Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 6, Issue 5, pp 412–432 | Cite as

Scales and costs of habitat selection in heterogeneous landscapes

  • Douglas W. Morris
Papers

Summary

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.

Keywords

costs of habitat selection dispersal habitat selection landscape ecology patch choice small mammals spatial scale 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, P. K. (1989) Dispersal in rodents: a resident fitness hypothesis.Spec. Publ. Am. Soc. Mammal. 9, 1–141.Google Scholar
  2. Brown, J. S. and Pavlovic, N. B. (1992) Evolution in heterogeneous environments: effects of migration on habitat specialization.Evol. Ecol. 6, 360–82.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, J. S. and Rosenzweig, M. L. (1986) Habitat selection in slowly regenerating environments.J. Theor. Biol. 123, 151–71.Google Scholar
  4. 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.Google Scholar
  5. Danielson, B. J. (1991) Communities in a landscape: the influence of habitat heterogeneity on the interactions between species.Am. Nat. 138, 1105–20.Google Scholar
  6. Fahrig, L. and Paloheimo, J. (1988) Determinants of local population size in patchy habitats.Theor. Pop. Biol. 34, 194–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Goodman, D. (1987) How do any species persist? Lessons for conservation biology.Con. Biol. 1, 59–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Holt, R. D. (1985) Population dynamics in two-patch environments: some anomalous consequences of an optimal habitat distribution.Theor. Pop. Biol. 28, 181–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. Kacelnik, A., Krebs J. R. and Bernstein, C. (1992) The ideal free distribution and predator-prey populations.Trends Ecol. Evol. 7, 50–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Legendre, P. and Fortin, M. J. (1989) Spatial pattern and ecological analysis.Vegetatio 80, 107–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.Google Scholar
  16. Morris, D. W. (1982) Age-specific dispersal strategies in iteroparous species: who leaves when?Evol. Theory 6, 53–65.Google Scholar
  17. Morris, D. W. (1987a) Spatial scale and the cost of density-dependent habitat selection.Evol. Ecol. 1, 379–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Morris, D. W. (1987b) Tests of density-dependent habitat selection in a patchy environment.Ecol. Monogr. 57, 269–81.Google Scholar
  19. Morris, D. W. (1988) Habitat-dependent population regulation and community structure.Evol. Ecol. 2, 253–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Morris, D. W. (1989) Habitat-dependent estimates of competitive interaction.Oikos 55, 111–20.Google Scholar
  21. Morris, D. W. (1990) Temporal variation, habitat selection and community structure.Oikos 59, 303–12.Google Scholar
  22. Morris, D. W. (1991) On the evolutionary stability of dispersal to sink habitats.Am. Nat. 137, 907–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Norusis, M. J. (1988)SPSS/PC + Advanced Statistics V2.0. SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA.Google Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.Google Scholar
  26. Pulliam, H. R. (1988) Sources, sinks, and population regulation.Am. Nat. 132, 652–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pulliam, H. R. and B. J. Danielson (1991) Sources, sinks and habitat selection: a landscape perspective on population dynamics.Am. Nat. 137, S50-S66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rosenzweig, M. L. (1974) On the evolution of habitat selection.Pr. First Int. Congr. Ecol. 401–4.Google Scholar
  29. Rosenzweig, M. L. (1981) A theory of habitat selection.Ecology 62, 327–35.Google Scholar
  30. 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.Google Scholar
  31. 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.Google Scholar
  32. Sugihara, G. and May, R. M. (1990) Applications of fractals in ecology.Trends Ecol. Evol. 5, 79–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sutherland, W. J. (1983) Aggregation and the ‘ideal free’ distribution.J. Anim. Ecol. 52, 821–8.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chapman & Hall 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Douglas W. Morris
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of BiologyCentre for Northern StudiesThunder BayCanada
  2. 2.School of ForestryLakehead UniversityThunder BayCanada

Personalised recommendations