Managing Biodiversity in Oklahoma:  A Case for Private Land Conservation

William L. Fisher¹ and Mark S. Gregory²

¹Oklahoma Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater

²Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater

It is widely recognized that biodiversity cannot be conserved solely through a strategy of establishing reserves, which are mostly on public lands.  Reserves are too few to support all elements of biodiversity, many are too small to sustain genetic or species diversity, and they are often geographically separated, making it difficult to generate and maintain political support (Vickerman 1998).

Private lands, which constitute nearly 50% of the U.S., support significant elements of biodiversity and are increasingly a focus of state biodiversity conservation programs (Schlickeisen and Musgrave 1996).  Oklahoma, like most eastern and mid-continent states, is composed almost entirely of privately owned land.  The Oklahoma Gap Analysis Project (OK-GAP) found that private lands comprise 94.5% of Oklahoma.
Nearly all of these lands are managed for agricultural (e.g., rangeland, cropland, or pastureland) or forestry uses.  As such, there is limited focus on managing these lands for biodiversity conservation, although there are many opportunities for doing so (Murray 1996). 

Most of the stewardship lands in Oklahoma are owned and managed by 13 federal and state agencies.  Federal and state agencies with the largest holdings of stewardship lands are the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1.2%), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (0.9%), and Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation (0.7%).  Less than 2% (3,347 sq km) of the total land area of Oklahoma (181,124 sq km) is GAP stewardship status 1 and 2 lands, and many of these occur in the eastern half of Oklahoma.  Status 3 lands comprise nearly 4% (6,540 sq km) of the state's land area, and these lands are scattered throughout the state.  Although many of these stewardship lands occur in areas of high biological diversity, none of them are very large, and few are contiguous.  The average size of the 72 status 1 and 2 land management units is 46 sq km (range 0.31-522.62 sq km). 

To illustrate the fragmented character of stewardship lands in relation to biologically diverse areas and significant features in Oklahoma, we overlaid status 1 and 2 lands on the hexagon map of mammal species diversity (Figure 1).  In general, vertebrate species diversity increases from west to east in Oklahoma; however, mammal diversity tends to be more clumped.  Areas of high mammal species richness tend to be associated with significant natural features in Oklahoma including the Ozark Plateau in the northeast, Ouachita Mountains in the southeast, Wichita Mountains in southwest, Gypsum Hills in the northwest, and Black Mesa at the tip of the panhandle.  In addition to diverse mammal assemblages, each of these areas supports a diversity of natural vegetation types (Aldrich et al. 1997).  It is apparent from the overlay (Figure 1) that although status 1 and 2 lands do coincide with some areas of high species richness for mammals, these lands are small and widely separated from one another, thus providing little opportunity for development of a reserve network.

Figure 1.  Distribution of status 1 and 2 stewardship lands in relation to mammal species richness in Oklahoma.

It is clear that biodiversity conservation in Oklahoma will depend on working cooperatively with private landowners.  Directed educational efforts will be needed to inform landowners and the public in general about the value of Oklahoma's rich natural heritage and what can be done to enhance it.  Fortunately, the Oklahoma biodiversity plan (Murray 1996) identifies a strategy for educating Oklahomans about biodiversity conservation.
In addition to education, there will need to be a legal and policy framework in place to support biodiversity conservation efforts.  Some states (e.g., Oregon, California, Kentucky, Michigan, New York) have developed formal biodiversity policies (Schlickeisen and Musgrave 1996) that are guiding education efforts and providing incentives.  With the completion of OK-GAP, Oklahoma is now poised to move forward in implementing a strategy for conserving biodiversity that focuses on private land owners as well as public land managers.

Literature Cited

Aldrich, J.M., W.R. Ostlie, and T.M. Faust. 1997. The status of biodiversity in the Great Plains: Great Plains landscapes of biological significance. Supplemental Document 2 in W.R. Ostlie, R. E. Schneider, J.M. Aldrich, T.M. Faust, R.L.B. McKim, and S.J. Chaplin. The status of biodiversity in the Great Plains. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia.  135 pp.

Murray, N.L.  1996. Oklahoma's biodiversity plan:  A shared vision for conserving our natural heritage.  Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, Oklahoma City.  129 pp.

Schlickeisen, R., and R. Musgrave.  1996.  Saving biodiversity:  A status report on state laws, policies and programs.  Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, D.C.  218 pp.

Vickerman, S.  1998. National stewardship initiatives: Conservation strategies for U.S. land owners.  Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, D.C.  75 pp.