Effects of within-Patch heterogeneity on connectivity in pond-Breeding amphibians studied by means of an individual-Based model

Web Ecology

Volumn 13, Issue , 2013, Pages 21-29

  Pontoppidan, M B ^a   Nachman, G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AMPHIBIAN; BREEDING POPULATION; CONNECTIVITY; HETEROGENEITY; INDIVIDUAL-BASED MODEL; METAPOPULATION; POPULATION DYNAMICS;

EID: 84901752939     PISSN: 21933081     EISSN: 13991183     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5194/we-13-21-2013     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Baker, J. M. R. and Halliday, T. R.: Amphibian colonization of new ponds in an agricultural landscape, Herpetol. J., 9, 55-63, 1999.
2. Bender, D. J. and Fahrig, L.: Matrix structure obscures the relationship between interpatch movement and patch size and isolation, Ecology, 86, 1023-1033, 2005
3. Bowman, J., Cappuccino, N., and Fahrig, L.: Patch size and population density: The effect of immigration behavior, Conserv. Ecol., 6, 9, 2002
4. Chin, K. S. and Taylor, P. D.: Interactive effects of distance and matrix on the movements of a peatland dragonfly, Ecography, 32, 715-722, doi:10.1111/j.1600-0587.2009.05744.x, 2009
5. Dunning, J. B., Danielson, B. J., and Pulliam, H. R.: Ecological processes that affect populations in complex landscapes, Oikos, 65, 169-175, doi:10.2307/3544901, 1992
6. Fahrig, L.: Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. S., 34, 487-515, doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132419, 2003.
7. Goodwin, B. J. and Fahrig, L.: How does landscape structure influence landscape connectivity?, Oikos, 99, 552-570,doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2002.11824. x, 2002
8. Grimm, V., Berger, U., Bastiansen, F., Eliassen, S., Ginot, V., Giske, J., Goss-Custard, J., Grand, T., Heinz, S. K., Huse, G., Huth, A., Jepsen, J. U., Jorgensen, C., Mooij, W. M., Muller, B., Pe'er, G., Piou, C., Railsback, S. F., Robbins, A. M., Robbins, M. M., Rossmanith, E., Ruger, N., Strand, E., Souissi, S., Stillman, R. A., Vabo, R., Visser, U., and DeAngelis, D. L.: A standard protocol for describing individual-Based and agent-Based models, Ecol. Model., 198, 115-126, doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2006.04.023, 2006
9. Grimm, V., Berger, U., DeAngelis, D. L., Polhill, J. G., Giske, J., and Railsback, S. F.: The ODD protocol: A review and first update, Ecol. Model., 221, 2760-2768, doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2010.08.019, 2010
10. Gustafson, E. J. and Gardner, R. H.: The effect of landscape heterogeneity on the probability of patch colonization, Ecology, 77, 94-107, doi:10.2307/2265659, 1996
11. Hamer, A. J. and McDonnell, M. J.: Amphibian ecology and conservation in the urbanising world: A review, Biol. Conserv., 141, 2432-2449, doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.020, 2008
12. Hanski, I.: Metapopulation dynamics, Nature, 396, 41-49, doi:10.1038/23876, 1998
13. Hanski, I. and Simberloff, D.: The Metapopulation Approach, Its history, Conceptual domain, and Application to Conservation, in: Metapopulation Biology: Ecology, genetics, and evolution, edited by: Hanski, I. and Gilpin, M. E., Academic Press, Inc., 1997.
14. Hartung, H.: Untersuchung zur terrestrischen Biologie von Populationen des Moorfrosches (Rana arvalis NILSSON 1842) unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Jahresmobilität, Ph.D. thesis, Fachbereiches Biologie, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, 1991
15. Haynes, K. J. and Cronin, J. T.: Interpatch movement and edge effects: The role of behavioral responses to the landscape matrix, Oikos, 113, 43-54, 2006
16. Haynes, K. J., Diekotter, T., and Crist, T. O.: Resource complementation and the response of an insect herbivore to habitat area and fragmentation, Oecologia, 153, 511-520, doi:10.1007/s00442-007-0749-4, 2007
17. Hels, T.: Population dynamics in a Danish metapopulation of spadefoot toads Pelobates fuscus, Ecography, 25, 303-313, doi:10.1034/j.1600-0587.2002. 250307.x, 2002
18. Jaeger, J. A. G.: Landscape division, splitting index, and effective mesh size: New measures of landscape fragmentation, Landscape Ecol., 15, 115-130, 2000.
19. Jaquiéry, J., Guélat, J., Broquet, T., Berset-Brändli, L., Pellegrini, E., Moresi, R., Hirzel, a. H., and Perrin, N.: Habitat-Quality effects on metapopulation dynamics in greater white-Toothed shrews, Crocidura russula, Ecology, 89, 2777-2785, 2008.
20. Johnson, J. R., Knouft, J. H., and Semlitsch, R. D.: Sex and seasonal differences in the spatial terrestrial distribution of gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor) populations, Biol. Conserv., 140, 250-258, doi:10.1016/j.biocon. 2007.08.010, 2007
21. Kindlmann, P. and Burel, F.: Connectivity measures: A review, Landscape Ecol., 23, 879-890, doi:10.1007/s10980-008-9245-4, 2008
22. Lehtinen, R. M., Ramanamanjato, J. B., and Raveloarison, J. G.: Edge effects and extinction proneness in a herpetofauna from Madagascar, Biodivers. Conserv., 12, 1357-1370, doi:10.1023/a:1023673301850, 2003
23. Loman, J.: Density and survival of Rana arvalis and Rana temporaria, Alytes, 3, 125-134, 1984
24. Loman, J.: Site tenacity, within and between summers, of Rana arvalis and Rana temporaria, Alytes, 12, 15-29, 1994.
25. Marsh, D.: Metapopulation viability analysis for amphibians, Anim. Conserv., 11, 463-465, doi:10.1111/j.1469-1795.2008.00223.x, 2008
26. Marsh, D. M. and Trenham, P. C.: Metapopulation dynamics and amphibian conservation, Conserv. Biol., 15, 40-49, 2001.
27. Moilanen, A. and Hanski, I.: Metapopulation dynamics: Effects of habitat quality and landscape structure, Ecology, 79, 2503-2515,1998
28. Moilanen, A. and Hanski, I.: On the use of connectivity measures in spatial ecology, Oikos, 95, 147-151, doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2001.950116.x, 2001
29. Moilanen, A. and Hanski, I.: Connectivity and metapopulation dynamics in highly fragmented landscapes, in: Connectivity Conservation, edited by: Crooks, K. R. and Sanjayan, M., Cambridge University Press, 2006
30. Moilanen, A. and Nieminen, M.: Simple connectivity measures in spatial ecology, Ecology, 83, 1131-1145, 2002
31. Pfenning, B., Hovestadt, T., and Poethke, H. J.: The effect of patch constellation on the exchange of individuals between habitat-Islands, Ecol. Model., 180, 515-522, doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2004.04.035, 2004
32. Pillsbury, F. C. and Miller, J. R.: Habitat and landscape characteristics underlying anuran community structure along an urban-Rural gradient, Ecol. Appl., 18, 1107-1118, doi:10.1890/07-1899.1, 2008
33. Pontoppidan, M.-B. and Nachman, G.: Spatial Amphibian Impact Assessment - a management tool for assessment of road effects on regional populations of Moor frogs (Rana arvalis), Nat. Conserv., in press, 2013a
34. Pontoppidan, M.-B. and Nachman, G.: Changes in behavioural responses to infrastructure affect local and regional connectivity - a simulation study on pond breeding amphibians, Nat. Conserv., in press, 2013b
35. Pope, S. E., Fahrig, L., and Merriam, N. G.: Landscape complementation and metapopulation effects on leopard frog populations, Ecology, 81, 2498-2508, 2000
36. Prevedello, J. A. and Vieira, M. V.: Does the type of matrix matter? A quantitative review of the evidence, Biodivers. Conserv., 19, 1205-1223, doi:10.1007/s10531-009-9750-z, 2010
37. Puglis, H. J. and Boone, M. D.: Effects of terrestrial buffer zones on amphibians on golf courses, PLoS ONE, 7, e39590, doi:10.1371/journal.pone. 0039590, 2012
38. Ricketts, T. H.: The matrix matters: Effective isolation in fragmented landscapes, Am. Nat., 158, 87-99, doi:10.1086/320863, 2001
39. Ries, L., Fletcher, R. J., Battin, J., and Sisk, T. D.: Ecological responses to habitat edges: Mechanisms, models, and variability explained, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. S., 35, 491-522, doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.35.112202.130148, 2004
40. Rothermel, B. B.: Migratory success of juveniles: A potential constraint on connectivity for pond-Breeding amphibians, Ecol. Appl., 14, 1535-1546, 2004.
41. Semlitsch, R. D.: Differentiating migration and dispersal processes for pond-Breeding amphibians, J. Wildlife Manage., 72, 260-267, doi:10.2193/2007- 082, 2008
42. Sinsch, U.: Orientation and navigation in Amphibia, Mar. Freshw. Behav. Phy., 39, 65-71, doi:10.1080/10236240600562794, 2006.
43. Sjögren-Gulve, P.: Spatial movement patterns in frogs: Targetoriented dispersal in the pool frog, Rana lessonae, Ecoscience, 5, 31-38, 1998
44. Smith, M. A. and Green, D. M.: Dispersal and the metapopulation paradigm in amphibian ecology and conservation: Are all amphibian populations metapopulations?, Ecography, 28, 110-128,2005
45. Todd, B. D. and Rothermel, B. B.: Assessing quality of clearcut habitats for amphibians: Effects on abundances versus vital rates in the southern toad (Bufo terrestris), Biol. Conserv., 133, 178-185, doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2006.06. 003, 2006
46. Tramontano, R.: The post-Breeding migration of the European common frog, Rana temporaria: Effects of landscape structure and seasonal weather, Lund University, Lund, 1998
47. Vandermeer, J. and Carvajal, R.: Metapopulation dynamics and the quality of the matrix, Am. Nat., 158, 211-220, doi:10.1086/321318, 2001
48. Vos, C. C. and Chardon, J. P.: Effects of habitat fragmentation and road density on the distribution pattern of the moor frog Rana arvalis, J. Appl. Ecol., 35, 44-56, 1998.
49. Watling, J. I., Nowakowski, A. J., Donnelly, M. A., and Orrock, J. L.: Meta-Analysis reveals the importance of matrix composition for animals in fragmented habitat, Global Ecol. Biogeogr., 20, 209-217, doi:10.1111/j.1466- 8238.2010.00586.x, 2011
50. Wiens, J. A.: Metapopulation Dynamics and Landscape Ecology, in: Metapopulation Biology: Ecology, genetics, and evolution, edited by: Hanski, I. and Gilpin, M. E., Academic Press, Inc., 1997.
51. Wilensky, U.: NetLogo, Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, http://ccl.northwestern.edu/ netlogo, 1999