Modeling patch occupancy: Relative performance of ecologically scaled landscape indices

11Citations
Citations of this article
150Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

In fragmented landscapes, the likelihood that a species occupies a particular habitat patch is thought to be a function of both patch area and patch isolation. Ecologically scaled landscape indices (ESLIs) combine a species' ecological profile, i.e., area requirements and dispersal ability, with indices of patch area and connectivity. Since their introduction, ESLIs for area have been modified to incorporate patch quality. ESLIs for connectivity have been modified to incorporate niche breadth, which may influence a species' ease in crossing the non-habitat matrix between patches. We evaluated the ability of 4 ESLIs, the original and modified indices of area and connectivity, to explain patterns in patch occupancy of 5 forest rodents. Occupancy of eastern gray squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis), North American red squirrels (Tamiasciurus hudsconicus), fox squirrels (Sciurus niger), white-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus), and eastern chipmunks (Tamias striatus) was modeled at 471 sites in 35 landscapes sampled from the upper Wabash River basin in Indiana. Models containing ESLIs received support for gray squirrels, red squirrels, and chipmunks. Modified ESLIs were important in models for red squirrels. However, none of the models demonstrated high predictive ability. Incorporating habitat quality and using surrogate measures of dispersal can have important effects on model results. Additionally, different responses of species to area, isolation, and habitat quality suggest that generalizing patterns of metapopulation dynamics was not justified, even across closely related species. © 2008 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Rizkalla, C. E., Moore, J. E., & Swihart, R. K. (2009). Modeling patch occupancy: Relative performance of ecologically scaled landscape indices. Landscape Ecology, 24(1), 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-008-9281-0

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free