Quantifying the importance of patch-specific changes in habitat to metapopulation viability of an endangered songbird

Ecological Applications

Volumn 21, Issue 7, 2011, Pages 2478-2486

  Horne, Jon S ^a   Strickler, Katherine M ^a   Alldredge, Mathew ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO   (United States)

^b Colorado Division of Wildlife ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Conservation incentive; Dendroica chrysoparia; Dispersal; Fort Hood, Texas; Goldencheeked Warbler; Metapopulation; Recovery credit system; Sensitivity analysis

Indexed keywords

BREEDING SITE; DISPERSAL; ENDANGERED SPECIES; FECUNDITY; FUTURE PROSPECT; HABITAT LOSS; HABITAT RESTORATION; IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS; INCENTIVE; LANDOWNER; MARKET CONDITIONS; METAPOPULATION; PERSISTENCE; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SONGBIRD; SPECIES CONSERVATION; SURVIVAL;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; ECOSYSTEM; ENDANGERED SPECIES; PHYSIOLOGY; POPULATION DYNAMICS; SONGBIRD;

ANIMALS; ECOSYSTEM; ENDANGERED SPECIES; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; POPULATION DYNAMICS; SONGBIRDS;

FORT HOOD; TEXAS; UNITED STATES;

DENDROICA CHRYSOPARIA; PASSERI;

EID: 80053943747     PISSN: 10510761     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1890/10-2328.1     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Akcakaya, H. R. 2005. RAMAS GIS: Linking spatial data with population viability analysis. Version 5. Applied Biomathematics, Setauket, New York, USA.
2. Alldredge, M. W., J. S. Hatfield, D. D. Diamond, and C. D. True. 2004. Golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia) in Texas: importance of dispersal toward persistence in a metapopulation. Pages 371-383 in H. R. Akçakaya, M. A. Burgman, O. Kindvall, C. C. Wood, P. Sjögren-Gulve, J. S. Hatfield, and M. A. McCarthy, editors. Species conservation and management: case studies. Oxford University Press, New York, New York, USA.
3. Anders, A. D., and D. C. Dearborn. 2004. Population trends of the endangered golden-cheeked warbler at Fort Hood, Texas, from 1992-2001. Southwestern Naturalist 49:39-47. (Pubitemid 38335248)
4. Armsworth, P. R., and J. E. Roughgarden. 2005. The impact of directed versus random movement on population dynamics and biodiversity patterns. American Naturalist 165:449-465.
5. Bakker, V. J., and D. F. Doak. 2009. Population viability management: ecological standards to guide adaptive management for rare species. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7:158-165.
6. Bean, M. J. 2006. Second-generation approaches. Pages 274-285 in D. D. Goble, J. M. Scott, and F. W. Davis, editors. The Endangered Species Act at thirty: Renewing the conservation promise. Volume 1. Island Press, Washington, D. C., USA.
7. Bean, M. J., and D. S. Wilcove. 1997. The private-land problem. Conservation Biology 11:1-2.
8. Bonnie, R. 1999. Endangered species mitigation banking: promoting recovery through habitat conservation planning under the Endangered Species Act. The Science of the Total Environment 240:11-19. (Pubitemid 29469657)
9. Brown, J. H. 1971. Mammals on mountaintops: nonequilibrium insular biogeography. American Naturalist 105:467.
10. Bruggeman, D. J., and M. L. Jones. 2008. Should habitat trading be based on mitigation ratios derived from landscape indices? A model-based analysis of compensatory restoration options for the red-cockaded woodpecker. Environmental Management 42:591-602.
11. Burnham, K. P., and D. R. Anderson. 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Second edition. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.
12. Cornelius, J. D., T. J. Hayden, and P. A. Guertin. 2007. Endangered species management plan for Fort Hood, Texas: FY06-10. ERDC/CERL TR-07-11. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Research and Development Center, Construction Engineering Laboratory, Washington, D. C., USA.
13. Doak, D. F., and L. S. Mills. 1994. A useful role for theory in conservation. Ecology 75:615-626. (Pubitemid 2070427)
14. Doremus, H. D. 2003. A policy portfolio approach to biodiversity protection on private land. Environmental Science and Policy 6:217-232.
15. Fox, J., G. C. Daily, B. H. Thompson, K. M. A. Chan, A. Davis, and A. Nino-Murcia. 2006. Conservation banking. Pages 228-243 in J. M. Scott, D. D. Goble, and F. W. Davis, editors. The Endangered Species Act at thirty: Conserving biodiversity in human-dominated landscapes. Volume 2. Island Press, Washington, D. C., USA.
16. Groves, C. R., L. S. Kutner, D. M. Stoms, M. P. Murray, J. M. Scott, M. Schafale, A. S. Weakley, and R. L. Pressey. 2000. Owning up to our responsibilities: who owns lands important for biodiversity? Pages 275-300 in B. A. Stein, L. S. Kutner, and J. S. Adams, editors. Precious heritage: The status of biodiversity in the United States. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
17. Hanski, I., and M. Gilpin. 1991. Metapopulation dynamics: a brief history and conceptual domain. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 42:3-16.
18. Hanski, I., and O. Ovaskainen. 2000. The metapopulation capacity of a fragmented landscape. Nature 404:755-758. (Pubitemid 30212401)
19. Hokit, D. G., and L. C. Branch. 2003. Associations between patch area and vital rates: consequences for local and regional populations. Ecological Applications 13:1060-1068. (Pubitemid 37546305)
20. Kroll, J. C. 1980. Habitat requirements of the golden-cheeked warbler: management implications. Journal of Range Management 33:60-65.
21. Ladd, C., and L. Gass. 1999. Golden-cheeked warbler. Birds of North America 420:1-22.
22. MacArthur, R. H., and E. O. Wilson. 1967. The theory of island biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
23. MacKenzie, D. I. 2009. Getting the biggest bang for our conservation buck. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 24:175-177.
24. Murcia, C. 1995. Edge effects in fragmented forests: implications for conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10:58-62.
25. Ozgul, A. M. K., K. Oli, B. Armitage, D. T. Blumstein, and D. H. Van Vuren. 2009. Influence of local demography on the asymptotic and transient dynamics of a yellow-bellied marmot metapopulation. American Naturalist 173:517-530.
26. Pulich, W. M. 1976. The golden-cheeked warbler: a bioecological study. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, Texas, USA.
27. R Development Core Team. 2008. Program R. Version 2.7.0. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 〈http://www.r-project.org/〉
28. Revilla, E., and T. Wiegand. 2008. Individual movement behavior, matrix heterogeneity, and the dynamics of spatially structured populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 105:19120-19125.
29. Robinson, S. K., F. R. Thompson III, T. M. Donovan, D. R. Whitehead, and J. Faaborg. 1995. Regional forest fragmentation and the nesting success of migratory birds. Science 267:1987-1990.
30. Runge, J. P., M. C. Runge, and J. D. Nichols. 2006. The role of local populations within a landscape context: defining and classifying sources and sinks. American Naturalist 167:925-938. (Pubitemid 43998051)
31. Saltelli, A., K. Chan, and E. M. Scott. 2000. Sensitivity analysis. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York, USA.
32. Saltelli, A., S. Tarantola, and K. Chan. 1999. A quantitative model-independent method for global sensitivity analysis of model output. Technometrics 41:39-56.
33. Searcy, C. A., and H. B. Shaffer. 2008. Calculating biologically accurate mitigation credits: insights from the California tiger salamander. Conservation Biology 22:997-1005.
34. Suorsa, P., H. Helle, V. Koivunen, E. Huhta, A. Nikula, and H. Hakkarainen. 2004. Effects of forest patch size on physiological stress and immunocompetence in an area-sensitive passerine, the Eurasian treecreeper (Certhia familiaris): an experiment. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 271:435-440. (Pubitemid 38221923)
35. USFWS [U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service]. 1990. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; final rule to list the golden-cheeked warbler as endangered. Federal Register 55(87):53153-53160.
36. USFWS [U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service]. 1992. Golden-cheeked warbler recovery plan. USFWS, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.
37. USFWS [U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service]. 1996. Golden-cheeked Warbler population and habitat viability assessment report. Compiled and edited by C. Beardmore, J. Hatfield, and J. Lewis in conjunction with workshop participants. Report of an August 21-24, 1995 workshop arranged by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service in partial fulfillment of U. S. National Biological Service Grant Number 80333-1423, Austin, Texas. USFWS, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.
38. USFWS [U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service]. 1999. Final Safe Harbor Policy. Federal Register 64:32705-32716.
39. USFWS [U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service]. 2007. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: notice of availability for draft recovery crediting guidance. Federal Register 72(212):62258-62264.
40. USFWS [U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service] and Environmental Defense. 2000. Safe harbor agreement between Environmental Defense, Inc. and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to provide safe harbor assurances to landowners in the Texas hill country who voluntarily agree to enhance habitat for the endangered golden-cheeked warbler and black-capped vireo. Environmental Defense Fund, New York, New York, USA. 〈http://www.edf.org/documents/763-txhcsagrmt.pdf〉
41. USGAO [U. S. General Accounting Office]. 1995. Endangered Species Act: information on species protection on nonfederal lands. Report number GAO/RCED-95-16. U. S. General Accounting Office, Washington, D. C., USA.
42. Wilcove, D. S., and J. Lee. 2004. Using economic and regulatory incentives to restore endangered species: lessons learned from three new programs. Conservation Biology 18:639-645. (Pubitemid 38689085)