Habitat quality of source patches and connectivity in fragmented landscapes

Biodiversity and Conservation

Volumn 20, Issue 8, 2011, Pages 1611-1623

  Schooley, Robert L ^a   Branch, Lyn C ^b  

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

^b UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

Colonization; Connectivity; Fragmentation; Habitat heterogeneity; Metapopulation; Neofiber alleni; Patch quality

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; COLONIZATION; CONNECTIVITY; CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; DISPERSAL; ECOLOGICAL MODELING; HABITAT FRAGMENTATION; HABITAT QUALITY; LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY; METAPOPULATION; NUMERICAL MODEL; PATCHINESS; POPULATION DYNAMICS; POPULATION SIZE; RARE SPECIES; RODENT; WETLAND;

NEOFIBER; NEOFIBER ALLENI; ONDATRA;

EID: 79958267855     PISSN: 09603115     EISSN: 15729710     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10531-011-0049-5     Document Type: Review

References (85)

1. Armstrong DP (2005) Integrating the metapopulation and habitat paradigms for understanding broad-scale declines of species. Conserv Biol 19: 1402-1410.
2. Baguette M, van Dyck H (2007) Landscape connectivity and animal behavior: functional grain as a key determinant for dispersal. Landsc Ecol 22: 1117-1129.
3. Bastin L, Thomas CD (1999) The distribution of plant species in urban vegetation fragments. Landsc Ecol 14: 493-507.
4. Bender DJ, Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2003) Using patch isolation metrics to predict animal movement in binary landscapes. Landsc Ecol 18: 17-39.
5. Birkenholz DE (1963) A study of the life history and ecology of the round-tailed muskrat (Neofiber alleni True) in north-central Florida. Ecol Monogr 33: 255-280.
6. Brooks CP, Antanovics J, Keitt TH (2008) Spatial and temporal heterogeneity explain disease dynamics in a spatially explicit network model. Am Nat 172: 149-159.
7. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer-Verlag, New York.
8. Calabrese JM, Fagan WF (2004) A comparison-shopper's guide to connectivity metrics. Front Ecol Environ 10: 529-536.
9. Chardon JP, Adriaensen F, Matthysen E (2003) Incorporating landscape elements into a connectivity measure: a case study for the Speckled wood butterfly (Pararge aegeria L.). Landsc Ecol 18: 561-573.
10. Cosentino BJ, Schooley RL, Phillips CA (2010) Wetland hydrology, area, and isolation influence occupancy and spatial turnover of the painted turtle, Chrysemys picta. Landsc Ecol 25: 1589-1600.
11. Doak P (2000) Habitat patchiness and the distribution, abundance, and population dynamics of an insect herbivore. Ecology 81: 1842-1857.
12. Ewers RM, Thorpe S, Didham RK (2007) Synergistic interactions between edge and area effects in a heavily fragmented landscape. Ecology 88: 96-106.
13. Facon B, David P (2006) Metapopulation dynamics and biological invasions: a spatially explicit model applied to a freshwater snail. Am Nat 168: 769-783.
14. Fagan WF, Calabrese JM (2006) Quantifying connectivity: balancing metric performance with data requirements. In: Crooks KR, Sanjayan M (eds) Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 297-317.
15. Fleishman E, Ray C, Sjögren-Gulve P, Boggs CL, Murphy DD (2002) Assessing the roles of patch quality, area, and isolation in predicting metapopulation dynamics. Conserv Biol 16: 706-716.
16. Foppen RPB, Chardon JP, Liefveld W (2000) Understanding the role of sink patches in source-sink metapopulations: reed warbler in an agricultural landscape. Conserv Biol 14: 1881-1892.
17. Franken RJ, Hik DS (2004) Influence of habitat quality, patch size and connectivity on colonization and extinction dynamics of collared pikas Ochotona collaris. J Anim Ecol 73: 889-896.
18. González-Varo JP, López-Bao JV, Guitián J (2008) Presence and abundance of the Eurasian nuthatch Sitta europaea in relation to size, isolation and the intensity of management of chestnut woodlands in the NW Iberian Peninsula. Landsc Ecol 23: 78-89.
19. Hanski I (1994) A practical model of metapopulation dynamics. J Anim Ecol 63: 151-162.
20. Hanski I (1998) Connecting the parameters of local extinction and metapopulation dynamics. Oikos 83: 390-396.
21. Hanski I (1999) Habitat connectivity, habitat continuity, and metapopulations in dynamic landscapes. Oikos 87: 209-219.
22. Hanski I, Gaggiotti OE (2004) Metapopulation biology: past, present, and future. In: Hanski I, Gaggiotti OE (eds) Ecology, genetics, and evolution of metapopulations. Elsevier Academic Press, Amsterdam, pp 3-22.
23. Hanski I, Alho J, Moilanen A (2000) Estimating the parameters of migration and survival for individuals in metapopulations. Ecology 81: 239-251.
24. Hokit DG, Stith BM, Branch LC (1999) Effects of landscape structure in Florida scrub: a population perspective. Ecol Appl 9: 124-134.
25. Hokit DG, Stith BM, Branch LC (2001) Comparison of two types of metapopulation models in real and artificial landscapes. Conserv Biol 15: 1102-1113.
26. Jaquiéry J, Guélat J, Broquet T, Berset-Brändli L, Pellegrini E, Moresi R, Hirzel AH, Perrin N (2008) Habitat-quality effects on metapopulation dynamics in greater white-toothed shrews, Crocidura russula. Ecology 89: 2777-2785.
27. Johnson DM (2005) Metapopulation models: an empirical test of model assumptions and evaluation methods. Ecology 86: 3088-3098.
28. Johnson DM, Horvitz CC (2005) Estimating postnatal dispersal: tracking the unseen dispersers. Ecology 86: 1185-1190.
29. Kadoya T (2009) Assessing functional connectivity using empirical data. Popul Ecol 51: 5-15.
30. Kindlmann P, Burel F (2008) Connectivity measures: a review. Landsc Ecol 23: 879-890.
31. Kuussaari MI, Saccheri I, Camara M, Hanski I (1998) Allee effect and population dynamics in the Glanville fritillary butterfly. Oikos 82: 384-392.
32. Laaksonen M, Peuhu E, Várkonyi G, Siitonen J (2008) Effects of habitat quality and landscape structure on saproxylic species dwelling in boreal spruce-swamp forests. Oikos 117: 1098-1110.
33. Lefebvre LW, Tilmant JT (1992) Round-tailed muskrat (Neofiber alleni). In: Humphrey SR (ed) Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Volume I. Mammals. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp 276-286.
34. Lei G, Hanski I (1998) Spatial dynamics of two competing specialist parasitoids in a host metapopulation. J Anim Ecol 67: 422-433.
35. Lindenmayer DB, McCarthy MA, Pope ML (1999) Arboreal marsupial incidence in eucalypt patches in southeastern Australia: a test of Hanski's incidence function metapopulation model for patch occupancy. Oikos 84: 99-109.
36. MacKenzie DI, Nichols LD, Hines JE, Knutson MG, Franklin AB (2003) Estimating site occupancy, colonization, and local extinction when a species is detected imperfectly. Ecology 84: 2200-2207.
37. Matter SF, Roslin T, Roland J (2005) Predicting immigration of two species in contrasting landscapes: effects of scale, patch size, and isolation. Oikos 111: 359-367.
38. McRae BH, Dickson BG, Keitt TH, Shah VB (2008) Using circuit theory to model connectivity in ecology, evolution, and conservation. Ecology 89: 2712-2724.
39. Menéndez R, Thomas CD (2000) Metapopulation structure depends on spatial scale in the host-specific moth Wheeleria spilodactylus (Lepidoptera: Pterophoridae). J Anim Ecol 69: 935-951.
40. Moilanen A (1999) Patch occupancy models of metapopulation dynamics: efficient parameter estimation using implicit statistical inference. Ecology 80: 1031-1043.
41. Moilanen A (2000) The equilibrium assumption in estimating the parameters of metapopulation models. J Anim Ecol 69: 143-153.
42. Moilanen A, Hanski I (1998) Metapopulation dynamics: effects of habitat patch area and isolation, habitat quality and landscape structure. Ecology 79: 2503-2515.
43. Moilanen A, Hanski I (2001) On the use of connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Oikos 95: 147-151.
44. Moilanen A, Hanski I (2006) Connectivity and metapopulation dynamics in highly fragmented landscapes. In: Crooks KR, Sanjayan M (eds) Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 44-71.
45. Moilanen A, Nieminen M (2002) Simple connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Ecology 83: 1131-1145.
46. Moilanen A, Smith AT, Hanski I (1998) Long-term dynamics in a metapopulation of the American pika. Am Nat 152: 530-542.
47. Mortelliti A, Boitani L (2008) Interaction of food resources and landscape structure in determining the probability of patch use by carnivores in fragmented landscapes. Landsc Ecol 23: 285-298.
48. Mortelliti A, Amori G, Boitani L (2010) The role of habitat quality in fragmented landscapes: a conceptual overview and prospectus for future research. Oecologia 163: 535-547.
49. Nekola JC (1999) Paleorefugia and neorefugia: the influence of colonization history on community pattern and process. Ecology 80: 2459-2473.
50. Pellet J, Fleishman E, Dobkin DS, Gander A, Murphy DD (2007) An empirical evaluation of the area and isolation paradigm of metapopulation dynamics. Biol Conserv 136: 483-495.
51. Price SJ, Marks DR, Howe RW, Hanowski JM, Niemi GJ (2005) The importance of spatial scale for conservation and assessment of anuran populations in coastal wetlands of the western Great Lakes, USA. Landsc Ecol 20: 441-454.
52. Prugh LR (2009) An evaluation of patch connectivity measures. Ecol Appl 19: 1300-1310.
53. Prugh LR, Hodges KE, Sinclair ARE, Brashares JS (2008) Effect of habitat area and isolation on fragmented animal populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105: 20770-20775.
54. Rabasa SG, Gutiérrez D, Escudero A (2007) Metapopulation structure and habitat quality in modeling dispersal in the butterfly Iolana iolas. Oikos 116: 793-806.
55. Ranius T, Kindvall O (2006) Extinction risk of wood-living model species in forest landscapes as related to forest history and conservation strategy. Landsc Ecol 21: 687-698.
56. Renfrew RB, Ribic CA (2008) Multi-scale models of grassland passerine abundance in a fragmented system in Wisconsin. Landsc Ecol 23: 181-193.
57. Ricketts TH (2001) The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. Am Nat 158: 87-99.
58. SAS (2002) SAS for Windows, Version 9. 0. SAS Institute Inc, Cary.
59. Schooley RL, Branch LC (2005) Survey techniques for determining occupancy of isolated wetlands by round-tailed muskrats. Southeast Nat 4: 745-756.
60. Schooley RL, Branch LC (2007) Spatial heterogeneity in habitat quality and cross-scale interactions in metapopulations. Ecosystems 10: 846-853.
61. Schooley RL, Branch LC (2009) Enhancing the area-isolation paradigm: habitat heterogeneity and metapopulation dynamics of a rare wetland mammal. Ecol Appl 19: 1708-1722.
62. Schooley RL, Wiens JA (2005) Spatial ecology of cactus bugs: area constraints and patch connectivity. Ecology 86: 1627-1639.
63. Schtickzelle N, Wallis de Vries MF, Baguette M (2005) Using surrogate data in population viability analysis: the case of the critically endangered cranberry fritillary butterfly. Oikos 109: 89-100.
64. Schtickzelle N, Mennechez G, Baguette M (2006) Dispersal depression with habitat fragmentation in the bog fritillary butterfly. Ecology 87: 1057-1065.
65. Schultz CB, Crone EE (2005) Patch size and connectivity thresholds for butterfly habitat restoration. Conserv Biol 19: 887-896.
66. Snäll T, O'Hara RB, Ray C, Collinge SK (2008) Climate-driven spatial dynamics of plague among prairie dog colonies. Am Nat 171: 238-248.
67. Steffan-Dewenter I, Schiele S (2008) Do resources or natural enemies drive bee population dynamics in fragmented habitats? Ecology 89: 1375-1387.
68. Taylor PD, Fahrig L, Henein K, Merriam G (1993) Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68: 571-573.
69. Thiele J, Schuckert U, Otte A (2008) Cultural landscapes of Germany are patch-corridor-matrix mosaics for an invasive megaforb. Landsc Ecol 23: 453-465.
70. Thomas CD (1994) Extinction, colonization, and metapopulations: environmental tracking by rare species. Conserv Biol 8: 373-378.
71. Thomas CD, Kunin WE (1999) The spatial structure of populations. J Anim Ecol 68: 647-657.
72. Thornton DH, Branch LC, Sunquist ME (2011) The influence of landscape, patch, and within-patch factors on species presence and abundance: a review of focal patch studies. Landsc Ecol 26: 7-18.
73. Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2000) On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos 90: 7-19.
74. Tischendorf L, Bender DJ, Fahrig L (2003) Evaluation of patch isolation metrics in mosaic landscapes for specialist vs. generalist dispersers. Landsc Ecol 18: 41-50.
75. Tremlová K, Münzbergová Z (2007) Importance of species traits for species distributions in fragmented landscapes. Ecology 88: 965-977.
76. Urban D, Keitt T (2001) Landscape connectivity: a graph-theoretic perspective. Ecology 82: 1205-1218.
77. Urban MC, Phillips BC, Skelly DK, Shine R (2008) A toad more traveled: the heterogeneous invasion dynamics of cane toads in Australia. Am Nat 171: E134-E138.
78. van Nouhuys S, Hanski I (1999) Host diet affects extinctions and colonizations in a parasitoid metapopulation. J Anim Ecol 68: 1248-1258.
79. Vellend M, Verheyen K, Jacquemyn H, Kolb A, van Calster H, Peterken G, Hermy M (2006) Extinction debt of forest plants persists for more than a century following habitat fragmentation. Ecology 87: 542-548.
80. Verbeylen G, De Bruyn L, Adriaensen F, Matthysen E (2003) Does matrix resistance influence Red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris L. 1758) distribution in an urban landscape? Landsc Ecol 18: 791-805.
81. Vergara PM, Marquet PA (2007) On the seasonal effect of landscape structure on a bird species: the thorn-tailed rayadito in a relict forest in northern Chile. Landsc Ecol 22: 1059-1071.
82. Verheyen K, Fastenaekels I, Vellend M, De Keersmaeker L, Hermy M (2006) Landscape factors and regional differences in recovery rates of herb layer richness in Flanders (Belgium). Landsc Ecol 21: 1109-1118.
83. Visconti P, Elkin C (2009) Using connectivity metrics in conservation planning-When does habitat quality matter? Divers Distrib 15: 602-612.
84. Winfree R, Dushoff J, Crone EE, Schultz CB, Budny RV, Williams NM, Kremen C (2005) Testing simple indices of habitat proximity. Am Nat 165: 707-717.
85. With KA (2004) Metapopulation dynamics: perspectives from landscape ecology. In: Hanski I, Gaggiotti OE (eds) Ecology, genetics, and evolution of metapopulations. Elsevier Academic Press, Amsterdam, pp 23-44.