Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing multi-taxa sensitivity to the human footprint, habitat fragmentation and loss by exploring alternative scenarios of dispersal ability and population size: a simulation approach

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Quantifying the effects of landscape change on population connectivity is compounded by uncertainties about population size and distribution and a limited understanding of dispersal ability for most species. In addition, the effects of anthropogenic landscape change and sensitivity to regional climatic conditions interact to strongly affect habitat fragmentation and loss. To further develop conservation theory and to understand the interplay between all of these factors, we simulated habitat fragmentation and loss across the Western United States for several hypothetical species associated with four biome types, and a range of habitat requirements and dispersal abilities. We found dispersal ability and population size of the focal species to be equally sensitive to habitat extent, while dispersal ability is more sensitive to habitat fragmentation. There were also strong critical threshold effects where habitat connectivity decreased disproportionately to decreases in life-history traits making these species near these thresholds more sensitive to changes in habitat loss and fragmentation. Overall, grassland and forest associated species are also most at risk from habitat loss and fragmentation driven by human related land-use. These two largest biome types were most sensitive at large contiguous patch sizes which is often considered most important for metapopulation viability and biodiversity conservation. Hypothetical simulation studies such as this can be of great value to scientists in further conceptualizing and developing conservation theory, and evaluating spatially-explicit scenarios of habitat connectivity. Our results are available for download in a web-based interactive mapping prototype useful for accessing the results of this study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allendorf FW, Luikart G, Aitken SN (2013) Conservation and the genetics of populations, 2nd edn. Wiley-Blackwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowne DR, Bowers MA (2004) Interpatch movements in spatially structured populations: a literature review. Landsc Ecol 19:1–20. doi:10.1023/B:LAND.0000018357.45262.b9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brook BW, Sodhi NS, Bradshaw CJA (2008) Synergies among extinction drivers under global change. Trends Ecol Evol 23:453–460. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2008.03.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Compton BW, McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Gamble LR (2007) A resistant-kernel model of connectivity for amphibians that breed in vernal pools. Conserv Biol 21:788–799. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00674.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Crooks KR, Sanjayan A (2006) Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cushman SA, Landguth EL (2012) Multi-taxa population connectivity in the Northern Rocky Mountains. Ecol Modell 231:101–112. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2012.02.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cushman SA, McGarigal K (2004) Hierarchical analysis of forest bird species-environment relationships in the Oregon coast range. Ecol Appl 14:1090–1105. doi:10.1890/03-5131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cushman SA, Compton BW, McGarigal K (2010) Habitat fragmentation effects depend on complex interactions between population size and dispersal ability: modeling influences of roads, agriculture and residential development across a range of life-history characteristics. In: Cushman SA, Huettmann F (eds) Spatial complexity, informatics, and wildlife conservation. Springer, New York, pp 369–387

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cushman SA, Shirk AJ, Landguth EL (2013) Landscape genetics and limiting factors. Conserv Genet 14:263–274. doi:10.1007/s10592-012-0396-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Debinski DM, Holt RD (2000) A survey and overview of habitat fragmentation experiments. Conserv Biol 14:342–355. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.98081.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dixo M, Metzger JP, Morgante JS, Zamudio KR (2009) Habitat fragmentation reduces genetic diversity and connectivity among toad populations in the Brazilian Atlantic Coastal Forest. Biol Conserv 142:1560–1569. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2008.11.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer SJ, Neill JPO, Wasel SM, Boutin S (2002) Quantifying barrier effects of roads and seismic lines on movements of female woodland caribou in northeastern Alberta. Can J Zool 80:839–845. doi:10.1139/Z02-060

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ESRI (2011) ArcGIS desktop: release 10. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L (2001) How much habitat is enough? Biol Conserv 100:65–74. doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(00)00208-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515. doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L, Pedlar JH, Pope SE et al (1995) Effect of road traffic on amphibian density. Biol Conserv 73:177–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flather CH, Bevers M (2002) Patchy reaction–diffusion and population abundance: the relative importance of habitat amount and arrangement. Am Nat 159:40–56. doi:10.1086/324120

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Frankham R, Ballou JD, Briscoe DA (2002) Introduction to conservation genetics. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Franklin JF (1993) Preserving biodiversity: species, ecosystems, or landscapes? Ecol Appl 3:202–205. doi:10.2307/1941820

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freemark KE, Merriam HG (1986) Importance of area and habitat heterogeneity to bird assemblages in temperate forest fragments. Biol Conserv 36:115–141. doi:10.1016/0006-3207(86)90002-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hijmans RJ, van Etten J (2013) raster: geographic data analysis and modeling

  • Homer C, Dewitz J, Fry J et al (2007) Completion of the 2001 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States. Photogramm Eng Remote Sensing 73:337–341

    Google Scholar 

  • Keitt TH, Urban DL, Milne BT (1997) Detecting critical scales in fragmented landscapes. Conserv Ecol 1:4

    Google Scholar 

  • Landguth EL, Hand BK, Glassy J et al (2012) UNICOR: a species connectivity and corridor network simulator. Ecography (Cop) 35:9–14. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0587.2011.07149.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGarigal K, Cushman SA (2002) Comparative evaluation of experimental approaches to the study of habitat fragmentation effects. Ecol Appl 12:335–345. doi:10.1890/1051-0761

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Ene E (2013) FRAGSTATS v4: spatial pattern analysis program for categorical and continuous maps. Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst

  • Neilson RP (1993) Vegetation redistribution: a possible biosphere source of CO2 during climatic change. Water Air Soil Pollut 70:659–673

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neilson RP (1995) A model for predicting continental-scale vegetation distribution and water balance. Ecol Appl 5:362–385. doi:10.2307/1942028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neilson RP, Marks D (1994) A global perspective of regional vegetation and hydrologic sensitivities from climatic change. J Veg Sci 5:715–730. doi:10.2307/3235885

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Robbins CS, Dawson DK, Dowell BA (1989) Habitat area requirements of breeding forest birds of the middle Atlantic states. Wildl Monogr 103:1–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberge J-M, Angelstam P (2004) Usefulness of the umbrella species concept as a conservation tool. Conserv Biol 18:76–85. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00450.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer SC, Epps CW, Brashares JS (2011) Placing linkages among fragmented habitats: do least-cost models reflect how animals use landscapes? J Appl Ecol 48:668–678. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.01970.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soulé M, Mackey B, Recher H et al (2006) The role of connectivity in Australian conservation. In: Crooks KR, Sanjayan M (eds) Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 649–675

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Spear SF, Balkenhol N, Fortin M-J et al (2010) Use of resistance surfaces for landscape genetic studies: considerations for parameterization and analysis. Mol Ecol 19:3576–3591. doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2010.04657.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vallan D (2000) Influence of forest fragmentation on amphibian diversity in the nature reserve of Ambohitantely, highland Madagascar. Biol Conserv 96:31–43. doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(00)00041-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • With KA, King AW (1999) Extinction thresholds for species in fractal landscapes. Conserv Biol 13:314–326. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.013002314.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeller KA, McGarigal K, Whiteley AR (2012) Estimating landscape resistance to movement: a review. Landsc Ecol 27:777–797. doi:10.1007/s10980-012-9737-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

BKH was supported by a National Science Foundation Grant (DGE-0504628). This work was supported in part by funds provided by the Rocky Mountain Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fish and Wildlife Genomics Group, Flathead Lake Biological Station, University of Montana, Polson, MT, 59860, USA

    Brian K. Hand

  2. Division of Biological Sciences, University of Montana, Missoula, MT, 59812, USA

    Erin L. Landguth & John Lucotch

  3. Rocky Mountain Research Station, U.S. Forest Service, 2500 S. Pine Knoll Dr., Flagstaff, AZ, 86001, USA

    Sam A. Cushman

Authors
  1. Brian K. Hand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sam A. Cushman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Erin L. Landguth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. John Lucotch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian K. Hand.

Additional information

Communicated by Jan C Habel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hand, B.K., Cushman, S.A., Landguth, E.L. et al. Assessing multi-taxa sensitivity to the human footprint, habitat fragmentation and loss by exploring alternative scenarios of dispersal ability and population size: a simulation approach. Biodivers Conserv 23, 2761–2779 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0747-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0747-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation