Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Quantifying patch distribution at multiple spatial scales: applications to wildlife-habitat models

  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Multiscale analyses are widely employed for wildlife-habitat studies. In most cases, however, each scale is considered discrete and little emphasis is placed on incorporating or measuring the responses of wildlife to resources across multiple scales. We modeled the responses of three Arctic wildlife species to vegetative resources distributed at two spatial scales: patches and collections of patches aggregated across a regional area. We defined a patch as a single or homogeneous collection of pixels representing 1 of 10 unique vegetation types. We employed a spatial pattern technique, three-term local quadrat variance, to quantify the distribution of patches at a larger regional scale. We used the distance at which the variance for each of 10 vegetation types peaked to define a moving window for calculating the density of patches. When measures of vegetation patch and density were applied to resource selection functions, the most parsimonious models for wolves and grizzly bears included covariates recorded at both scales. Seasonal resource selection by caribou was best described using a model consisting of only regional scale covariates. Our results suggest that for some species and environments simple patch-scale models may not capture the full range of spatial variation in resources to which wildlife may respond. For mobile animals that range across heterogeneous areas we recommend selection models that integrate resources occurring at a number of spatial scales. Patch density is a simple technique for representing such higher-order spatial patterns.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen T.F.H. and Starr T.B. 1982. Hierarchy: Perspectives for Ecological Complexity. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson D.R., Burnham K.P. and Thompson W.L. 2000. Null hypothesis testing: problems, prevalence, and an alternative. Journal of Wildlife Management 64: 912–923.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrzejewski R. 2002. The home-range concept in rodents revised. Acta Theriologica 47: 81–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Apps C.D., McLellan B.N., Kinley T.A. and Flaa J.P. 2001. Scale-dependent habitat selection by mountain caribou, Columbia Mountains, British Columbia. Journal of Wildlife Management 65: 65–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arthur S.M., Manly B.F.J., McDonald L.L. and Garner G.W. 1996. Assessing habitat selection when availability changes. Ecology 77: 215–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakker K.K., Naugle D.E. and Higgins K.F. 2002. Incorporating landscape attributes into models for migratory grassland bird conservation. Conservation Biology 16: 1638–1646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ballard W.B., Reed D.J., Fancy S.G. and Krausman P.R. 1995. Accuracy, precision, and performance of satellite telemetry for monitoring wolf movements. In: Carbyn L.N., Fritts S.H. and Seip D.R. (eds), Ecology and Conservation of Wolves in a Changing World. Occasional Publication No. 35. Canadian Circumpolar Institute, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, pp. 461–467.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baskent E.Z. and Jordan G.A. 1995. Characterizing spatial structure of forest landscapes. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research 25: 1830–1849.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bengtsson J., Fagerstrom T. and Rydin H. 1994. Competition and coexistence in plant communities. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9: 246–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergin T.M. 1992. Habitat selection by the Western Kingbird in western Nebraska: a hierarchical analysis. Condor 94: 903–911.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blundell G.M., Maier J.A.K. and Debevec E.M. 2001. Linear home ranges: effects of smoothing, sample size, and autocorrelation on kernel estimates. Ecological Monographs 71: 469–489.

    Article  Google 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: 961–980.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Csillag F., Fortin M.-J. and Dungan J.L. 2000. On the limits and extensions of the definition of scale. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 81: 230–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Compton B.W., Rhymer J.M. and McCollough M. 2002. Habitat selection by wood turtles (Clemmys Insculpta): an application of paired logistic regression. Ecology 83: 833–843.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dale M.R.T. 1990. Two-dimensional analysis of spatial pattern in vegetation for site comparison. Canadian Journal of Botany 68: 149–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dale M.R.T. 1999. Spatial pattern analysis in plant ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dale M.R.T. 2000. Lacunarity analysis of spatial patterns: a comparison. Landscape Ecology 15: 467–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dale M.R.T., Dixon P., Fortin M.-J., Legendre P., Myers D.E. and Rosenberg M.S. 2002. Conceptual and mathematical relation-ships among methods for spatial analysis. Ecography 25: 558–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dale M.R.T. and Mah M. 1998. The use of wavelets for spatial pattern analysis in ecology. Journal of Vegetation Science 9: 805–814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diaz S., Cabido M. and Casanoves F. 1998. Plant functional traits and environmental filters at a regional scale. Journal of Vegetation Science 9: 113–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dungan J., Perry J.N., Dale M.R.T., Legendre P., Citron-Pousty S., Fortin M.-J., Jakomulska A., Miriti M. and Rosenberg M.S. 2002. A balanced view of scale in spatial statistical analysis. Ecography 25: 626–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ecological Stratification Working Group. 1996. A National Ecological Framework for Canada. Environment Canada, State of the Environment Directorate, Ecozone Analysis Branch, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

  • Fernandez N., Delibes M., Palomares F. and Mladenoff D.J. 2003. Identifying breeding habitat for the Iberian lynx: inferences from a fine-scale spatial analysis. Ecological Applications 13: 1310–1324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Francis A.P. and Currie D.J. 2003. A globally consistent richness-climate relationship for angiosperms. American Naturalist 161: 523–536.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson E.J. 1998. Quantifying landscape spatial pattern: what is the state of the art? Ecosystems 1: 583–602.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kie J.G., Bowyer R.T., Nicholson M.C., Boroski B.B. and Loft E.R. 2002. Landscape heterogeneity at different scales: effects on spatial distribution of mule deer. Ecology 83: 530–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunn A., Dragon J. and Boulanger J. 2001. Seasonal movements of statellite-collared caribou from the Bathurst herd. Final Report to the West Kitikmeot/Slave Study Society, Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, Canada.

  • Hall L.S., Krausman P.R. and Morrison M.L. 1997. The habitat concept and a plea for standard terminology. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25: 173–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardin J. and Hilbe J. 2001. Generalized Linear Models and Extensions. Stata Press, College Station, Texas, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs R. 1997. Future landscapes and the future of landscape ecology. Landscape Urban Planning 37: 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosmer D.W. and Lemeshow S. 2000. Applied Logistic Regression. John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huston M.A. 1999. Local processes and regional patterns: appropriate scales for understanding variation in the diversity of plants and animals. Oikos 86: 393–401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson C.J. and Boyce M.S. 2004. A quantitative approach for regional environmental assessment: Application of a habitat-based population viability analysis to wildlife of the Canadian central Arctic. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Research and Development Monograph (in press).

  • Johnson C.J., Parker K.L. and Heard D.C. 2001. Foraging across a variable landscape: behavioural decisions made by woodland caribou at multiple spatial scales. Oecologia 127: 590–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson C.J., Parker K.L., Heard D.C. and Gillingham M.P. 2002a. A multiscale behavioral approach to understanding the movements of woodland caribou. Ecological Applications 12: 1840–1860.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson C.J., Parker K.L., Heard D.C. and Gillingham M.P. 2002b. Movement parameters of ungulates and scale-specific responses to the environment. Journal of Animal Ecology 71: 225–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson D.H. 1980. The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference. Ecology 61: 65–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin S.A. 1992. The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73: 1943–1967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mace R.D., Waller J.S., Manley T.L., Ake K. and Wittinger W.T. 1999. Landscape evaluation of grizzly bear habitat in western Montana. Conservation Biology 13: 367–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manly B.F.J., McDonald L.L., Thomas D.L., McDonald T.L. and Erickson W.P. 2002. Resource Selection by Animals. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews S., Epp H. and Smith G. 2001. Vegetation classification for the West Kitikmeot/Slave Study region. Final Report to the West Kitikmeot/Slave Study Society, Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, Canada.

  • McGarigal K. and Marks B.J. 1995. FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, General Technical Report PNW-351, Portland Oregon, USA.

  • McIntyre N.E. and Wiens J.A. 2000. A novel use of the lacunarity index to discern landscape function. Landscape Ecology 15: 313–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLoughlin P.D., Case R.L., Gau R.J., Cluff H.D., Mulders R. and Messier F. 2002. Hierarchical habitat selection by barren-ground grizzly bears in the central Canadian Arctic. Oecologia 132: 102–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menard S. 1995. Applied Logistic Regression Analysis. Sage University Paper series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, series no. 07-106. Thousand Oaks, California, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill T., Mattson D.J., Wright R.G. and Quigley H.B. 1999. Defining landscapes suitable for restoration of grizzly bears Ursus arctos in Idaho. Biological Conservation 87: 231–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mladenoff D.J. and DeZonia B. 1999. APACK analysis software. Forest Ecology Lab, Department of Forestry, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.

  • Mladenoff D.J., Sickley T.A. and Wydeven A.P. 1995. A regional landscape analysis and prediction of favourable Gray Wolf habitat in the northern Great Lakes region. Conservation Biology 9: 279–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris D.W. 1987. Ecological scale and habitat use. Ecology 68: 362–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer M.W. 1988. Fractal geometry: a tool for describing spatial patterns of plant communities. Vegetatio 75: 91–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pascual M. and Levin S.A. 1999. From individuals to population densities: searching for the intermediate scale of nontrivial determinism. Ecology 80: 2225–2236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pausas J.G. and Austin M.P. 2001. Patterns of plant species richness in relation to different environments: an appraisal. Journal of Vegetation Science 12: 153–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pendergast J.F., Gange S.J., Newton M.A., Linstrom M.J., Palta M. and Fisher M.R. 1996. A survey of methods for analyzing clustered binary response data. International Statistical Review 64: 89–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry J.N., Liebhold A.M., Rosenberg M.S., Dungan J., Miriti M., Jakomulska A. and Citron-Pousty S. 2002. Illustrations and guidelines for selecting statistical methods for quantifying spatial pattern in ecological data. Ecography 25: 578–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plotnick R.E., Gardner R.H. and O'Neill R.V. 1993. Lacunarity indices as measures of landscape texture. Landscape Ecology 8: 201–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rettie W.J. and Messier F. 2000. Hierarchical habitat selection by woodland caribou: its relationship to limiting factors. Ecography 23: 466–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ripley B.D. 1978. Spectral analysis and the analysis of pattern in plant communities. Journal of Ecology 66: 965–981.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riitters K.H., O'Neill R.V., Hunsaker C.T., Wickham J.D., Yankee D.H., Timmins S.P., Jones K.B. and Jackson B.L. 1995. A factor analysis of landscape pattern and structure metrics. Landscape Ecology 10: 23–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg M.S. 2002. PASSAGE. Pattern Analysis, Spatial Statistics, and Geographic Exegesis. Version 1.0. Department of Biology, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saab V. 1999. Importance of spatial scale to habitat use by breeding birds in riparian forests: a hierarchical analysis. Ecological Applications 9: 135–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaefer J.A. and Messier F. 1995. Habitat selection as a hierarchy: the spatial scales of winter foraging by muskoxen. Ecography 18: 333–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senft R.L., Coughenour M.B., Bailey D.W., Rittenhouse L.R., Sala O.E. and Swift D.M. 1987. Large herbivore foraging and ecological hierarchies. Bioscience 37: 789–799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner M.G., Dale V.H. and Gardner R.H. 1989. Predicting across scales: theory development and testing. Landscape Ecology 3: 245–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viswanathan G.M., Afanasyev V., Buldyrev S.V., Murphy E.J., Prince P.A. and Stanley H.E. 1996. Lévy flight search patterns of wandering albatrosses. Nature 381: 413.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Walton L.R., Cluff H.D., Paquet P.C. and Ramsay M.A. 2001. Movement patterns of barren-ground wolves in the central Canadian Arctic. Journal of Mammalogy 82: 867–876.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiens J.A. 1989. Spatial scaling in ecology. Functional Ecology 3: 385–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2E9, Z 907 Biological Sciences Building, Canada

    Chris J. Johnson & Mark S. Boyce

  2. Ecosystem Science and Management Program, University of Northern British Columbia, 3333 University Way, Prince George, B.C., Canada, V2N 4Z9 (

    Chris J. Johnson

  3. Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development, Government of Northwest Territories, Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, X1A 2P9, Canada

    Robert Mulders, Anne Gunn, Rob J. Gau, H. Dean Cluff & Ray L. Case

Authors
  1. Chris J. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mark S. Boyce
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robert Mulders
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anne Gunn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Rob J. Gau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. H. Dean Cluff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ray L. Case
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Johnson, C.J., Boyce, M.S., Mulders, R. et al. Quantifying patch distribution at multiple spatial scales: applications to wildlife-habitat models. Landscape Ecology 19, 869–882 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-004-0246-7

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-004-0246-7

Search

Navigation