Scales and costs of habitat selection in heterogeneous landscapes
- 304 Downloads
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.
Keywordscosts of habitat selection dispersal habitat selection landscape ecology patch choice small mammals spatial scale
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Anderson, P. K. (1989) Dispersal in rodents: a resident fitness hypothesis.Spec. Publ. Am. Soc. Mammal. 9, 1–141.Google Scholar
- 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
- Brown, J. S. and Rosenzweig, M. L. (1986) Habitat selection in slowly regenerating environments.J. Theor. Biol. 123, 151–71.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Morris, D. W. (1982) Age-specific dispersal strategies in iteroparous species: who leaves when?Evol. Theory 6, 53–65.Google Scholar
- Morris, D. W. (1987b) Tests of density-dependent habitat selection in a patchy environment.Ecol. Monogr. 57, 269–81.Google Scholar
- Morris, D. W. (1989) Habitat-dependent estimates of competitive interaction.Oikos 55, 111–20.Google Scholar
- Morris, D. W. (1990) Temporal variation, habitat selection and community structure.Oikos 59, 303–12.Google Scholar
- Norusis, M. J. (1988)SPSS/PC + Advanced Statistics V2.0. SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA.Google Scholar
- 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
- Rosenzweig, M. L. (1974) On the evolution of habitat selection.Pr. First Int. Congr. Ecol. 401–4.Google Scholar
- Rosenzweig, M. L. (1981) A theory of habitat selection.Ecology 62, 327–35.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Sutherland, W. J. (1983) Aggregation and the ‘ideal free’ distribution.J. Anim. Ecol. 52, 821–8.Google Scholar