most of their lives airborne. Despite recent calls to protect the airspace, it continues to be treated as secondary to terrestrial and aquatic habitats in policy and research. Aeroconservation integrates recent advances in aeroecology and habitat connectivity, and recognizes aerial habitats and threats as analogous to their terrestrial and aquatic counterparts. Aerial habitats are poorly represented in the ecological literature and are largely absent from environmental policy, hindering protection of aerial biodiversity. Here, we provide a framework for defining aerial habitats to advance the study of aeroconservation and the protection of the airspace in environmental policy. We illustrate how current habitat definitions explicitly disadvantage aerial species relative to non‐aerial species, and review key areas of conflict between aeroconservation and human use of the airspace. Finally, we identify opportunities for research to fill critical knowledge gaps for aeroconservation. For example, aerial habitat fragmentation may impact biodiversity and ecosystem function similarly to terrestrial habitat fragmentation, and we illustrate how this can be investigated by extending existing methods and paradigms from terrestrial conservation biology up into the airspace.</description><subject>aerial habitat</subject><subject>Air pollution</subject><subject>Aircraft</subject><subject>Airspace</subject><subject>Altitude</subject><subject>Anthropogenic factors</subject><subject>Aquatic habitats</subject><subject>Biodiversity</subject><subject>Bird migration</subject><subject>Birds</subject><subject>Conservation biology</subject><subject>Endangered &amp; extinct species</subject><subject>Environmental impact</subject><subject>Environmental policy</subject><subject>Environmental protection</subject><subject>habitat classification scheme</subject><subject>habitat connectivity</subject><subject>Habitat fragmentation</subject><subject>Habitats</subject><subject>IUCN</subject><subject>Legislation</subject><subject>Microorganisms</subject><subject>Mortality</subject><subject>Researchers</subject><subject>Seeds</subject><subject>Species</subject><subject>status assessment</subject><subject>Terrestrial environments</subject><subject>Unmanned aerial vehicles</subject><subject>Vehicles</subject><issn>1755-263X</issn><issn>1755-263X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kD9PwzAQxS0EElXpwieIxARSytmO_41VRAEpogMgsVlO4kBKGhc7BfXb4xIGJt5yN_ze3dND6BzDHEddV67v5pjQTByhCRaMpYTTl-M_-ymahbCGKEqkYtkEXS6sd9EYrP80Q-v6pHE-Gd5ssvTmdWP7wdbJ43trwxk6aUwX7Ox3TtHz8uYpv0uL1e19vijSilIhUmwaI6HkVNJKQFarTHCoWYnLshEYiGIycqxkUuAYoVakyjhYxRXjEgTQKboY7269-9jZMOi12_k-vtQkhhbAOaaRuhqpyrsQvG301rcb4_cagz60oQ9t6J82IoxH-Kvt7P4fUuerh2L0fAO0Fl65</recordid><startdate>201711</startdate><enddate>201711</enddate><creator>Davy, Christina M.</creator><creator>Ford, Adam T.</creator><creator>Fraser, Kevin C.</creator><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>SOI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201711</creationdate><title>Aeroconservation for the Fragmented Skies</title><author>Davy, Christina M. ; Ford, Adam T. ; Fraser, Kevin C.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3377-1afa80b6383c704d94760d5b1bbf71029583375b5871895d92c460e9695680703</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>aerial habitat</topic><topic>Air pollution</topic><topic>Aircraft</topic><topic>Airspace</topic><topic>Altitude</topic><topic>Anthropogenic factors</topic><topic>Aquatic habitats</topic><topic>Biodiversity</topic><topic>Bird migration</topic><topic>Birds</topic><topic>Conservation biology</topic><topic>Endangered &amp; extinct species</topic><topic>Environmental impact</topic><topic>Environmental policy</topic><topic>Environmental protection</topic><topic>habitat classification scheme</topic><topic>habitat connectivity</topic><topic>Habitat fragmentation</topic><topic>Habitats</topic><topic>IUCN</topic><topic>Legislation</topic><topic>Microorganisms</topic><topic>Mortality</topic><topic>Researchers</topic><topic>Seeds</topic><topic>Species</topic><topic>status assessment</topic><topic>Terrestrial environments</topic><topic>Unmanned aerial vehicles</topic><topic>Vehicles</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Davy, Christina M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ford, Adam T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fraser, Kevin C.</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>Wiley Online Library Free Content</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Databases</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Conservation letters</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Davy, Christina M.</au><au>Ford, Adam T.</au><au>Fraser, Kevin C.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Aeroconservation for the Fragmented Skies</atitle><jtitle>Conservation letters</jtitle><date>2017-11</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>10</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>773</spage><epage>780</epage><pages>773-780</pages><issn>1755-263X</issn><eissn>1755-263X</eissn><abstract>From birds to bacteria, airborne organisms face substantial anthropogenic impacts. The airspace provides essential habitat for thousands of species, some of which spend most of their lives airborne. Despite recent calls to protect the airspace, it continues to be treated as secondary to terrestrial and aquatic habitats in policy and research. Aeroconservation integrates recent advances in aeroecology and habitat connectivity, and recognizes aerial habitats and threats as analogous to their terrestrial and aquatic counterparts. Aerial habitats are poorly represented in the ecological literature and are largely absent from environmental policy, hindering protection of aerial biodiversity. Here, we provide a framework for defining aerial habitats to advance the study of aeroconservation and the protection of the airspace in environmental policy. We illustrate how current habitat definitions explicitly disadvantage aerial species relative to non‐aerial species, and review key areas of conflict between aeroconservation and human use of the airspace. Finally, we identify opportunities for research to fill critical knowledge gaps for aeroconservation. For example, aerial habitat fragmentation may impact biodiversity and ecosystem function similarly to terrestrial habitat fragmentation, and we illustrate how this can be investigated by extending existing methods and paradigms from terrestrial conservation biology up into the airspace.</abstract><cop>Washington</cop><pub>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</pub><doi>10.1111/conl.12347</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1755-263X
ispartof Conservation letters, 2017-11, Vol.10 (6), p.773-780
issn 1755-263X
1755-263X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2289706613
source Wiley Online Library Open Access; Publicly Available Content Database
subjects aerial habitat
Air pollution
Aircraft
Airspace
Altitude
Anthropogenic factors
Aquatic habitats
Biodiversity
Bird migration
Birds
Conservation biology
Endangered & extinct species
Environmental impact
Environmental policy
Environmental protection
habitat classification scheme
habitat connectivity
Habitat fragmentation
Habitats
IUCN
Legislation
Microorganisms
Mortality
Researchers
Seeds
Species
status assessment
Terrestrial environments
Unmanned aerial vehicles
Vehicles
title Aeroconservation for the Fragmented Skies
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-15T06%3A00%3A51IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Aeroconservation%20for%20the%20Fragmented%20Skies&rft.jtitle=Conservation%20letters&rft.au=Davy,%20Christina%20M.&rft.date=2017-11&rft.volume=10&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=773&rft.epage=780&rft.pages=773-780&rft.issn=1755-263X&rft.eissn=1755-263X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/conl.12347&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2289706613%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3377-1afa80b6383c704d94760d5b1bbf71029583375b5871895d92c460e9695680703%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2289706613&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true