Incorporating consumer-resource spatial interactions in reserve design

Ecological Modelling

Volumn 220, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 725-733

  Rayfield, Bronwyn ^a   Moilanen, Atte ^b   Fortin, Marie Josée ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

Author keywords

Connectivity; Conservation prioritization; Martes americana; Predator prey; Reserve selection; Zonation

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; CONSERVATION; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; FORESTRY; IMAGE SEGMENTATION; MAMMALS; OCEAN HABITATS;

CONNECTIVITY; CONSERVATION PRIORITIZATION; MARTES AMERICANA; PREDATOR-PREY; RESERVE SELECTION; ZONATION;

ECOLOGY;

BIOZONATION; BOREAL FOREST; CONNECTIVITY; MUSTELID; NATURE CONSERVATION; PERSISTENCE; RESERVE DESIGN; RODENT;

AGGLOMERATION; CONSERVATION; ECOLOGY; FOREST MANAGEMENT; IMAGE QUALITY; MAMMALS; RESERVES; SEGMENTATION; SEPARATION;

CANADA; NORTH AMERICA; QUEBEC [CANADA];

CLETHRIONOMYS; CLETHRIONOMYS RUTILUS; MAMMALIA; MARTES AMERICANA; MURIDAE; PEROMYSCUS; PEROMYSCUS MANICULATUS;

EID: 58849088434     PISSN: 03043800     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2008.11.016     Document Type: Article

References (82)

1. Abrams P.A. Indirect interactions between species that share a predator: varieties of indirect effects. In: Kerfoot W.C., and Sih A. (Eds). Predation (1987), University Press of New England, Hanover 38-54
2. Abrams P.A. The adaptive dynamics of consumer choice. The American Naturalist 153 (1999) 83-97
3. Abrams P.A. Habitat choice in predator-prey systems; spatial instability due to interacting adaptive movements. The American Naturalist 169 (2007) 581-594
4. Adriaensen F., Chardron J.P., DeBlust G., Swinnen E., Villalba S., Gulinck H., and Matthysen E. The application of 'least-cost' modelling as a functional landscape model. Landscape and Urban Planning 64 (2003) 233-247
5. Arponen A., Kondelin H., and Moilanen A. Area-based refinement for selection of reserve sites with the benefit-function approach. Conservation Biology 21 (2007) 527-533
6. Arponen A., Heikkinen R.K., Thomas C.D., and Moilanen A. The value of biodiversity in reserve selection: representation, species weighting, and benefit functions. Conservation Biology 19 (2005) 2009-2014
7. Baskett M.L., Micheli F., and Levin S.A. Designing marine reserves for interacting species: insights from theory. Biological Conservation 137 (2007) 163-179
8. Bowman J., Forbes G., and Dilworth T. Landscape context and small-mammal abundance in a managed forest. Forest Ecology and Management 140 (2001) 249-255
9. Bowman J., Jaeger J.A.G., and Fahrig L. Dispersal distance of mammals is proportional to home range size. Ecology 83 (2002) 2049-2055
10. Breckling B., Middelhoff U., and Reuter H. Individual-based models as tools for ecological theory and application: understanding the emergence of organisational properties in ecological systems. Ecological Modelling 194 (2006) 102-113
11. Buskirk, S.W., Ruggiero, L.F., 1994. Marten. In: Ruggiero, L.F., Aubry, K.B., Buskirk, S.W., Jack Lyon, L., Zielinski, W.J. (Eds.), The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores. General Technical Report, RM-254. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ft. Collins, CO, pp. 7-37.
12. Buskirk S.W., and Powell R.A. Habitat ecology of fishers and American martens. In: Buskirk S.W., Harestad A.S., Raphael M.G., and Powell R.A. (Eds). Martens, Sables, and Fishers Biology and Conservation (1994), Cornell University Press, Ithaca 283-296
13. Cabeza M., and Moilanen A. Replacement cost: a practical measure of site value for cost-effective reserve planning. Biological Conservation 132 (2006) 336-342
14. Carpenter S.R., Frost T.M., Ives A.R., Kitchell J.F., and Kratz T.M. Complexity, cascades, and compensation in ecosystems, Global Environmental Forum. In: Yasuno M., and Watanabe M.M. (Eds). Biodiversity: Its Complexity and Role (1994), National Institute for Environmental Studies, Tokyo
15. Carroll C., and Miquelle D.G. Spatial viability analysis of Amur tiger Panthera tigris altaica in the Russian Far East: the role of protected areas and landscape matrix in population persistence. Journal of Applied Ecology 43 (2006) 1056-1068
16. Chan K.M.A., Shaw M.R., Cameron D.R., Underwood E.C., and Daily G.C. Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PLoS Biology 4 (2006) 2138-2152
17. Cuddington K.M., and Yodzis P. Diffusion-limited predator-prey dynamics in Euclidean environments: an allometric individual-based model. Theoretical Population Biology 58 (2000) 259-278
18. de Roos A.M., McCauley E., and Wilson W.G. Pattern formation and the spatial scale of interaction between predator and their prey. Theoretical Population Biology 53 (1998) 108-130
19. Done T.J., and Reichelt R.E. Integrated coastal zone and fisheries ecosystem management: generic goals and performance indices. Ecological Applications 8 (1998) S110-S118
20. Early R., and Thomas C.D. Multispecies conservation planning: identifying landscapes for the conservation of viable populations using local and continental species priorities. Journal of Applied Ecology 44 (2007) 253-262
21. Fahrig L. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 34 (2003) 487-515
22. Gaston K.J., Pressey R.L., and Margules C.R. Persistence and vulnerability: retaining biodiversity in the landscape and in protected areas. Journal of Biosciences 27 (2002) 361-384
23. Gerber L.R., Botsford L.W., Hastings A., Possingham H.P., Gaines S.D., Palumbi S.R., and Andelman S. Population models for marine reserve design: a retrospective and prospective synthesis. Ecological Applications 13 (2003) S47-S64
24. Green D.G., and Sadedin S. Interactions matter-complexity in landscapes and ecosystems. Ecological Complexity 2 (2005) 117-130
25. Groeneveld R. Economic considerations in the optimal size and number of reserve sites. Ecological Economics 52 (2005) 219-228
26. Guichard F., Levin S.A., Hastings A., and Siegel D. Toward a dynamic metacommunity approach to marine reserve theory. Bioscience 54 (2004) 1003-1011
27. Hanski I. Metapopulation dynamics. Nature 396 (1998) 41-49
28. Hof J., and Flather C.H. Accounting for connectivity and spatial correlation in the optimal placement of wildlife habitat. Ecological Modelling 88 (1996) 143-155
29. Holt R. From metapopulation dynamics to community structure: some consequences of spatial heterogeneity. In: Hanski I., and Gilpin M. (Eds). Metapopulation Biology: Ecology, Genetics, and Evolution (1997), Academic Press, San Diego 149-164
30. Holzkamper A., Lausch A., and Seppelt R. Optimizing landscape configuration to enhance habitat suitability for species with contrasting habitat requirements. Ecological Modelling 198 (2006) 277-292
31. Hoopes M.F., Holt R., and Holyoak M. The effects of spatial processes on two species interactions. In: Holyoak M., Leibold M.A., and Holt R. (Eds). Metacommunities: Spatial Dynamics and Ecological Communities (2005), University of Chicago Press, Chicago 35-67
32. Hunter Jr. M.L. Coping with ignorance: the coarse-filter strategy for maintaining biological diversity. In: Kohm K. (Ed). Balancing on the Brink of Extinction (1991), Island Press, Washington, D.C. 266-281
33. Ims R.A. Movement patterns related to spatial structures. In: Hansson L., Fahrig L., and Merriam G. (Eds). Mosaic Landscapes and Ecological Processes (1995), Chapman, London 85-109
34. IUCN. Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories, CNPPA with the assistance of WCMC (1994), International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge
35. James P.M.A., Rayfield B., Fortin M.-J., and Fall A. Reserve network design combining spatial graph theory and species' spatial requirements. Geomatica 59 (2005) 323-333
36. Klug J.L., Fischer J.M., Ives A.R., and Dennis B. Compensatory dynamics in planktonic community responses to pH perturbations. Ecology 81 (2000) 387-398
37. Koelle K., and Vandermeer J. Dispersal-induced desynchronization: from metapopulations to metacommunities. Ecology Letters 8 (2005) 167-175
38. Koenig W.D., Vuren D.V., and Hooge P.N. Detectability, philoparty, and the distribution of dispersal distances in vertebrates. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 11 (1996) 514-517
39. Krebs C.J. Two complementary paradigms for analysing population dynamics. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal society of London, Series B-Biological Sciences 357 (2002) 1211-1219
40. Kremen C., Cameron A., Moilanen A., Philips S., Thomas C.D., Beentje H., Dransfeld J., Fisher B.L., Glaw F., Good T., Harper G., Hijmans R.J., Lees D.C., Louis Jr. E., Nussbaum R.A., Raxworthy C., Razafimpahanana A., Schatz G., Vences M., Vieites D.R., Wright P.C., and Zjhra M.L. Aligning conservation priorities across taxa in Madagascar, a biodiversity hotspot, with high-resolution planning tools. Science 320 (2008) 222-226
41. Leroux S.J., Schmiegelow K.A., Lessard R.B., and Cumming S.G. Minimum dynamic reserves: a framework for determining reserve size in ecosystems structured by large disturbances. Biological Conservation 138 (2007) 464-473
42. May R. The effects of spatial scale on ecological questions and answers. In: Edwards P., May R., and Webb N. (Eds). Large-scale Ecology and Conservation Biology (1994), Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford 1-17
43. McCann K., Hastings A., and Huxel G.R. Weak trophic interactions and the balance of nature. Nature 395 (1998) 794-798
44. Micheli F., Amarasekare P., Bascompte J., and Gerber L.R. Including species interactions in the design and evaluation of marine reserves: some insights from a predator-prey model. Bulletin of Marine Science 74 (2004) 653-669
45. Minor, E.S., Urban, D.L., 2008. A graph-theory framework for evaluating landscape connectivity and conservation planning. Conservation Biology, doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00871.x.
46. Moilanen A. Landscape Zonation, benefit functions and target-based planning: unifying reserve selection strategies. Biological Conservation 134 (2007) 571-579
47. Moilanen A., and Nieminen M. Simple connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Ecology 83 (2002) 1131-1145
48. Moilanen A., and Kujala H. Zonation Spatial Conservation Planning Framework and Software v. 1.0, User Manual (2006), Edita, Helsinki, Finland
49. Moilanen A., and Wintle B.A. Uncertainty analysis favours selection of spatially aggregated reserve networks. Biological Conservation 129 (2006) 427-434
50. Moilanen A., and Wintle B.A. The boundary-quality penalty: a quantitative method for approximating species responses to fragmentation in reserve selection. Conservation Biology 21 (2007) 355-364
51. Moilanen A., Leathwick J.R., and Elith J. A method for freshwater conservation prioritization. Freshwater Biology 53 (2008) 577-592
52. Moilanen A., Franco A.M.A., Early R.I., Fox R., Wintle B., and Thomas C.D. Prioritizing multiple-use landscapes for conservation: methods for large multi-species planning problems. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 272 (2005) 1885-1891
53. Moulton V., Semple C., and Steel M. Optimizing phylogenetic diversity under constraints. Journal of Theoretical Biology 246 (2007) 186-194
54. Noss R.F. From plant communities to landscapes in conservation inventories: a look at the Nature Conservancy (USA). Biological Conservation 41 (1987) 11-37
55. Oksanen L. Logic of experiments in ecology: is pseudoreplication a pseudoissue. Oikos 94 (2001) 27-38
56. Polis G.A. Stability is woven by complex webs. Nature 395 (1998) 744-745
57. Possingham H.P., Ball I.R., and Andelman S. Mathematical methods for identifying representative reserve networks. In: Ferson S., and Burgman M. (Eds). Quantitative Methods for Conservation Biology (2000), Springer-Verlag, New York 291-305
58. Potvin F., Belanger L., and Lowell K. Marten habitat selection in a clearcut boreal landscape. Conservation Biology 14 (2000) 844-857
59. Prakash S., and de Roos A.M. Habitat destruction in a simple predator-prey patch model: how predators enhance prey persistence and abundance. Theoretical Population Biology 62 (2002) 231-249
60. Pressey R.L. Systematic conservation planning for the real world. Parks 9 (1999) 1-6
61. Rayfield, B., James, P., Fall, A., Fortin, M.-J., 2008. Comparing static versus dynamic protected areas in the Québec boreal forest. Biological Conservation, doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2007.10.013.
62. Ryall K.L., and Fahrig L. Response of predators to loss and fragmentation of prey habitat: a review of theory. Ecology Letters 87 (2006) 1086-1093
63. Sabo J.L. Population viability and species interactions: life outside the single-species vacuum. Biological Conservation (2008) 141
64. Schultz T.T., and Joyce L.A. A spatial application of a marten habitat model. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20 (1992) 74-83
65. Sih A., Englund G., and Wooster D. Emergent impacts of multiple predators on prey. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 13 (1998) 350-355
66. Sinclair A.R.E., and Byrom A.E. Understanding ecosystem dynamics for conservation of biota. Journal of Animal Ecology 75 (2006) 64-79
67. Soulé M.E., Estes J.A., Berger J., and Martinez Del Rio C. Ecological effectiveness: conservation goals for interactive species. Conservation Biology 17 (2003) 1238-1250
68. Soulé M.E., Estes J.A., Miller B., and Honnold D.L. Strongly interacting species. Conservation policy, management, and ethics. Bioscience 55 (2005) 168-176
69. Svirezhev Y.M. Nonlinearities in mathematical ecology: phenomena and models. Would we live in Volterra's world?. Ecological Modelling 216 (2008) 89-101
70. Swihart R.K., Feng Z., Slade N.A., Mason D.M., and Gehring T.M. Effects of habitat destruction and resource supplementation in a predator-prey metapopulation model. Journal of Theoretical Biology 210 (2001) 287-303
71. Thompson I.D. Could marten become the spotted owl of eastern Canada. Forestry Chronicle 67 (1991) 136-140
72. Thompson I.D., and Harstad A.S. Effects of logging on American martens and models for habitat management. In: Buskirk S.W., Harestad A.S., and Raphael M.G. (Eds). Martens, Sables, and Fishers: Biology and Conservation (1994), Cornell University Press, Ithaca 355-367
73. Tischendorf L. Modelling individual movements in heterogeneous landscapes: potentials of a new approach. Ecological Modelling 103 (1997) 33-42
74. Van de Koppel J., Bardgett R.D., Bengtsson J., Rodriguez-Barrueco C., Rietkerk M., Wassen M.J., and Wolters V. The effects of spatial scale on trophic interactions. Ecosystems 8 (2005) 801-807
75. van der Heide C.M., van den Bergh J.C.J.M., and van Ierland E.C. Extending Weitzman's economic ranking of biodiversity protection: combining ecological and genetic considerations. Ecological Economics 55 (2005) 218-223
76. Van Dyck H., and Baguette M. Dispersal behaviour in fragmented landscapes: routine or special movements?. Basic and Applied Ecology 6 (2005) 535-545
77. Wiens J.A. Spatial scaling in ecology. Functional Ecology 3 (1989) 385-397
78. Williams J.C., ReVelle C.S., and Levin S.A. Using mathematical optimization models to design nature reserves. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2 (2004) 98-105
79. With K.A. Using fractal analysis to assess how species perceive landscape structure. Landscape Ecology 9 (1994) 25-36
80. Witting L., Tomiuk J., and Loeschcke V. Modelling the optimal conservation of interacting species. Ecological Modelling 125 (2000) 123-143
81. Wu J., and Marceau D. Modeling complex ecological systems: an introduction. Ecological Modelling 153 (2002) 1-6
82. Xu W.H., Ouyang Z., Vina A., Zheng H., Liu J.G., and Xiao Y. Designing a conservation plan for protecting the habitat for giant pandas in the Qionglai mountain range, China. Diversity and Distributions 12 (2006) 610-619