Continuous versus binary representations of landscape heterogeneity in spatially-explicit models of mobile populations

Ecological Modelling

Volumn 221, Issue 19, 2010, Pages 2409-2414

  Stoddard, Steven T ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

Habitat loss; Individual based model; Landscape representation; Neutral landscape; Persistence; Spatial heterogeneity

Indexed keywords

HABITAT LOSS; INDIVIDUAL-BASED MODEL; LANDSCAPE REPRESENTATION; NEUTRAL LANDSCAPE; PERSISTENCE; SPATIAL HETEROGENEITY;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; NORMAL DISTRIBUTION;

ECOLOGY;

BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTION; EXTINCTION RISK; HABITAT FRAGMENTATION; HABITAT LOSS; HABITAT QUALITY; HETEROGENEITY; LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY; LANDSCAPE STRUCTURE; MORTALITY; PERSISTENCE; POPULATION MODELING; POPULATION VIABILITY ANALYSIS; SPECIES CONSERVATION;

EID: 77955769978     PISSN: 03043800     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2010.06.024     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Armsworth P.R., Roughgarden J.E. The impact of directed versus random movement on population dynamics and biodiversity patterns. Am. Nat. 2005, 165:449-465.
2. Bascompte J. Extinction thresholds: insights from simple models. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 2003, 40:99-114.
3. Bascompte J., Sole R.V. Habitat fragmentation and extinction thresholds in spatially explicit models. J. Anim. Ecol. 1996, 65:465-473.
4. Bender D.J., Fahrig L. Matrix structure obscures the relationship between interpatch movement and patch size and isolation. Ecology 2005, 86:1023-1033.
5. Chesson P., Lee C.T. Families of discrete kernels for modeling dispersal. Theor. Popul. Biol. 2005, 67:241-256.
6. Debinski D.M. Forest fragmentation and matrix effects: the matrix does matter. J. Biogeogr. 2006, 33:1791-1792.
7. Dytham C. The effect of habitat destruction pattern on species persistence: a cellular model. Oikos 1995, 74:340-344.
8. Fahrig L. How much habitat is enough?. Biol. Conserv. 2001, 100:65-74.
9. Fahrig L. Effect of habitat fragmentation on the extinction threshold: a synthesis. Ecol. Appl. 2002, 12:346-353.
10. Fahrig L. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol., Evol. Syst. 2003, 34:487-515.
11. Fischer J., Lindenmayer D.B. Small patches can be valuable for biodiversity conservation: two case studies on birds in southeastern Australia. Biol. Conserv. 2002, 106:129-136.
12. Fischer J., Lindenmayer D.B. Beyond fragmentation: the continuum model for fauna research and conservation in human-modified landscapes. Oikos 2006, 112:473-480.
13. Fischer J., Lindenmayer D.B., Fazey I. Appreciating ecological complexity: habitat contours as a conceptual landscape model. Conserv. Biol. 2004, 18:1245-1253.
14. Flather C.H., Bevers M. Patchy reaction-diffusion and population abundance: the relative importance of habitat amount and arrangement. Am. Nat. 2002, 159:40-56.
15. Haila Y. A conceptual genealogy of fragmentation research: from island biogeography to landscape ecology. Ecol. Appl. 2002, 12:321-334.
16. Hargrove W.W., Hoffman F.M., Schwartz P.M. A fractal landscape realizer for generating synthetic maps. Conserv. Ecol. 2002, 6. [online].
17. Holland E.P., Aegerter J.N., Dytham C. Comparing resource representations and choosing scale in heterogeneous landscapes. Landsc. Ecol. 2009, 24:213-227.
18. Holland E.P., Aegerter J.N., Dytham C., Smith G.C. Landscape as a model: the importance of geometry. PLoS Comp. Biol. 2007, 3.
19. Huggett A.J. The concept and utility of 'ecological thresholds' in biodiversity conservation. Biol. Conserv. 2005, 124:301-310.
20. Keitt T.H. Spectral representation of neutral landscapes. Landsc. Ecol. 2000, 15:479-493.
21. Kot M., Lewis M.A., Van Den Driessche P. Dispersal data and the spread of invading organisms. Ecology 1996, 77:2027-2042.
22. Lande R. Extinction thresholds in demographic models of territorial populations. Am. Nat. 1987, 130:624-635.
23. Law B.S., Dickman C.R. The use of habitat mosaics by terrestrial vertebrate fauna: implications for conservation and management. Biodivers. Conserv. 1998, 7:323-333.
24. Lindenmayer D.B., Fischer J., Cunningham R.B. Native vegetation cover thresholds associated with species responses. Biol. Conserv. 2005, 124:311-316.
25. Lindenmayer D.B., Luck G. Synthesis: thresholds in conservation and management. Biol. Conserv. 2005, 124:351-354.
26. Lindenmayer D.B., McIntyre S., Fischer J. Birds in eucalypt and pine forests: landscape alteration and its implications for research models of faunal habitat use. Biol. Conserv. 2003, 110:45-53.
27. Malanson G.P. Dispersal across continuous and binary representations of landscapes. Ecol. Model. 2003, 169:17-24.
28. Manning A.D., Lindenmayer D.B., Nix H.A. Continua and Umwelt: novel perspectives on viewing landscapes. Oikos 2004, 104:621-628.
29. McGarigal K., McComb W.C. Relationships between landscape structure and breeding birds in the Oregon Coast Range. Ecol. Monogr. 1995, 65:235-260.
30. McGarigal K., Tagil S., Cushman S.A. Surface metrics: an alternative to patch metrics for the quantification of landscape structure. Landsc. Ecol. 2009, 24:433-450.
31. Monkkonen M., Reunanen P. On critical thresholds in landscape connectivity: a management perspective. Oikos 1999, 84:302-305.
32. Pe'er G., Kramer-Schadt S. Incorporating the perceptual range of animals into connectivity models. Ecol. Model. 2008, 213:73-85.
33. Rodenhouse N.L., Sherry T.W., Holmes R.T. Site-dependent regulation of population size: a new synthesis. Ecology 1997, 78:2025-2042.
34. R Development Core Team, 2008. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.r-project.org/.
35. Ruel J.J., Ayres M.P. Jensen's inequality predicts effects of environmental variation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1999, 14:361-366.
36. Sibly R., Nabe-Nielsen J., Forchhammer M., Forbes V., Topping C. The effects of spatial and temporal heterogeneity on the population dynamics of four animal species in a Danish landscape. BMC Ecol. 2009, 9:18.
37. Swift T.L., Hannon S.J. Critical thresholds associated with habitat loss: a review of the concepts, evidence, and applications. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 2010, 85:35-53.
38. Tischendorf L., Bender D.J., Fahrig L. Evaluation of patch isolation metrics in mosaic landscapes for specialist vs. generalist dispersers. Landsc. Ecol. 2003, 18:41-50.
39. Turner M.G. Landscape ecology: what is the state of the science?. Annu. Rev. Ecol., Evol. Syst. 2005, 36:319-344.
40. Wiegand T., Moloney K.A., Naves J., Knauer F. Finding the missing link between landscape structure and population dynamics: a spatially explicit perspective. Am. Nat. 1999, 154:605-627.
41. Wiegand T., Revilla E., Moloney K.A. Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on population dynamics. Conserv. Biol. 2005, 19:108-121.
42. Wilcove D., Rothstein D., Dubow J., Phillips A., Losos E. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. Bioscience 1998, 48:607-616.
43. Wilensky U. NetLogo 1999, Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
44. With K.A., King A.W. Extinction thresholds for species in fractal landscapes. Conserv. Biol. 1999, 13:314-326.
45. With K.A., Pavuk D.M., Worchuck J.L., Oates R.K., Fisher J.L. Threshold effects of landscape structure on biological control in agroecosystems. Ecol. Appl. 2002, 12:52-65.