Landscape Ecology

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 61–75

Scaling Local Species-habitat Relations to the Larger Landscape with a Hierarchical Spatial Count Model

Research article

Abstract

Much of what is known about avian species-habitat relations has been derived from studies of birds at local scales. It is entirely unclear whether the relations observed at these scales translate to the larger landscape in a predictable linear fashion. We derived habitat models and mapped predicted abundances for three forest bird species of eastern North America using bird counts, environmental variables, and hierarchical models applied at three spatial scales. Our purpose was to understand habitat associations at multiple spatial scales and create predictive abundance maps for purposes of conservation planning at a landscape scale given the constraint that the variables used in this exercise were derived from local-level studies. Our models indicated a substantial influence of landscape context for all species, many of which were counter to reported associations at finer spatial extents. We found land cover composition provided the greatest contribution to the relative explained variance in counts for all three species; spatial structure was second in importance. No single spatial scale dominated any model, indicating that these species are responding to factors at multiple spatial scales. For purposes of conservation planning, areas of predicted high abundance should be investigated to evaluate the conservation potential of the landscape in their general vicinity. In addition, the models and spatial patterns of abundance among species suggest locations where conservation actions may benefit more than one species.

Key words

Abundance map Black-billed cuckoo Hierarchical model Information-theoretic model selection Multi-level model Red-headed woodpecker Spatial count model Wood thrush 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brennan JM, Bender DJ, Contreras TA, Fahrig L (2002) Focal patch landscape studies for wildlife management: optimizing sampling effort across scales. In: Liu J, Taylor WW (eds) Integrating landscape ecology into natural resource management. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, pp 68–91Google Scholar
  2. Brooks S, Gelman A (1998) General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations. J Comput Graphical Stat 7:434–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multi-model inference: a practical information theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer-Verlag, New York, USA, p 353Google Scholar
  4. De’ath G, Fabricius KE (2000) Classification and regression trees: a powerful yet simple technique for ecological data analysis. Ecology 81:3178–3192Google Scholar
  5. Diamond DD, Gordon TM, True CD, Lea RD, Foster WE (2003) An ecoregion-based conservation assessment and conservation opportunity area inventory for the Lower Midwestern USA. Nat Areas J 23:129–140Google Scholar
  6. Donovan TM, Flather CH (2002) Relationships among North American songbird trends, habitat fragmentation, and landscape occupancy. Ecol Appl 12:364–374Google Scholar
  7. Gale GA, DeCecco JA, Marshall MR, McClain WR, Cooper RJ (2001) Effects of gypsy moth defoliation on forest birds: an assessment using breeding bird census data. J Field Ornithol 72:291–304Google Scholar
  8. Galli A, Leck CF, Forman RTT (1976) Avian distribution patterns in forest islands of different sizes in central New Jersey. Auk 93:356–364Google Scholar
  9. Geissler PH, Sauer JR (1990) Topics in route-regression analysis. In: Sauer JR, Droege S (eds) Survey designs and statistical methods for the estimation of avian population trends. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 90(1), Arlington, Virginia, USA, pp 54–57Google Scholar
  10. Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Rubin DR (1995) Bayesian data analysis. Chapman and Hall, New York, USA, p 526Google Scholar
  11. Giese CLA, Cuthbert FJ (2003) Influence of surrounding vegetation on woodpecker nest tree selection in oak forests of the Upper Midwest, USA. For Ecol Manage 179:523–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gustafson EJ, Knutson MG, Niemi GJ, Friberg MA (2002) Evaluation of spatial models to predict vulnerability of forest birds to brood parasitism by cowbirds. Ecol Appl 12:412–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gustafson EJ, Parker GR (1992) Relationships between landcover proportion and indices of landscape spatial pattern. Landscape Ecol 7:101–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Holland JD, Bert DG, Fahrig L (2004) Determining the spatial scale of species’ response to habitat. Bio Science 54:227–233Google Scholar
  15. Hughes JM (2001) Black-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus erythropthalmus). In: Poole A, Gill F (eds) The birds of North America, No. 587. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, p 24Google Scholar
  16. Koenig WD (2001) Spatial autocorrelation and local disappearances in wintering North American birds. Ecology 82:2636–2644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lee M, Fahrig L, Freemark K, Currie DJ (2002) Importance of patch scale vs landscape scale on selected forest birds. Oikos 96:110–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lichstein JW, Simons TR, Franzreb KE (2002) Landscape effects on breeding songbird abundance in managed forests. Ecol Appl 12:836–857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Link WA, Cam E, Nichols JD, Cooch E (2002) Of BUGS and birds: Markov chain Monte Carlo for hierarchical modeling in wildlife research. J Wildl Manage 66:277–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Link WA, Sauer JR (2002) A hierarchical analysis of population change with application to Cerulean Warblers. Ecology 83:2832–2840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Long JS (1997) Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California, USA, p 297Google Scholar
  22. Martin TE (1981) Limitation in small habitat islands: chance or competition? Auk 98:715–734Google Scholar
  23. McKenney DW, Venier LA, Heerdegen A, McCarthy MA (2002) A Monte Carlo experiment for species mapping problems. In: Scott JM, Heglund PJ, Morrison ML (eds) Predicting species occurrences: issues of accuracy and scale. Island Press, San Diego California USA, pp 377–381Google Scholar
  24. McNab WH, Avers PE (1994) Ecological subregions of the United States. WO-WSA-5, U.S. Forest Service, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  25. Noon BR, Murphy DD, Beissinger SR, Shaffer ML, Dellasala D (2003) Conservation planning for US National Forests: conducting comprehensive biodiversity assessments. Bio Science 53:1217–1220Google Scholar
  26. O’Connor RJ, Wagner TL (2004) A test of a regression-tree model of species distribution. Auk 121:604–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pearlstine LG, Smith SE, Brandt LA, Allen CR, Kitchens WM, Stenberg J (2002) Assessing state-wide biodiversity in the Florida Gap analysis project. J Environ Manage 66:127–144PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rempel RS, Kushneriuk RS (2003) The influence of sampling scheme and interpolation method on the power to detect spatial effects of forest birds in Ontario (Canada). Landscape Ecol 18:741–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rich TD, Beardmore CJ, Berlanga H, Blancher PJ, Bradstreet MS, Butcher GS, Demarest D, Dunn EH, Hunter WC, Inigo-Elias D, Kennedy JA, Martell A, Panjabi A, Pashley DN, Rosenberg KV, Rustay C, Wendt S, Will T (2004) Partners in flight North American landbird conservation plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Cornell, New York, USA, p 84Google Scholar
  30. Riitters K, Wickham J, O’Neill R, Jones B, Smith E (2000) Global-scale patterns of forest fragmentation. Conserv Ecol 4:2756Google Scholar
  31. Roseberry JL, Sudkamp SD (1998) Assessing the suitability of landscapes for Northern Bobwhite. J Wildl Manage 62:895–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Roth RR, Johnson MS, Underwood TJ (1996) Wood Thrush (Hylocichla mustelina). In: Poole A, Gill F (eds) The birds of North America, No. 246. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, p 28Google Scholar
  33. Sample DW, Mossman MJ (1997) Managing habitat for grassland birds: a guide for Wisconsin. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin, USAGoogle Scholar
  34. Sargent RA, Kilgo JC, Chapman BR, Miller KV (2003) Nesting ecology of Wood Thrush (Turdidae: Passeriformes) in hardwood forests of South Carolina. Southeast Nat 2:217–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Scott JM, Davis F, Csuti B, Noss R, Butterfield B, Groves C, Anderson H, Caicco S, D’Erchia F, Edwards TC Jr, Ulliman J, Wright RG (1993) Gap analysis: a geographic approach to protection of biological diversity. Wildl Monogr 123:1–41Google Scholar
  36. Scott JM, Heglund PJ, Morrison ML, Haufle JB, Raphael MG, Wall WA, Samson FB (2002) Predicting species occurrences: issues of accuracy and scale. Island Press, San Diego, California, USA, p 868Google Scholar
  37. Seoane J, Bustamante J, DiazDelgado R (2004) Competing roles for landscape, vegetation, topography and climate in predictive models of bird distribution. Ecol Model 171:209–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Smith KG, Scarlett T (1987) Mast production and winter populations of Red-headed Woodpeckers and Blue Jays. J Wildl Manage 51:459–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Smith KG, Withgott JH, Rodewald PG (2000) Red-headed woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus). In: Poole A, Gill F (eds) The birds of North America, No. 518. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia Pennsylvania USA, p 28Google Scholar
  40. Spiegelhalter DJ, Best NG, Carlin BP, van der Linde A (2002) Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. J Roy Stat Soc B 64:583–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Spiegelhalter DJ, Thomas A, Best NG (2003) WinBUGS Version 1.4 user manual. Medical Research Council Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, UK. http://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/bugs/winbugs/manual14.pdf
  42. Thogmartin WE, Sauer JR, Knutson MG (2004) A hierarchical spatial model of avian abundance with application to Cerulean Warblers. Ecol Appl 14:1766–1779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Thogmartin WE, Knutson MG, Sauer JR (2006) Predicting regional patterns in rare grassland bird abundance with a hierarchical spatial count model. Condor 108:25–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Thomas A, Best N, Arnold R, Spiegelhalter D (2002) GeoBugs User Manual, Version 1.1 Beta. Medical Research Council Biostatistics Unit. http://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/bugs/winbugs/geobugs12manual.pdf
  45. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2002) Birds of conservation concern. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  46. U.S. NABCI Committee (2000) North American bird conservation initiative: bird conservation region descriptions. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Bird Habitat Conservation, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  47. Venier LA, McKenney DW, Wang Y, McKee J (1999) Models of large-scale breeding-bird distribution as a function of macro-climate in Ontario, Canada. J Biogeogr 26:315–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Venier LA, Pearce J, McKee JE, McKenney DW, Niemi GJ (2004) Climate and satellite-derived land cover for predicting breeding bird distribution in the Great Lakes Basin. J Biogeogr 31:315–331Google Scholar
  49. Wiens JA (1981) Scale problems in avian censusing. In: Ralph CJ, Scott JM (eds) Estimating numbers of terrestrial birds. Cooper Ornithological Society, pp 513–521Google Scholar
  50. Wiens JA, Rotenberry JT, Van Horne B (1987) Habitat occupancy patterns of North American shrubsteppe birds: the effect of spatial scale. Oikos 48:132–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.U.S. Geological SurveyUpper Midwest Environmental Sciences CenterLa CrosseUSA

Personalised recommendations