Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T17:05:33.313Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

15 - Linking connectivity to viability: insights from spatially explicit population models of large carnivores

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 May 2010

Kevin R. Crooks
Affiliation:
Colorado State University
M. Sanjayan
Affiliation:
The Nature Conservancy, Virginia
Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Increasingly, conservation groups and agencies attempt to create regional reserve designs that move beyond a simple aggregation of important sites to form a biologically functional network. As natural habitats are converted for human uses, remaining natural areas simultaneously become smaller and more isolated, reflecting the twin processes of habitat reduction and fragmentation (Wilcove et al. 1986). Maintaining connectivity between these remnant natural habitat patches is important for several reasons (Crooks and Sanjayan Chapter 1); on a timescale of generations, a single reserve or patch of natural habitat is unlikely to be large enough to sustain populations of area-sensitive species that are subject to the processes of demographic and environmental stochasticity (Harrison 1994); on a timescale of tens of generations, a single reserve may not be large enough to sustain a population's genetic diversity and maintain evolutionary processes, or allow the species to shift its range in response to long-term environmental trends such as climate change (Frankel and Soulé 1981).

Early literature on assessing landscape connectivity (e.g., Forman and Godron 1986) focused primarily on classifying landscape structure rather than relating this structure to population dynamics of particular species (Hanski 1994; Tischendorf and Fahrig 2000; Moilanen and Hanski 2001). In contrast, functional connectivity, at the scale discussed in this chapter, is a population-level process that implies that individuals of a species successfully disperse between connected patches and survive to breed in the destination patch.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andrén, H. 1994. Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71:355–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Apps, C. D. 1997. Identification of Grizzly Bear Linkage Zones along Highway 3 Corridor of Southeast British Columbia and Southwest Alberta. Calgary, Alberta, Canada: Aspen Wildlife Research.Google Scholar
Boone, R. B., and Hunter,, M. L. Jr. 1996. Using diffusion models to simulate the effects of landuse on grizzly bear dispersal in the Rocky Mountains. Landscape Ecology 11:51–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruinderink, G. G., Sluis, T., Lammertsma, D., Opdam, P., and Pouwels, R.. 2003. Designing a coherent ecological network for large mammals in northwestern Europe. Conservation Biology 17:549–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, C., Noss, R. F., and Paquet, P. C.. 2001. Carnivores as focal species for conservation planning in the Rocky Mountain region. Ecological Applications 11:961–980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, C., Noss, R. F., and Paquet, P. C.. 2002. Rocky Mountain Carnivore Project, final report. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: World Wildlife Fund Canada. Avaliable online at http://www.wwf.ca/en/res_links/rl_resources.asp/Google Scholar
Carroll, C., Noss, R. F., Paquet, P. C., and Schumaker, N. H.. 2003a. Use of population viability analysis and reserve selection algorithms in regional conservation plans. Ecological Applications 13:1773–1789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, C., Phillips, M. K., Schumaker, N. H., and Smith, D. W.. 2003b. Impacts of landscape change on wolf restoration success: planning a reintroduction program using dynamic spatial models. Conservation Biology 17:536–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, C., Noss, R. F., Paquet, P. C., and Schumaker, N. H.. 2004. Extinction debt of protected areas in developing landscapes. Conservation Biology 18:1110–1120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, C. 2003. Impacts of Landscape Change on Wolf Viability in the Northeastern U.S. and Southeastern Canada: Implications for Wolf Recovery. Wildlands Project Special Paper No. 5. Richmond, VT: Wildlands Project. Available online at http://www.klamathconservation.org/
Chadwick, D. 2000. Yellowstone to Yukon. Washington, DC: National Geographic Society.Google Scholar
Coulson, T., Mace, G. M., Hudson, E., and Possingham, H. P.. 2001. The use and abuse of population viability analysis. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16:219–221CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dunning, J. B. Jr., Stewart, D. J., Danielson, B. J., et al. 1995. Spatially explicit population models: current forms and future uses. Ecological Applications 5:3–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, J., Lindenmayer, D. B., and Fazey, I. 2004. Appreciating ecological complexity: habitat contours as a conceptual landscape model. Conservation Biology 18:1245–1253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forman, R. T. T., and Godron, M.. 1986. Landscape Ecology. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Frankel, O. H., and Soulé, M. E.. 1981. Conservation and Evolution. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hanski, I. 1994. A practical model of metapopulation dynamics. Journal of Animal Ecology 63:151–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison S. 1994. Metapopulations and conservation. Pp. 111–128 in Edwards, P. J., May, R. M., and Webb, N. R. (eds.) Large-Scale Ecology and Conservation Biology. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
Lacy, R. C. 1993. VORTEX: A computer simulation model for population viability analysis. Wildlife Research 20:45–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambeck, R. J. 1997. Focal species: a multi-species umbrella for nature conservation. Conservation Biology 11:849–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamberson, R. H., McKelvey, R., Noon, B. R., and Voss, C.. 1992. A dynamic analysis of northern spotted owl viability in a fragmented forest landscape. Conservation Biology 6:505–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindenmayer, D. B., Possingham, H. P., Lacy, R. C., McCarthy, M. A., and Pope, M. L.. 2003. How accurate are population models? Lessons from landscape-scale population tests in a fragmented system. Ecology Letters 6:41–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macdonald, D. W., and Rushton, S.. 2003. Modelling space use and dispersal of mammals in real landscapes: a tool for conservation. Journal of Biogeography 30:607–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manel, S., Schwartz, M. K., Luikart, G., and Taberlet, P.. 2003. Landscape genetics: combining landscape ecology and population genetics. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18:189–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mladenoff, D. J., Sickley, T. A., Haight, R. G., and Wydeven, A. P.. 1995. A regional landscape analysis and prediction of favorable gray wolf habitat in the northern Great Lakes region. Conservation Biology 9:279–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moilanen, A., and Hanski, I.. 2001. On the use of connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Oikos 95:147–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mooij, W. M., and DeAngelis, D. L.. 1999. Error propagation in spatially explicit population models: a reassessment. Conservation Biology 13:930–933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morales, J. M., and Ellner, S. P.. 2002. Scaling up animal movements in heterogeneous landscapes: the importance of behavior. Ecology 83:2240–2247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noss, R. F. 1987. Corridors in real landscapes: a reply to Simberloff and Cox. Conservation Biology 1:159–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noss, R. F. 1992. The Wildlands Project: land conservation strategy. Wild Earth (Special Issue):10–25Google Scholar
Noss, R. F., and Harris, L. D.. 1986. Nodes, networks, and MUMs: preserving diversity at all scales. Environmental Management 10:299–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noss, R. F., Quigley, H. B., Hornocker, M. G., Merrill, T., and Paquet, P. C.. 1996. Conservation biology and carnivore conservation in the Rocky Mountains. Conservation Biology 10:949–963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noss, R. F., Carroll, C., Vance-Borland, K., and Wuerthner, G.. 2002. A multicriteria assessment of the irreplaceability and vulnerability of sites in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Conservation Biology 16:895–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paquet P. C., and L. N. Carbyn. 2003. Gray wolf (Canis lupus and allies). Pp. 482–510 in Feldhamer, G. A., Thompson, B. C., and Chapman, J. A. (eds.) Wild Mammals of North America, 2nd edn. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Possingham H. P., J. Franklin, K. Wilson, and T. J. Regan. 2005. The roles of spatial heterogeneity and ecological processes in conservation planning. Pp. 386–406 in Lovett, G. M., Jones, C. G., Turner, M. G., and Weathers, K. C. (eds.) Ecosystem Function in Heterogeneous Landscapes. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Power M. E., D. Tilman, J. A. Estes, et al. 1996. Challenges in the quest for keystones. BioScience 46:609–620CrossRef
Proctor, M. F., McLellan, B. N., and Strobeck, C.. 2002. Population fragmentation of grizzly bears in southeastern British Columbia, Canada. Ursus 13:153–160Google Scholar
Quinby, P., Trombulak, S., Lee, T., Long, R., et al. 2000. Opportunities for wildlife habitat connectivity between Algonquin Provincial Park and the Adirondack Park. Wild Earth 10:75–80Google Scholar
Ruckelshaus, M., Hartway, C., and Karieva, P.. 1997. Assessing the data requirements of spatially explicit models. Conservation Biology 11:1298–1306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rushton, S. P., Barreto, G. W., Cormack, R. M., Macdonald, D. W., and Fuller, R.. 2000. Modelling the effects of mink and habitat fragmentation on the water vole. Journal of Applied Ecology 37:475–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumaker, N. H. 1996. Using landscape indices to predict habitat connectivity. Ecology 77:1210–1225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumaker, N. H. 1998. A User's Guide to the PATCH model, EPA/600/R-98/135. Corvallis, OR: US Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory. Available online at http://www.cpa.gov/wed/pages/models.htm
Schumaker, N. H., Ernst, T., White, D., Baker, J., and Haggerty, P.. 2004. Projecting wildlife responses to alternative future landscapes in Oregon's Willamette Valley. Ecological Applications 14:381–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shigesada N., and K. Kawasaki. 2002. Invasion and the range expansion of species: effects of long-distance dispersal. Pp. 350–373 in Bullock, J. M., Kenward, R. E., and Hails, R. S. (eds.) Dispersal Ecology. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Simberloff, D., and Cox, J.. 1987. Consequences and costs of conservation corridors. Conservation Biology 1:163–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singleton, P. H., Gaines, W. L., and Lehmkuhl, J. F.. 2002. Landscape Permeability for Large Carnivores in Washington: A Geographic Information System Weighted-Distance and Least-Cost Corridor Assessment, Research Paper PNW-RP-549. Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.Google Scholar
Soulé, M. E., and Terborgh, J.. 1999. Continental Conservation: Scientific Foundations of Regional Reserve Networks. Covelo, CA: Island Press.Google Scholar
Soulé, M. E., Estes, J. A., Berger, J., and Rio, C. M.. 2003. Ecological effectiveness: conservation goals for interactive species. Conservation Biology 17:1238–1250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
South, A. 1999. Dispersal in spatially explicit population models. Conservation Biology 13:1039–1046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
South A. B., S. P. Rushton, R. E. Kenward, and D. W. Macdonald. 2002. Modelling vertebrate dispersal and demography in real landscapes: how does uncertainty regarding dispersal behaviour influence predictions of spatial population dynamics? Pp. 327–349 in Bullock, J. M., Kenward, R. E., and Hails, R. S. (eds.) Dispersal Ecology. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Thiel, R. P. 1985. Relationship between road densities and wolf habitat suitability in Wisconsin. American Midland Naturalist 113:404–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tischendorf, L., and Fahrig, L.. 2000. On the usage of landscape connectivity. Oikos 90:7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vos, C. C., Verboom, J., Opdam, P. F. M., and Braak, J. F.. 2001. Toward ecologically scaled landscape indices. American Naturalist 157: 24–41CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walker, R., and Craighead, L.. 1997. Analyzing wildlife movement corridors in Montana using GIS. Proceedings of the ESRI User Conference 1997. Available online at http://gis.esri.com/library/userconf/proc97/proc97/to150/pap116/p116.htmGoogle Scholar
Weaver, J. L. 2001. The Transboundary Flathead: A Critical Landscape for Carnivores in the Rocky Mountains, WCS Working Papers No. 18. Bronx, NY: Wildlife Conservation Society.Google Scholar
Wilcove D. S., C. H. McLellan, and A. P. Dobson. 1986. Habitat fragmentation in the temperate zone. Pp. 237–256 in Soulé, M. E. (ed.) Conservation Biology: The Science of Scarcity and Diversity. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
With, K. A., and King, A. W.. 2001. Analysis of landscape sources and sinks: the effect of spatial pattern on avian demography. Biological Conservation 100:75–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×