Landscape feature-based permeability models relate to puma occurrence

Landscape and Urban Planning

Volumn 147, Issue , 2016, Pages 50-58

  Gray, Morgan ^a   Wilmers, Christopher C ^b   Reed, Sarah E ^c   Merenlender, Adina M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY   (United States)

Author keywords

California; Carnivore; Connectivity; Land use; Road ecology; Santa Cruz

Indexed keywords

ANIMALS; BIODIVERSITY; CONSERVATION; ECOSYSTEMS; HOUSING;

CALIFORNIA; CARNIVORE; CONNECTIVITY; ROAD ECOLOGY; SANTA CRUZ;

LAND USE;

BIODIVERSITY; CANID; CARNIVORE; CONSERVATION PLANNING; HABITAT CORRIDOR; HABITAT FRAGMENTATION; HABITAT RESTORATION; LAND USE; LAND USE PLANNING; RESTORATION ECOLOGY;

CALIFORNIA; COAST RANGES; SANTA CRUZ MOUNTAINS;

ANIMALIA; AVES; PUMA CONCOLOR;

EID: 84959378770     PISSN: 01692046     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.11.009     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Adriaensen F., Chardon J.P., De Blust G., Swinnen E., Villalba S., Gulinck H., et al. The application of 'least-cost' modeling as a functional landscape model. Landscape and Urban Planning 2003, 64:233-247.
2. Alig R.J., Kline J.D., Lichtenstein M. Urbanization on the US landscape: Looking ahead in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning 2004, 69:219-234.
3. Antrop M. Landscape change and the urbanization process in Europe. Landscape and Urban Planning 2004, 67:9-26.
4. Beier P. Dispersal of juvenile cougars in fragmented habitat. Journal of Wildlife Management 1995, 59:228-237.
5. Beier P. A focal species for conservation planning (Chapter 12). Cougar: Ecology and conservation 2009, 177-189. The University of Chicago Press.
6. Beier P., Brost B. Use of land facets to plan for climate change: Conserving the Arenas, not the actors. Conservation Biology 2010, 24:701-710.
7. Beier P., Vaughan M., Conroy M., Quigley H. Evaluating scientific inferences about the Florida Panther. Journal of Wildlife Management 2006, 70:236-245.
8. Bender, Tischendorf D.L., Fahrig L. Using patch isolation metrics to predict animal movement in binary landscapes. Landscape Ecology 2003, 18:17-39.
9. Bennett A.F. Linkages in the landscape: The role of corridors and connectivity in wildlife conservation 1999, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
10. Bland J.M., Altman D.G. Statistics notes: The odds ratio. BMJ 2000, 320:1468.
11. Burdett C., Crooks K., Theobald D., Wilson K., Boydston E., Lyren L., et al. Interfacing models of wildlife habitat and human development to predict the future distribution of puma habitat. Ecosphere 2010, 1:1-21.
12. Butchart S.M., Walpole M., Collen B., van Strien A., Scharlemann J.P., Almond R.E., et al. Global biodiversity: Indicators of recent declines. Science 2010, 328:1164-1168.
13. Calabrese J.M., Fagan W.F. A comparison-shopper's guide to connectivity metrics. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2004, 2:529-536.
14. Cardillo M., Mace G.M., Jones K.E., Bielby J., Bininda-Emonds O.R., Sechrest W., et al. Multiple causes of high extinction risk in large mammal species. Science 2005, 309:1239-1241.
15. U. S. Census Bureau, Population Division. (2011). Retrieved 9 Sep 2011, from http://www.census.gov/popest.
16. Crooks K.R. Relative sensitivities of mammalian carnivores to habitat fragmentation. Conservation Biology 2002, 16:488-502.
17. Crooks K.R., Burdett C.L., Theobald D.M., Rondinini C., Boitani L. Global patterns of fragmentation and connectivity of mammalian carnivore habitat. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2011, 366:2642-2651.
18. Dickson B.G., Beier P. Home-range and habitat selection by adult cougars in southern California. Journal of Wildlife Management 2002, 66(4):1235-1245.
19. Dickson B., Beier P. Quantifying the influence of topographic position on cougar (Puma concolor) movement in southern California, USA. Journal of Zoology 2006, 271:270-277.
20. Dickson B.G., Jenness J.S., Beier P. Influence of vegetation, topography, and roads on cougar movement in southern California. Journal of Wildlife Management 2005, 69:267-276.
21. Dickson B.G., Roemer G.W., McRae B.H., Rundall J.M. Models of regional habitat quality and connectivity for pumas (Puma concolor) in the southwestern United States. PLOS ONE 2013, 8:e81898.
22. Elbroch L.M., Lendrum P.E., Newby J., Quigley H., Craighead D. Seasonal foraging ecology of non-migratory cougars in a system with migrating prey. PLOS ONE 2013, 8:e83375.
23. Fahrig L. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics 2003, 34:487-515.
24. Fahrig L., Rytwinski T. Effects of roads on animal abundance: An empirical review and synthesis. Ecology and Society 2009, 14:21.
25. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. (2008). Retrieved May 2011, from http://redirect.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/fmmp/county_info_results.asp.
26. Forman R.T.T. Estimate of the area affected ecologically by the road system in the United States. Conservation Biology 2000, 14:31-35.
27. Forman R.T., Deblinger R.D. The ecological road-effect zone for transportation planning and Massachusetts highway example. ICOET 1998, (February):78-96.
28. Fu W., Liu S., Degloria S.D., Dong S., Beazley R. Characterizing the "fragmentation-barrier" effect of road networks on landscape connectivity: A case study in Xishuangbanna, Southwest China. Landscape and Urban Planning 2010, 95(3):122-129.
29. Girvetz E.H., Thorne J.H., Berry A.M., Jaeger J.A.G. Integration of landscape fragmentation analysis into regional planning: A statewide multi-scale case study from California, USA. Landscape and Urban Planning 2008, 86(3-4):205-218.
30. Hilty J.A., Lidicker W.Z., Merenlender A.M. Corridor ecology: The science and practice of linking landscapes for biodiversity conservation 2006, Island Press, Washington, DC.
31. Hilty J.A., Merenlender A.M. Use of riparian corridors and vineyards by mammalian predators in Northern California. Conservation Biology 2004, 18:126-135.
32. Huber P.R., Shilling F., Thorne J.H., Greco S.E. Municipal and regional connectivity planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 2012, 105:15-26.
33. IUCN IUCN red list of threatened species 2013, Retrieved from www.iucnredlist.org.
34. Joly P., Morand C., Cohas A. Habitat fragmentation and amphibian conservation: Building a tool for assessing landscape matrix connectivity. Comptes Rendus Biologies 2003, 326:132-139.
35. Kaiser J. Bold corridor project confronts political reality. Science 2001, 293:2196-2199.
36. Karanth K.U., Gopalaswamy A.M., Kumar N.S., Vaidyanathan S., Nichols J.D., MacKenzie D.I. Monitoring carnivore populations at the landscape scale: Occupancy modelling of tigers from sign surveys. Journal of Applied Ecology 2011, 48:1048-1056.
37. Klar N., Herrmann M., Henning-Hahn M., Pott-Dorfer B., Hofer H., Kramer-Schadt S. Between ecological theory and planning practice: (Re-)connecting forest patches for the wildcat in Lower Saxony, Germany. Landscape and Urban Planning 2012, 105:376-384.
38. Knopff A.A., Knopff K.H., Boyce M.S., St.Clair C.C. Flexible habitat selection by cougars in response to anthropogenic development. Biological Conservation 2014, 178:136-145.
39. LaRue M.A., Nielsen C.K. Modelling potential dispersal corridors for cougars in midwestern North America using least-cost path methods. Ecological Modelling 2008, 212:372-381.
40. Laundré J.W., Loxterman J. Impact of edge habitat on summer home range size in female pumas. American Midland Naturalist 2007, 157:221-229.
41. Lesmerises F., Dussault C., St-Laurent M.-H. Major roadwork impacts the space use behaviour of gray wolf. Landscape and Urban Planning 2013, 112:18-25.
42. Magle S.B., Theobald D.M., Crooks K.R. A comparison of metrics predicting landscape connectivity for a highly interactive species along an urban gradient in Colorado, USA. Landscape Ecology 2008, 24:267-280.
43. Manly B. Randomization, bootstrap and Monte Carlo methods in biology 2007, Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL. 3rd ed.
44. McDonald R.I. Global urbanization: Can ecologists identify a sustainable way forward?. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2008, 6(2):99-104.
45. McIntyre S., Hobbs R. A framework for conceptualizing human effects on landscapes and its relevance to management and research models. Conservation Biology 1999, 13:1282-1292.
46. McRae B.H., Dickson B.G., Keitt T.H., Shah V.B. Using circuit theory to model connectivity in ecology, evolution and conservation. Ecology 2008, 89:712-724.
47. Merenlender A.M., Feirer S. Santa Cruz mountains connectivity report, land trust of Santa Cruz county 2011, (report).
48. Merenlender A.M., Reed S.E., Heise K.L. Exurban development influences woodland bird composition. Landscape and Urban Planning 2009, 92(3-4):255-263.
49. Metzger J.P., Décamps H. The structural connectivity threshold: An hypothesis in conservation biology at the landscape scale. Acta Oecologica 1997, 18:1-12.
50. Nilsson C., Reidy C.A., Dynesius M., Revenga C. Fragmentation and flow regulation of the world's large river systems. Science 2005, 308:405-408.
51. Noss R.F. Beyond Kyoto: Forest management in a time of rapid climate change. Conservation Biology 2001, 15:578-590.
52. Press D., Doak D.F., Steinberg P. The role of local government in the conservation of rare species. Conservation Biology 1996, 10:1538-1548.
53. Ray N., Lehmann A., Joly P. Modeling spatial distribution of amphibian populations: A GIS approach based on habitat matrix permeability. Biodiversity and Conservation 2002, 11:2143-2165.
54. Rayfield B., Fortin M.-J., Fall A. Connectivity for conservation: A framework to classify network measures. Ecology 2011, 92:847-858.
55. Reed S.E. Natural and human disturbance factors influencing carnivore distributions and implications for conservation 2007, Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
56. Reijnen R., Foppen R., Braak C., Thissen J. The effects of car traffic on breeding bird populations in woodland. III. Reduction of density in relation to the proximity of main roads. Journal of Applied Ecology 1995, 187-202.
57. Reijnen R., Foppen R., Meeuwsen H. The effects of traffic on the density of breeding birds in Dutch agricultural grasslands. Biological Conservation 1996, 75:255-260.
58. Ribeiro M.C., Metzger J.P., Martensen A.C., Ponzoni F.J., Hirota M.M. The Brazilian Atlantic Forest: How much is left, and how is the remaining forest distributed? Implications for conservation. Biological Conservation 2009, 142:1141-1153.
59. Ricketts T.H. The matrix matters: Effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. The American Society of Naturalists 2001, 158:87-99.
60. Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Retrieved May 2011, from http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/data_and_statistics/databases.
61. Robinette W.L., Gashwiler J.S., Morris O.W. Food habits of the cougar in Utah and Nevada. Journal of Wildlife Management 1959, 261-273.
62. Rocchini D., Hortal J., Lengyel S., Lobo J.M., Jimenez-Valverde A., Ricotta C., et al. Accounting for uncertainty when mapping species distributions: the need for maps of ignorance. Progress in Physical Geography 2011, 35(2):211-226.
63. Rudnick D.A., Ryan S.J., Beier P., Cushman S.A., Dieffenbach F., Epps C.W., et al. The role of landscape connectivity in planning and implementing conservation and restoration priorities. Teaching Issues and Experiments in Ecology 2012, 16.
64. Safner T., Miaud C., Gaggiotti O., Decout S., Rioux D., Zundel S., et al. Combining demography and genetic analysis to assess the population structure of an amphibian in a human-dominated landscape. Conservation Genetics 2011, 12:161-173.
65. Smith J.A., Wang Y., Wilmers C.C. Top carnivores increase their kill rates on prey as a response to human-induced fear. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2015, 282:20142711. 10.1098/rspb.2014.2711.
66. Stoner D., Wolfe M., Rieth W., Bunnell K., Durham S., Stoner L. De factorefugia, ecological traps and the biogeography of anthropogenic cougar mortality in Utah. Diversity and Distributions 2013, 19:1114-1124.
67. Swihart R.K., Slade N.A. Influence of sampling interval on estimates of home range size. Journal of Wildlife Management 1985, 49:1019-1025.
68. Tannier C., Foltête J.-C., Girardet X. Assessing the capacity of different urban forms to preserve the connectivity of ecological habitats. Landscape and Urban Planning 2012, 105(1-2):128-139.
69. Taylor P.D., Fahrig L., Henein K., Merriam G. Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 1993, 68:571-573.
70. Terborgh J., Lopez L., Nunez P., Rao V.M., Shahabuddin G., Orihuela G., et al. Ecological meltdown in predator-free forest fragments. Science 2001, 294:1923-1926.
71. Theobald D.M., Reed S.E., Fields K., Soulé M. Connecting natural landscapes using a landscape permeability model to prioritize conservation activities in the United States. Conservation Letters 2012, 5:123-133.
72. Tilman D., Fargione J., Wolff B., D'Antonio C., Dobson A., Howarth R., et al. Forecasting agriculturally driven global environmental change. Science 2001, 292:281-284.
73. Underwood J.G., Francis J., Gerber L.R. Incorporating biodiversity conservation and recreational wildlife values into smart growth land use planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 2011, 100:136-143.
74. US Geological Survey, Gap Analysis Program (GAP) National Land Cover, Version 2 August 2011.
75. Walker R., Craighead L. Corridors: Key to wildlife from Yellowstone to Yukon. A sense of place: An atlas of issues attitudes, and resources in the Yellowstone to Yukon ecoregion 1998, 113-121. Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative, Canmore, Alberta.
76. Wilmers C.C., Wang Y., Nickel B., Houghtaling P., Shakeri Y., Allen M.L., et al. Scale dependent behavioral responses to human development by a large predator, the puma. PLOS ONE 2013, 8(4):e60590.