Scale dependency of metapopulation models used to predict climate change impacts on small mammals

Ecography

Volumn 36, Issue 7, 2013, Pages 832-841

  Haby, Nerissa A ^a   Prowse, Thomas A A ^a   Gregory, Stephen D ^a   Watts, Michael J ^b   Delean, Steven ^a   Fordham, Damien A ^a   Foulkes, Jeff ^a   Brook, Barry W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE   (Australia)

^b Auckland Institute of Studies   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLIMATE CHANGE; CLIMATE EFFECT; DEMOGRAPHY; DENSITY DEPENDENCE; DISPERSAL; ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATOR; HABITAT SELECTION; METAPOPULATION; POPULATION MODELING; RANGE EXPANSION; REFUGIUM; SCALE EFFECT; SMALL MAMMAL; VULNERABILITY;

AUSTRALIA;

MAMMALIA;

EID: 84879314346     PISSN: 09067590     EISSN: 16000587     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2012.07749.x     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Akçakaya H. R. 2005. RAMAS GIS: linking spatial data with population viability analysis, version 5.0. Applied Biomathematics, Setauket, NY, USA.
2. Anderson B. J. et al. 2009. Dynamics of range margins for metapopulation unders climate change. Proc. R. Soc. B 276: 1415-1420.
3. Arthington A. H. et al. 2010. Multi-scale environmental factors explain fish losses and refuge quality in drying waterholes of Cooper Creek, an Australian arid-zone river. Mar. Freshwater Res. 61: 842-856.
4. Ashcroft M. B. 2010. Identifying refugia from climate change. J. Biogeogr. 37: 1407-1413.
5. Austin M. P. and van Niel K. P. 2011a. Improving species distribution models for climate change studies: variable selection and scale. J. Biogeogr. 38: 1-8.
6. Austin M. P. and van Niel K. P. 2011b. Impact of landscape predictors on climate change modelling of species distri butions: a case study with Eucalyptus fastigata in southern New South Wales, Australia. J. Biogeogr. 38: 9-19.
7. Baguette M. et al. 2011. Metapopulation dynamics of the bog fritillary butterfly: experimental changes in habitat quality induced negative density-dependent dispersal. Ecography 34: 170-176.
8. Beissinger S. R. and Westphal M. I. 1998. On the use of demographic models of population viability in endangered species management. J. Wildl. Manage. 62: 821-841.
9. Bradford D. F. et al. 2003. Habitat patch occupancy by toads (Bufo punctatus) in a naturally fragmented desert landscape. Ecology 84: 1012-1023.
10. Brito D. and da Fonseca G. A. B. 2007. Demographic consequences of population subdivision on the long-furred wooly mouse opossum (Micoureus paraguayanus) from the Atlantic Forest. Acta Oecol. 31: 60-68.
11. Caughley G. 1977. Analysis of vertebrate populations. - Wiley.
12. Claridge A. W. et al. 2002. Use of bioclimatic analysis to direct survey effort for the long-footed potoroo (Potorous longipes), a rare forest-dwelling rat-kangaroo. Wildl. Res. 29: 193-202.
13. Claridge A. W. et al. 2008. Factors influencing the occurrence of small ground-dwelling mammals in southeastern mainland Australia. J. Mammal. 89: 916-923.
14. Clarke L. E. et al. 2007. Scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric concentrations. Sub-report 2.1a of synthesis and assessment product 2.1. A Report by the Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. Washington, DC, p. 154.
15. Coulson T. et al. 2001. The use and abuse of population viability analysis. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16: 219-221.
16. Crone E. E. et al. 2001. Ecological influences on the dynamics of a field vole metapopulation. Ecology 82: 831-843.
17. ESRI 2009. ArcMap 9.3. - ESRI, Redlands, CA, < www.esri.com/ >.
18. Fordham D. A. et al. 2011. Multi-model climate projections for biodiversity risk assessments. Ecol. Appl. 21: 3317-3331.
19. Fordham D. A. et al. 2012. Plant extinction risk under climate change: are forecast range shifts alone a good indicator of species vulnerability to global warming? Global Change Biol. doi: 10.1111/j.365-2486.011.02614.x
20. Forys E. A. and Humphrey S. R. 1999. Use of population viability analysis to evaluate management options for the endangered lower keys marsh rabbit. J. Wildl. Manage. 63: 251-260.
21. Franklin J. 2010. Moving beyond static species distribution models in support of conservation biogeography. Divers. Distrib. 16: 321-330.
22. Freeman E. 2007. PresenceAbsence: an R package for presence-absence model evaluation. - USDA Forest Service, Ogden, UT, USA.
23. Garnett S. T. and Brook B. W. 2007. Modelling to forestall extinction of Australian tropical birds. J. Ornithol. 148: S311-S320.
24. Gooch B. and Haby N. 2003. Southern brown bandicoot surveying in Cleland Conservation Park, South Australia. Aust. Nat. 77: 22-27.
25. Haby N. A. et al. 2012. Specialist resources are key to improving small mammal distribution models. Austral Ecol. 37: 216-226.
26. Heard L. M. and Channon B. 1997. Guide to a native vegetation survey (agricultural region) using the biological survey of South Australia methodology. - Dept for Environment and Heritage, South Australia.
27. Herrando-Perez S. et al. 2012. Strength of density feedback from census data increases from slow to fast life histories. Ecol. Evol. doi: 10.1002/ece3.298
28. Hijmans R. J. and van Etten J. 2011. raster: geographic analysis and modeling with raster data (manual). R package ver. 1.9-5, < http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/raster/raster.pdf >.
29. Hokit D. G. et al. 2010. Ecological metrics predict connectivity better than geographic distance. Conserv. Genet. 11: 149-159.
30. Huntley B. et al. 2010. Beyond bioclimatic envelopes: dynamic species' range and abundance modelling in the context of climate change. Ecography 33: 621-626.
31. Jacobson B. and Peres-Neto P. R. 2010. Quantifying and disentangling dispersal in metacommunities: how close have we come? How far is there to go? Landscape Ecol. 25: 495-507.
32. Kanda L. L. et al. 2009. Seasonal source-sink dynamics at the edge of a species' range. Ecology 90: 1574-1585.
33. Keith D. A. et al. 2008. Predicting extinction risks under climate change: coupling stochastic population models with dynamic bioclimatic habitat models. Biol. Lett. 4: 560-563.
34. Kent R. and Carmel Y. 2011. Presence-only versus presence- absences data in species composition determinant analyses. Divers. Distrib. 17: 474-479.
35. Kotliar N. B. and Wiens J. A. 1990. Multiple scales of patchiness and patch structures: a hierarchical framework for the study of heterogeneity. Oikos 59: 253-260.
36. Kriticos D. J. and Leriche A. 2010. The effects of climate data precision on fitting and projecting species niche models. Ecography 33: 115-127.
37. Levinsky I. et al. 2007. Potential impacts of climate change on the distributions and diversity patterns of European mammals. Biodivers. Conserv. 16: 3803-3816.
38. Lewin-Koh N. J. et al. 2011. maptools: tools for reading and handling spatial objects. R package ver. 0.7-33.
39. Löbel S. et al. 2006. Metapopulation processes in epiphytes inferred from patterns of regional distribution and local abundance in fragmented forest landscapes. J. Ecol. 94: 856-868.
40. Lobo J. M. et al. 2010. The uncertain nature of absences and their importance in species distribution modelling. Ecography 33: 103-114.
41. Lomba A. et al. 2010. Overcoming the rare species modelling paradox: a novel hierarchical framework applied to an Iberian endemic plant. Biol. Conserv. 143: 2647-2657.
42. Lumley T. 2011. Survival: survival analysis, including penalised likelihood. R package ver. 2.36-9, < http://CRAN.R-project.org/package survival >.
43. Maechler M. et al. 2011. cluster: cluster analysis basics and extensions. R package ver. 1.14.1.
44. Marchesan D. and Carthew S. M. 2008. Use of space by the yellow-footed antechinus, Antechinus flavipes, in a fragmented landscape in South Australia. Landscape Ecol. 23: 741-752.
45. McCarthy M. A. and Thompson C. 2001. Expected minimum population size as a measure of threat. Anim. Conserv. 4: 351-355.
46. Olivier P. I. et al. 2009. Support for a metapopulation structure among mammals. Mammal Rev. 39: 178-192.
47. Opdam P. and Wascher D. 2004. Climate change meets habitat fragmentation: linking landscape and biogeographical scale level in research and conservation. Biol. Conserv. 117: 285-297.
48. Owens H. M. 2000. Guidelines for vertebrates surveys in South Australia using the biological survey of South Australia. - Dept for Environment and Heritage, South Australia.
49. Pearson R. G. and Dawson T. P. 2003. Predicting the impacts of climate change on the distribution of species: are bioclimate envelope models useful? Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 12: 361-371.
50. Price B. et al. 2010. The importance of fine-scale savanna heterogeneity for reptiles and small mammals. Biol. Conserv. 143: 2503-2513.
51. Randin C. F. et al. 2009. Climate change and plant distribution: local models predict high-elevation persistence. Global Change Biol. 15: 1557-1569.
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. Sondgerath D. and Schroder B. 2002. Population dynamics and habitat connectivity affecting the spatial spread of populations - a simulation study. Landscape Ecol. 17: 57-70.
54. Southwell D. M. et al. 2008. The sensitivity of population viability analysis to uncertainty about habitat requirements: implications for the management of the endangered southern brown bandicoot. Conserv. Biol. 22: 1045-1054.
55. Sublette Mosblech N. A. et al. 2011. On metapopulations and microrefugia: palaeoecological insights. J. Biogeogr. 38: 419-429.
56. Uezu A. and Metzger J. P. 2011. Vanishing bird species in the Atlantic forest: relative importance of landscape configuration, forest structure and species characteristics. Biodivers. Conserv. 20: 3627-3646.
57. VanDerWal J. et al. 2011. SDMTools: species distribution modelling tools: tools for processing data associated with species distribution modelling exercises. R package ver. 1.1-5, < http://CRAN.R-project.org/package SDMTools >.
58. Willis K. J. and Bhagwat S. A. 2009. Biodiversity and climate change. Science 326: 806-807.
59. Winters J. B. and Waser P. M. 2003. Gene dispersal and outbreeding in a philopatric mammal. Mol. Ecol. 12: 2251-2259.