Landscape Ecology

, Volume 19, Issue 8, pp 869–882 | Cite as

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

  • Chris J. Johnson
  • Mark S. Boyce
  • Robert Mulders
  • Anne Gunn
  • Rob J. Gau
  • H. Dean Cluff
  • Ray L. Case


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.

Canadian Arctic Habitat Hierarchy Landscape pattern Local quadrat variance Resource selection Scale 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allen T.F.H. and Starr T.B. 1982. Hierarchy: Perspectives for Ecological Complexity. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA.Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Andrzejewski R. 2002. The home-range concept in rodents revised. Acta Theriologica 47: 81–101.Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Baskent E.Z. and Jordan G.A. 1995. Characterizing spatial structure of forest landscapes. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research 25: 1830–1849.Google Scholar
  9. Bengtsson J., Fagerstrom T. and Rydin H. 1994. Competition and coexistence in plant communities. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9: 246–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bergin T.M. 1992. Habitat selection by the Western Kingbird in western Nebraska: a hierarchical analysis. Condor 94: 903–911.Google Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. Dale M.R.T. 1999. Spatial pattern analysis in plant ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, USA.Google Scholar
  17. Dale M.R.T. 2000. Lacunarity analysis of spatial patterns: a comparison. Landscape Ecology 15: 467–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ecological Stratification Working Group. 1996. A National Ecological Framework for Canada. Environment Canada, State of the Environment Directorate, Ecozone Analysis Branch, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Francis A.P. and Currie D.J. 2003. A globally consistent richness-climate relationship for angiosperms. American Naturalist 161: 523–536.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gustafson E.J. 1998. Quantifying landscape spatial pattern: what is the state of the art? Ecosystems 1: 583–602.Google Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.Google Scholar
  28. 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
  29. Hardin J. and Hilbe J. 2001. Generalized Linear Models and Extensions. Stata Press, College Station, Texas, USA.Google Scholar
  30. Hobbs R. 1997. Future landscapes and the future of landscape ecology. Landscape Urban Planning 37: 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hosmer D.W. and Lemeshow S. 2000. Applied Logistic Regression. John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  32. 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
  33. 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).Google Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Johnson D.H. 1980. The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference. Ecology 61: 65–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Levin S.A. 1992. The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73: 1943–1967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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
  41. 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.Google Scholar
  42. 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.Google Scholar
  43. McIntyre N.E. and Wiens J.A. 2000. A novel use of the lacunarity index to discern landscape function. Landscape Ecology 15: 313–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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
  46. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mladenoff D.J. and DeZonia B. 1999. APACK analysis software. Forest Ecology Lab, Department of Forestry, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.Google Scholar
  48. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Morris D.W. 1987. Ecological scale and habitat use. Ecology 68: 362–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Palmer M.W. 1988. Fractal geometry: a tool for describing spatial patterns of plant communities. Vegetatio 75: 91–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pascual M. and Levin S.A. 1999. From individuals to population densities: searching for the intermediate scale of nontrivial determinism. Ecology 80: 2225–2236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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
  53. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Plotnick R.E., Gardner R.H. and O'Neill R.V. 1993. Lacunarity indices as measures of landscape texture. Landscape Ecology 8: 201–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rettie W.J. and Messier F. 2000. Hierarchical habitat selection by woodland caribou: its relationship to limiting factors. Ecography 23: 466–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ripley B.D. 1978. Spectral analysis and the analysis of pattern in plant communities. Journal of Ecology 66: 965–981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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
  60. Saab V. 1999. Importance of spatial scale to habitat use by breeding birds in riparian forests: a hierarchical analysis. Ecological Applications 9: 135–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schaefer J.A. and Messier F. 1995. Habitat selection as a hierarchy: the spatial scales of winter foraging by muskoxen. Ecography 18: 333–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Turner M.G., Dale V.H. and Gardner R.H. 1989. Predicting across scales: theory development and testing. Landscape Ecology 3: 245–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wiens J.A. 1989. Spatial scaling in ecology. Functional Ecology 3: 385–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chris J. Johnson
    • 1
    • 2
  • Mark S. Boyce
    • 1
  • Robert Mulders
    • 3
  • Anne Gunn
    • 3
  • Rob J. Gau
    • 3
  • H. Dean Cluff
    • 3
  • Ray L. Case
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2E9Canada
  2. 2.Ecosystem Science and Management ProgramUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaB.C.Canada, V2N 4Z9 (
  3. 3.Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic DevelopmentGovernment of Northwest TerritoriesCanada

Personalised recommendations