Scales and costs of habitat selection in heterogeneous landscapes
- Douglas W. Morris
- … show all 1 hide
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Two scales of habitat selection are likely to influence patterns of animal density in heterogeneous landscapes. At one scale, habitat selection is determined by the differential use of foraging locations within a home range. At a larger scale, habitat selection is determined by dispersal and the ability to relocate the home range. The limits of both scales must be known for accurate assessments of habitat selection and its role in effecting spatial patterns in abundance. Isodars, which specify the relationships between population density in two habitats such that the expected reproductive success of an individual is the same in both, allow us to distinguish the two scales of habitat selection because each scale has different costs. In a two-habitat environment, the cost of rejecting one of the habitats within a home range can be expressed as a devaluation of the other, because, for example, fine-grained foragers must travel through both. At the dispersal scale, the cost of accepting a new home range in a different habitat has the opposite effect of inflating the value of the original habitat to compensate for lost evolutionary potential associated with relocating the home range. These costs produce isodars at the foraging scale with a lower intercept and slope than those at the dispersal scale.
Empirical data on deer mice occupying prairie and badland habitats in southern Alberta confirm the ability of isodar analysis to differentiate between foraging and dispersal scales. The data suggest a foraging range of approximately 60 m, and an effective dispersal distance near 140 m. The relatively short dispersal distance implies that recent theories may have over-emphasized the role of habitat selection on local population dynamics. But the exchange of individuals between habitats sharing irregular borders may be substantial. Dispersal distance may thus give a false impression of the inability of habitat selection to help regulate population density.
- Anderson, P. K. (1989) Dispersal in rodents: a resident fitness hypothesis.Spec. Publ. Am. Soc. Mammal. 9, 1–141.
- Brown, J. S. and Pavlovic, N. B. (1992) Evolution in heterogeneous environments: effects of migration on habitat specialization.Evol. Ecol. 6, 360–82.
- Brown, J. S. and Rosenzweig, M. L. (1986) Habitat selection in slowly regenerating environments.J. Theor. Biol. 123, 151–71.
- Bryan, R. B., Campbell, I. A. and Yair, A. (1987) Postglacial geomorphic development of the Dinosaur Provincial Park badlands, Alberta.Can. J. Earth Sci. 24, 135–46.
- Danielson, B. J. (1991) Communities in a landscape: the influence of habitat heterogeneity on the interactions between species.Am. Nat. 138, 1105–20.
- Fahrig, L. and Paloheimo, J. (1988) Determinants of local population size in patchy habitats.Theor. Pop. Biol. 34, 194–213. CrossRef
- Fretwell, S. D. and Lucas, H. L. Jr (1970) On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. I. Theoretical development.Acta Bioth. 19, 16–36. CrossRef
- Goodman, D. (1987) How do any species persist? Lessons for conservation biology.Con. Biol. 1, 59–62. CrossRef
- Hassell, M. P. and Varley, G. C. (1969) New inductive population model for insect parasites and its bearing on biological control.Nature 223, 1133–6.
- Holt, R. D. (1985) Population dynamics in two-patch environments: some anomalous consequences of an optimal habitat distribution.Theor. Pop. Biol. 28, 181–208. CrossRef
- Holt, R. D. and Gaines, M. S. (1992) Analysis of adaptation in heterogeneous landscapes: implications for the evolution of fundamental niches.Evol. Ecol. 6, 433–47.
- Kacelnik, A., Krebs J. R. and Bernstein, C. (1992) The ideal free distribution and predator-prey populations.Trends Ecol. Evol. 7, 50–5. CrossRef
- Legendre, P. and Fortin, M. J. (1989) Spatial pattern and ecological analysis.Vegetatio 80, 107–38. CrossRef
- MacArthur, R. H. and Levins, R. (1964) Competition, habitat selection, and character displacement in a patchy environment.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 51, 1207–10.
- Milinski, M. and Parker, G. A. (1991) Competition for resources. InBehavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach (3rd Ed.) (J. R. Krebs and N. B. Davies, eds) pp. 137–68. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, UK.
- Morris, D. W. (1982) Age-specific dispersal strategies in iteroparous species: who leaves when?Evol. Theory 6, 53–65.
- Morris, D. W. (1987a) Spatial scale and the cost of density-dependent habitat selection.Evol. Ecol. 1, 379–88. CrossRef
- Morris, D. W. (1987b) Tests of density-dependent habitat selection in a patchy environment.Ecol. Monogr. 57, 269–81.
- Morris, D. W. (1988) Habitat-dependent population regulation and community structure.Evol. Ecol. 2, 253–69. CrossRef
- Morris, D. W. (1989) Habitat-dependent estimates of competitive interaction.Oikos 55, 111–20.
- Morris, D. W. (1990) Temporal variation, habitat selection and community structure.Oikos 59, 303–12.
- Morris, D. W. (1991) On the evolutionary stability of dispersal to sink habitats.Am. Nat. 137, 907–11. CrossRef
- Norusis, M. J. (1988)SPSS/PC + Advanced Statistics V2.0. SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA.
- Oksanen, T. (1990) Exploitation ecosystems in heterogeneous habitat complexes.Evol. Ecol. 4, 220–34. complexes II: impact of small-scale heterogeneity on predator-prey dynamicsEvol. Ecol. 6, 383–98. CrossRef
- Parker, G. A. and Sutherland, W. J. (1986) Ideal free distributions when individuals differ in competitive ability: phenotype limited ideal free models.Anim. Behav. 34, 1222–42.
- Pulliam, H. R. (1988) Sources, sinks, and population regulation.Am. Nat. 132, 652–61. CrossRef
- Pulliam, H. R. and B. J. Danielson (1991) Sources, sinks and habitat selection: a landscape perspective on population dynamics.Am. Nat. 137, S50-S66. CrossRef
- Rosenzweig, M. L. (1974) On the evolution of habitat selection.Pr. First Int. Congr. Ecol. 401–4.
- Rosenzweig, M. L. (1981) A theory of habitat selection.Ecology 62, 327–35.
- Rosenzweig, M. L. (1985) Some theoretical aspects of habitat selection. InHabitat Selection in Birds (M. L. Cody, ed.) pp. 517–40. Academic Press, London, UK.
- Stickel, L. F. (1968) Home range and travels. InBiology of Peromyscus (Rodentia) (J. A. King, ed.) pp. 373–411. American Society of Mammalogists, Stillwater, OK, USA.
- Sugihara, G. and May, R. M. (1990) Applications of fractals in ecology.Trends Ecol. Evol. 5, 79–86. CrossRef
- Sutherland, W. J. (1983) Aggregation and the ‘ideal free’ distribution.J. Anim. Ecol. 52, 821–8.
- Scales and costs of habitat selection in heterogeneous landscapes
Volume 6, Issue 5 , pp 412-432
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Kluwer Academic Publishers
- Additional Links
- costs of habitat selection
- habitat selection
- landscape ecology
- patch choice
- small mammals
- spatial scale
- Industry Sectors
- Douglas W. Morris (1) (2)
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Biology, Centre for Northern Studies, P7B 5E1, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada
- 2. School of Forestry, Lakehead University, P7B 5E1, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada