Ecological corridors are one of the best, and possibly only viable, management tools to maintain biodiversity at large scales and to allow species, and ecological processes, to track climate change. This document has been assembled as a summary of the best available information about managing these systems. Our aim with this paper is to provide managers with a convenient guidance document and tool to assist in applying scientific management principles to management of corridors. We do not cover issues related to corridor design or political buy in, but focus on how a corridor should be managed once it has been established. The first part of our paper outlines the history and value of ecological corridors. We next describe our methodologies for developing this guidance document. We then summarize the information about the impacts of linear features on corridors and strategies for dealing with them—specifically, we focus on the effects of roads, canals, security fences, and transmission lines. Following the description of effects, we provide a summary of the best practices for managing the impacts of linear barriers. Globally, many corridors are established in the flood plains of stream and rivers and occur in riparian areas associated with surface waters. Therefore, we next provide guidance on how to manage corridors that occur in riparian areas. We then segue into corridors and the urban/suburban environment, and summarize strategies for dealing with urban development within corridors. The final major anthropic land use that may affect corridor management is cultivation and grazing agriculture. We end this review by identifying gaps in knowledge pertaining to how best to manage corridors.

Under the recently adopted Kunming‐Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, 196 Parties committed to reporting the status of genetic diversity for all species. To facilitate reporting, three genetic diversity indicators were developed, two of which focus on processes contributing to genetic diversity conservation: maintaining genetically distinct populations and ensuring populations are large enough to maintain genetic diversity. The major advantage of these indicators is that they can be estimated with or without DNA‐based data. However, demonstrating their feasibility requires addressing the methodological challenges of using data gathered from diverse sources, across diverse taxonomic groups, and for countries of varying socio‐economic status and biodiversity levels. Here, we assess the genetic indicators for 919 taxa, representing 5271 populations across nine countries, including megadiverse countries and developing economies. Eighty‐three percent of the taxa assessed had data available to calculate at least one indicator. Our results show that although the majority of species maintain most populations, 58% of species have populations too small to maintain genetic diversity. Moreover, genetic indicator values suggest that IUCN Red List status and other initiatives fail to assess genetic status, highlighting the critical importance of genetic indicators.

Effectively conserving biodiversity with limited resources requires scientifically informed and efficient strategies. Guidance is particularly needed on how many living plants are necessary to conserve a threshold level of genetic diversity in ex situ collections. We investigated this question for 11 taxa across five genera. In this first study analysing and optimizing ex situ genetic diversity across multiple genera, we found that the percentage of extant genetic diversity currently conserved varies among taxa from 40% to 95%. Most taxa are well below genetic conservation targets. Resampling datasets showed that ideal collection sizes vary widely even within a genus: one taxon typically required at least 50% more individuals than another (though Quercus was an exception). Still, across taxa, the minimum collection size to achieve genetic conservation goals is within one order of magnitude. Current collections are also suboptimal: they could remain the same size yet capture twice the genetic diversity with an improved sampling design. We term this deficiency the ‘genetic conservation gap’. Lastly, we show that minimum collection sizes are influenced by collection priorities regarding the genetic diversity target. In summary, current collections are insufficient (not reaching targets) and suboptimal (not efficiently designed), and we show how improvements can be made.

Genetic diversity is a critical resource for species’ survival during times of environmental change. Conserving and sustainably managing genetic diversity requires understanding the distribution and amount of genetic diversity (in situ and ex situ) across multiple species. This paper focuses on three emblematic and IUCN Red List threatened oaks (Quercus, Fagaceae), a highly speciose tree genus that contains numerous rare species and poses challenges for ex situ conservation. We compare the genetic diversity of three rare oak species—Quercus georgiana, Q. oglethorpensis, and Q. boyntonii—to common oaks; investigate the correlation of range size, population size, and the abiotic environment with genetic diversity within and among populations in situ; and test how well genetic diversity preserved in botanic gardens correlates with geographic range size. Our main findings are: (1) these three rare species generally have lower genetic diversity than more abundant oaks; (2) in some cases, small population size and geographic range correlate with genetic diversity and differentiation; and (3) genetic diversity currently protected in botanic gardens is inadequately predicted by geographic range size and number of samples preserved, suggesting non-random sampling of populations for conservation collections. Our results highlight that most populations of these three rare oaks have managed to avoid severe genetic erosion, but their small size will likely necessitate genetic management going forward.

Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) occupy sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) habitats in 11 western states and 2 Canadian provinces. In September 2015, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced the listing status for sage-grouse had changed from warranted but precluded to not warranted. The primary reason cited for this change of status was that the enactment of new regulatory mechanisms was sufficient to protect sage-grouse populations. One such plan is the 2008, Wyoming Sage Grouse Executive Order (SGEO), enacted by Governor Freudenthal. The SGEO identifies “Core Areas” that are to be protected by keeping them relatively free from further energy development and limiting other forms of anthropogenic disturbances near active sage-grouse leks. Using the Wyoming Game and Fish Department’s sage-grouse lek count database and the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission database of oil and gas well locations, we investigated the effectiveness of Wyoming’s Core Areas, specifically: 1) how well Core Areas encompass the distribution of sage-grouse in Wyoming, 2) whether Core Area leks have a reduced probability of lek collapse, and 3) what, if any, edge effects intensification of oil and gas development adjacent to Core Areas may be having on Core Area populations. Core Areas contained 77% of male sage-grouse attending leks and 64% of active leks. Using Bayesian binomial probability analysis, we found an average 10.9% probability of lek collapse in Core Areas and an average 20.4% probability of lek collapse outside Core Areas. Using linear regression, we found development density outside Core Areas was related to the probability of lek collapse inside Core Areas. Specifically, probability of collapse among leks >4.83 km from inside Core Area boundaries was significantly related to well density within 1.61 km (1-mi) and 4.83 km (3-mi) outside of Core Area boundaries. Collectively, these data suggest that the Wyoming Core Area Strategy has benefited sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat conservation; however, additional guidelines limiting development densities adjacent to Core Areas may be necessary to effectively protect Core Area populations.