The combined effect of environmental factors and neighbouring populations on the distribution and abundance of Arvicola terrestris. An approach using rule-based models

Oikos

Volumn 99, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 220-230

  Bonesi, Laura ^a   Rushton, Steve ^b   Macdonald, David ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ABUNDANCE; ECOLOGICAL MODELING; ENDANGERED SPECIES; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; POPULATION ECOLOGY; SOURCE-SINK DYNAMICS; SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION;

ANIMALIA; ARVICOLA; ARVICOLA TERRESTRIS; MICROTUS RICHARDSONI; MURIDAE; MUSTELA; MUSTELA VISON; RODENTIA;

EID: 18744378260     PISSN: 00301299     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0706.2002.990202.x     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Aars, J., Lambin, X., Denny, R. and Griffin, A. 2001. Water vole in the Scottish uplands: Distribution patterns of distrubed and pristine populations ahead and behind the American mink invasion front. - Anim. Conserv. 4: 187-194.
2. Barreto, G. R., Rushton, S. P., Strachan, R. and Macdonald, D. W. 1998. The role of habitat and mink predation in determining the status and distribution of declining populations of water voles in England. - Anim. Conserv. 1: 129-137.
3. Bell, J. 1996. Application of classification trees to habitat preference of upland birds. - J. Appl. Stat. 23: 349-359.
4. Bell, J. 1999. Tree based methods. - In: Fielding, A. (ed.), Machine Learning Methods for Ecological Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 89-106.
5. De'ath, G. and Fabricius, K. 2000. Classification and regression trees: A powerful yet simple technique for ecological data analysis. - Ecology 81: 3178-3192.
6. Dias, M., Buckton, S. and Ormerod, S. 1999. Alternative methods for predicting species distribution: An illustration with Himalayan river birds. - J. Appl. Ecol. 36: 734-747.
7. Diffendorfer, J. E. 1998. Testing models of source-sink dynamicsand balanced dispersal. - Oikos 81: 417-433.
8. Dobbertin, M. and Biging, G. 1998. Using the non-parametric classifier CART to model forest tree mortality. - For. Sci. 44: 507-516.
9. Fabricius, C. and Coetzee, K. 1992. Geographic information-systems and artificial-intelligence for predicting the presence or absence of mountain reedbuck. - S. Afr. J. Wildlife Res. 22: 80-86.
10. Fielding, A. and Bell, J. 1997. A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. - Environ. Conserv. 34: 38-49.
11. Franklin, J. 1998. Predicting the distribution of shrub species in southern California from climate and terrain-derived variables. - J. Veg. Sci. 9: 733-748.
12. Fretwell, S. and Lucas, H. 1970. On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. I. Theoretical development. - Acta Biotheoretica 19: 16-36.
13. Hanski, I. 1999. Metapopulation Ecology. - Oxford Univ. Press.
14. Jefferies, D. J., Morris, P. A. and Mulleneux, J. E. 1989. An inquiry into the changing status of the water vole Arvicola terrestris in Britain. - Mammal Rev. 19: 111-131.
15. Kadmon, R. and Tielborger, K. 1999. Testing for source-sink population dynamics: An experimental approach exemplified with desert annuals. - Oikos 86: 417-429.
16. Kobler, A. and Adamic, M. 2000. Identifying brown bear habitat by a combined GIS and machine learning method. - Ecol. Modelling 135: 291-300.
17. Lambin, X., Fazey, I., Sansom, J. et al. 1998. Aberdeenshire Water Vole Survey: The Distribution of Isolated Water Vole Populations in the Upper Catchments of the Rivers Dee and Don. - Univ. Aberdeen, ITE, NERC.
18. Lambin, X., Teller, S., Denny, R. et al. 1999. The roles of isolation and mink predation in water vole metapopulalions. - Final Report to the Trustees of the People's Trust for Endangered Species.
19. Lawton, J. H. and Woodroffe, G. L. 1991. Habitat and the distribution of water voles: Why are there gaps in the species range? - J. Anim. Ecol. 60: 79-91.
20. Lenihan, J. and Neilson, R. 1993. A rule-based vegetation formation model for Canada. - J. Biogeogr. 20: 615-628.
21. Macdonald, D. W. and Strachan, R. 1999. The Mink and the Water Vole. Analyses for Conservation. - Environment Agency.
22. Moore, D., Lees, B. and Davey, S. 1991. A new method for predicting vegetation distributions using decision tree analysis in a geographic information system. - Environ. Manag. 15: 59-71.
23. Morris, P. A., Morris, M. J., MacPherson, D. et al. 1998. Estimating numbers of the water vole Arvicola terrestris: A correction to the published method. - J. Zool. 246: 61-62.
24. Pulliam, H. 1988. Sources, sinks, and population regulation. - Am. Nat. 132: 652-661.
25. Quinlan, J. 1986. Induction of decision trees. - Machine Learning 1: 23-36.
26. Quinlan, J. 1993. C5.4: Programs for Machine Learning. - Morgan Kaufmann.
27. Rushton, S. P., Barreto, G. W., Cormack, R. M, et al. 2000. Modelling the effects of mink and habitat fragmentation on the water vole. - J. Appl. Ecol. 37: 475-490.
28. Skelly, D. and Meir, E. 1997. Rule-based models for evaluating mechanisms of distributional change. - Conserv. Biol. 11: 531-538.
29. Stoddart, D. M. 1970. Individual range, dispersion and dispersal in a population of water voles (Arvicola terrestris). - J. Anim. Ecol. 39: 403-425.
30. Stoneman, C. and Jones, M. 2000. The influence of habitat features on the biomass and distribution of three species of southern Ontario stream salmonines. - Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 129: 639-657.
31. Strachan, R. and Jefferies, D. 1993. The water vole Arvicola terrestris in Britain 1989-1990: Its distribution and changing status. - Vincent Wildlife Trust, p. 136.
32. Strachan, R. and Bonesi, L. 1998. Water vole survey of the river Teifi 1997-98. - Report for the Environment Agency and CCW.
33. Strachan, C., Strachan, R. and Jefferies, D. 2000. Preliminary report on the status and distribution of the water vole (Arvicola terrestris) in Britain 1996-1998. - The Vincent Wildlife Trust.
34. Teller, S. 2000. Dispersal and Metapopulation Dynamics in Water Vole Populations. - Univ. of Aberdeen.
35. Thomas, C. D., Singer, M. C. and Boughton, D. A. 1996. Catastrophic extinction of population sources in a butterfly metapopulation. - Am. Nat. 148: 957-975.
36. Vayssiers, M., Plant, R. and Allen-Diaz, B. 2000. Classification trees: An alternative non-parametric approach for predicting species distributions. - J. Veg. Sci. 11: 679-694.
37. Watkinson, A. R. and Sutherland, W. J. 1995. Sources, sinks and pseudo-sinks. - J. Anim. Ecol. 64: 126-130.
38. Woodall, P. 1977. Aspects of the ecology and nutrition of the water vole, Arvicola terrestris (L.). Dept of Zoology. - Univ. of Oxford, p. 128.
39. Woodall, P. F. 1993. Dispersion and habitat preference of the water vole (Arvicola terrestris) on the river Thames. - Z. Saugetierkunde 58: 160-171.
40. Woodroffe, G. L. and Lawton, J. H. 1990. Patterns in the production of latrines by water voles (Arvicola terrestris) and their use as indices of abundance in population surveys. - J. Zool. Lond. 220: 439-445.
41. Woodroffe, G. L., Lawton, J. H. and Davidson, W. L. 1990a. The impact of feral mink Mustela vison on water voles Arvicola terrestris in the North Yorkshire Moors National Park. - Biol. Conserv. 51: 49-62.
42. Woodroffe, G. L., Lawton, J. H. and Davidson, W. L. 1990b. Patterns in the production of latrines by water voles (Arvicola terrestris) and their use as indexes of abundance in population surveys. - J. Zool. 220: 439-445.
43. Zejda, J. and Zapletal, M. 1969. Habitat requirements of the water vole (Arvicola terrestris Linn.) along water streams. - Zoologicke Listy 18: 225-238.