Matrix heterogeneity affects population size of the harvest mice: Bayesian estimation of matrix resistance and model validation

Oikos

Volumn 120, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 271-279

  Kuroe, Misako ^a   Yamaguchi, Noriyuki ^a   Kadoya, Taku ^a,b   Miyashita, Tadashi ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO   (Japan)

^b NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURAL LAND; BAYESIAN ANALYSIS; CONNECTIVITY; HABITAT SELECTION; HETEROGENEITY; MARKOV CHAIN; MATRIX; MODEL VALIDATION; MONTE CARLO ANALYSIS; MOVEMENT; POPULATION SIZE; RODENT;

REITHRODONTOMYS;

EID: 78751613377     PISSN: 00301299     EISSN: 16000706     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18697.x     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Baguette M. 2004. The classical metapopulation theory and the real, natural world: a critical appraisal. Basic Appl. Ecol. 5: 213-224.
2. Bender D. J. and Fahrig L. 2005. Matrix structure obscures the relationship between inter patch movement and patch size and isolation. Ecology 86: 1023-1033.
3. Brady M. J. et al. 2009. Habitat attributes of landscape mosaics along a gradient of matrix development intensity: matrix management matters. Landscape Ecol. 24: 879-891.
4. Burnham K. P. and Anderson D. R. 2002. Model selection and multi model inference. A practical information-theoretical approach (2nd ed.). - Springer.
5. Chardon J. P. et al. 2003. Incorporating landscape elements into a connectivity measure: a case study for the speckled wood butterfly (Pararge aegeria L.). Landscape Ecol. 18: 561-573.
6. Churchfield S. et al. 1997. Community structure and habitat use of small mammals in grasslands of different successional age. J. Zool. 242: 519-530.
7. Clinchy M. et al. 2002. Pattern does not equal process: what does patch occupancy really tell us about metapopulation dynamics? Am. Nat. 159: 351-362.
8. Collinge S. K. and Palmer T. M. 2002. The influences of patch shape and boundary contrast on insect response to fragmentation in California grassland. Landscape Ecol. 17: 647-656.
9. Cushman S. A. et al. 2006. Gene flow in complex landscapes: testing multiple hypotheses with causal modeling. Am. Nat. 168: 486-499.
10. Debinski D. M. and Holt R. D. 2000. A survey and overview of habitat fragmentation experiments. Conserv. Biol. 14: 342-355.
11. Dickman C. R. 1986. Habitat utilization and diet of the harvest mouse, Micromys minutus, in an urban environment. Acta Theriol. 31: 249-256.
12. Dingle H. and Drake V. A. 2007. What is migration? BioScience 57: 113-121.
13. Donald P. F. and Evans A. D. 2006. Habitat connectivity and matrix restoration: the wider implications of agri-environment schemes. J. Appl. Ecol. 43: 209-218.
14. Driezen K. et al. 2007. Evaluating least-cost model predictions with empirical dispersal data: a case-study using radiotracking data of hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus). Ecol. Modell. 209: 314-322.
15. Fahrig L. 2001. How much habitat is enough? Biol. Conserv. 100: 65-74.
16. Fahrig L. 2007. Non-optimal animal movement in human-altered landscapes. Funct. Ecol. 21: 1003-1015.
17. Ferreras P. 2001. Landscape structure and asymmetrical inter-patch connectivity in a metapopulation of the endangered Iberian lynx. Biol. Conserv. 100: 125-136.
18. Frair J. L. et al. 2005. Scales of movement by elk (Cervus elaphus) in response to heterogeneity in forage resources and predation risk. Landscape Ecol. 20: 273-287.
19. Gelman A. et al. 2004. Bayesian data analysis (2nd ed.). - Chapman and Hall/CRC.
20. Greenwald K. R. et al. 2009. Efficacy of land-cover models in predicting isolation of marbled salamander populations in a fragmented landscape. Conserv. Biol. 23: 1232-1241.
21. Gustafson E. J. and Gardner R. H. 1996. The effect of landscape heterogeneity on the probability of patch colonization. Ecology 77: 94-107.
22. Hanski I. 1999. Metapopulation ecology. - Oxford Univ. Press.
23. Harris S. 1979. Breeding season, litter size and nestling mortality of the harvest mouse, Micromys minutus (Rodentia, Muridae), in Britain. J. Zool. 188: 437-442.
24. Haynes K. J. and Cronin J. T. 2003. Matrix composition affects the spatial ecology of a prairie planthopper. Ecology 84: 2856-2866.
25. Haynes K. J. and Cronin J. T. 2006. Inter patch movement and edge effects: the role of behavioral responses to the landscape matrix. Oikos 113: 43-54.
26. Haynes K. J. et al. 2007. Landscape context outweighs local habitat quality in its effects on herbivore dispersal and distribution. Oecologia: 431-441.
27. Hirota T. et al. 2004. Population structure of the large Japanese field mouse, Apodemus speciosus (Rodentia: Muridae), in suburban landscape, based on mitochondrial D-loop sequences. Mol. Ecol. 13: 3275-3282.
28. Janin A. et al. 2009. Assessing landscape connectivity with calibrated cost-distance modeling: predicting common toad distribution in a context of spreading agriculture. J. Appl. Ecol. 46: 833-841.
29. Jonsen I. D. and Taylor P. D. 2000. Fine-scale movement behaviors of calopterygid damselflies are influenced by landscape structure: an experimental manipulation. Oikos 88: 553-562.
30. Kadoya T. 2009. Assessing functional connectivity using empirical data. Popul. Ecol. 51: 5-15.
31. Kuroda T. and Katsuno T. 2006. The relationship between grassland management and nest building condition of harvest mouse in Yato in urban area. J. Environ. Inf. Sci. 19: 401-405, in Japanese with English summary.
32. Kuroe M. et al. 2007. Nest-site selection by the harvest mouse Micromys minutus in seasonally changing environments. Acta Theriol. 52: 355-360.
33. Millán de la Peña N. et al. 2003. Response of the small mammal community to changes in western French agricultural landscapes. Landscape Ecol. 18: 265-278.
34. Moilanen A. and Hanski I. 1998. Metapopulation dynamics: effects of habitat quality and landscape structure. Ecology 79: 2503-2515.
35. Moilanen A. and Nieminen M. 2002. Simple connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Ecology 83: 1131-1145.
36. Morozumi T. and Morozumi G. 1996. Nest distribution of the harvest mouse at Suwa area in Nagano prefecture. J. Growth 35: 57-68, in Japanese.
37. Murphy D. D. et al. 1990. An environment-metapopulation approach to population viability analysis for a threatened invertebrate. Conserv. Biol. 4: 41-51.
38. O'Hara R. B. et al. 2002. Bayesian analysis of metapopulation data. Ecology 83: 2408-2415.
39. Ovaskainen O. and Hanski I. 2004. Metapopulation dynamics in highly fragmented landscapes. - In: Hanski I. and Gaggiotti O. E. (eds), Ecology, genetics and evolution of metapopulations. Elsevier Academic Press, pp. 73-104.
40. Ovaskainen O. et al. 2008a. An empirical test of a diffusion model: predicting clouded Apollo movements in a novel environment. Am. Nat. 171: 610-619.
41. Ovaskainen O. et al. 2008b. Bayesian methods for analyzing movements in the heterogeneous landscapes from mark recapture data. Ecology 89: 542-554.
42. Pita R. et al. 2007. Spatial population structure of the cabrera vole in Mediterranean farmland: the relative role of patch and matrix effects. Biol. Conserv. 134: 383-392.
43. Prugh L. R. et al. 2008. Effect of habitat area and isolation on fragmented animal populations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105: 20770-20775.
44. Purrenhage J. L. et al. 2009. Population structure of spotted salamanders (Ambystoma maculatum) in a fragmented landscape. Mol. Ecol. 18: 235-247.
45. Raufaste N. et al. 2005. Inferences of selection and migration in the Danish house mouse hybrid zone. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 84: 593-616.
46. Reeve J. D. et al. 2008. Diffusion models for animals in complex landscapes: incorporating heterogeneity among substrates, individuals and edge behaviors. J. Anim. Ecol. 77: 898-904.
47. Revilla E. et al. 2004. Effects of matrix heterogeneity on animal dispersal: from individual behavior to metapopulation-level parameters. Am. Nat. 164: E130-153.
48. Ricketts T. H. 2001. The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. Am. Nat. 158: 87-99.
49. Rittenhouse T. A. G. and Semlitsch R. D. 2006. Grasslands as movement barriers for a forest-associated salamander: migration behavior of adult and juvenile salamanders at a distinct habitat edge. Biol. Conserv. 131: 14-22.
50. Sawabe K. et al. 2005. Influence of bank-grass mowing on the nest building of the harvest mouse. J. Jpn Inst. Landscape Arch. 68: 571-574, in Japanese with English summary.
51. Schooley R. L. and Wiens J. A. 2005. Spatial ecology of cactus bugs: area constraints and patch connectivity. Ecology 86: 1627-1639.
52. Schooley R. L. and Branch L. C. 2009. Enhancing the area-isolation paradigm: habitat heterogeneity and metapopulation dynamics of a rare wetland mammal. Ecol. Appl. 19: 1708-1722.
53. Stevens V. M. et al. 2004. Quantifying functional connectivity: experimental evidence for patch-specific resistance in the natterjack toad (Bufo calamita). Landscape Ecol. 19: 829-842.
54. Surmacki A. et al. 2005. Location and habitat characteristics of the breeding nests of the harvest mouse (Micromys minutus) in the reed-beds of an intensively used farmland. Mammalia 69: 5-9.
55. Urban D. L. et al. 2009. Graph models of habitat mosaics. Ecol. Lett. 12: 260-273.
56. Verbeylen G. et al. 2003. Does matrix resistance influence red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris L. 1758) distribution in an urban landscape? Landscape Ecol. 18: 791-805.
57. Wagner H. H. and Fortin M. J. 2005. Spatial analysis of landscapes: concepts and statistics. Ecology 86: 1975-1987.
58. Wiegand T. et al. 2003. Using pattern-oriented modeling for revealing hidden information: a key for reconciling ecological theory and application. Oikos 100: 209-222.