Landscape Ecology

, Volume 19, Issue 7, pp 801–810 | Cite as

Movements of cactus bugs: Patch transfers, matrix resistance, and edge permeability

Research Article

Abstract

Individual movement is a key process affecting the distribution of animals in heterogeneous landscapes. For specialist species in patchy habitat, a central issue is how dispersal distances are related to landscape structure. We compared dispersal distances for cactus bugs (Chelinidea vittiger) on two naturally fragmented landscapes (≤ 4% suitable habitat) with different matrix structures (i.e., vegetation height of nonsuitable habitat between suitable patches). Using mark-release-recapture studies, we determined that most transfers between cactus patches occurred during the mating season. Dispersal distances were reduced by > 50% on the landscape that had reduced structural connectivity due to relatively high matrix structure and low patch density. An experiment with detailed movement pathways demonstrated that greater matrix structure decreased mean step lengths, reduced directionality, and thus decreased net displacement by > 60%. However, habitat edges between two matrix elements that differed substantially in resistance to movement were completely permeable. Therefore, the difference in distributions of dispersal distances between the two landscapes mainly reflected the average resistance of matrix habitat and not the level of matrix heterogeneity per se. Our study highlights the merits of combining estimates of dispersal distances with insights on mechanisms from detailed movement pathways, and emphasizes the difficulty of treating dispersal distances of species as fixed traits independent of landscape structure.

Key words

Animal movements Chelinidea vittiger Colorado USA Connectivity Dispersal Fragmentation Habitat boundaries Landscape structure Opuntia Patchy population 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Åberg J., Jansson G., Swenson J.E. and Angelstam P. 1995. The effect of matrix on the occurrence of hazel grouse (Bonasa bonasia) in isolated habitat fragments. Oecologia 103: 265–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker M., Nur N. and Geupel G.R. 1995. Correcting biased estimates of dispersal and survival due to limited study area: theory and an application using wrentits. The Condor 97: 663–674.Google Scholar
  3. Batschelet E. 1981. Circular statistics in biology. Academic Press, London, UK.Google Scholar
  4. Collinge S.K. and Palmer T.M. 2002. The influence of patch shape and boundary contrast on insect response to fragmentation in California grasslands. Landscape Ecology 17: 647–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Conover W.J. 1980. Practical nonparametric statistics. John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  6. De Vol J.E. and Goeden R.D. 1973. Biology of Chelinidea vittiger with notes on its host-plant relationships and value in biological weed control. Environmental Entomology 2: 231–240.Google Scholar
  7. Dodd A.P. 1940. The biological campaign against prickly-pear. Commonwealth Prickly Pear Board, Brisbane, Australia.Google Scholar
  8. Dooley Jr. J.L. and Bowers M.A. 1998. Demographic responses to habitat fragmentation: empirical tests at the landscape and patch scale. Ecology 79: 969–980.Google Scholar
  9. Goodwin B.J. and L. Fahrig. 2002a. How does landscape structure influence landscape connectivity? Oikos 99: 552–5700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goodwin B.J. and L. Fahrig. 2002b. Effect of landscape structure on the movement behaviour of a specialized goldenrod beetle, Trirhabda borealis. Canadian Journal of Zoology 80: 24–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Haddad N.M. 1999. Corridor use predicted from behaviors at habitat boundaries.American Naturalist 153: 215–2277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hamlin J.C. 1924. A review of the genus Chelinidea (Hemiptera-Heteroptera with biological data. Annals Entomological Society of America 17: 193–2088.Google Scholar
  13. Hanski I. 2001. Population dynamic consequences of dispersal in local populations and in metapopulations. In: Clobert J., Danchin E., Dhondt A.A. and Nichols J.D. (eds), Dispersal, pp. 283–298. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  14. Hargrove W.H. and Pickering J. 1992. Pseudoreplication: a sine qua non for regional ecology. Landscape Ecology 6: 251–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harrison S. and Taylor A.D. 1997. Empirical evidence for metapopulation dynamics. In: Hanski I.A. and Gilpin M.E. (eds), Metapopulation biology: ecology, genetics, and evolution, pp. 27–42. Academic Press, San Diego, California, USA.Google Scholar
  16. Ims R.A. and Yoccoz N.G. 1997. Studying transfer processes in metapopulations: emigration, migration, and colonization. In: Hanski I.A. and Gilpin M.E. (eds), Metapopulation biology: ecology, genetics, and evolution, pp. 247–265. Academic Press, San Diego, California, USA.Google Scholar
  17. Joly P., Miaud C., Lehmann A. and Grolet O. 2001. Habitat matrix effects on pond occupancy in newts. Conservation Biology 15: 239–248.Google Scholar
  18. Jonsen I.D., Bourchier R.S. and Roland J. 2001. The influence of matrix habitat on Aphthona flea beetle immigration to leafy spurge patches. Oecologia 127: 287–2944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kindvall O. 1999. Dispersal in a metapopulation of the bush cricket, Metrioptera bicolor (Orthoptera:Tettigoniidae). Journal of Animal Ecology 68: 172–1855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Koenig W.D., Hooge P.N., Stanback M.T. and Haydock J. 2000. Natal dispersal in the cooperatively breeding acorn woodpecker. The Condor 102: 492–502.Google Scholar
  21. Kuussaari M., Nieminen M. and Hanski I. 1996. An experimental study of migration in the Glanville fritillary butterfly Melitaea cinxia. Journal of Animal Ecology 65: 791–801.Google Scholar
  22. Lima S.L. and Zollner P.A. 1996. Towards a behavioral ecology of ecological landscapes. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11: 131–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mann J. 1969. Cactus-feeding insects and mites. United States National Museum Bulletin 256, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  24. Matthysen E., Adriaensen F. and Dhondt A.A. 1995. Dispersal distances of nuthatches, Sitta europaea, in a highly fragmented forest habitat. Oikos 72: 375–381.Google Scholar
  25. Mennechez G., Schtickzelle N. and Baguette M. 2003. Metapopulation dynamics of the bog fritillary butterfly: comparison of demographic parameters and dispersal between a continuous and a highly fragmented landscape. Landscape Ecology 18: 279–291.Google Scholar
  26. Morales J.M. 2002. Behavior at habitat boundaries can produce leptokurtic movement distributions. American Naturalist 160: 531–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Oksanen L. 2001. Logic of experiments in ecology: is pseudoreplication a pseudoissue? Oikos 94: 27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Petit S. and Burel F. 1998. Effects of landscape dynamics on the metapopulation of a ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in a hedgerow network. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 69: 243–252.Google Scholar
  29. Pither J. and Taylor P.D. 1998. An experimental assessment of landscape connectivity. Oikos 83: 166–174.Google Scholar
  30. Ricketts T.H. 2001. The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. The American Naturalist 158: 87–999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ries L. and Debinski D.M. 2001. Butterfly responses to habitat edges in the highly fragmented prairies of central Iowa. Journal of Animal Ecology 70: 840–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Roland J., Keyghobadi N. and Fownes S. 2000. Alpine Parnassius butterfly dispersal: effects of landscape and population size. Ecology 81: 1642–1653.Google Scholar
  33. Schneider C. 2003. The influence of spatial scale on quantifying insect dispersal: an analysis of butterfly data. Ecological Entomology 28: 252–256.Google Scholar
  34. Schooley R.L. 2002. Spatial ecology of cactus bugs: interactions among suitable habitat, connectivity, and movements. PhD Dissertation. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA, 153 pp.Google Scholar
  35. Schooley R.L. and Wiens J.A. 2003. Finding habitat patches and directional connectivity. Oikos 102: 559–570.Google Scholar
  36. Schtickzelle N. and Baguette M. 2003. Behavioural responses to habitat patch boundaries restrict dispersal and generate emigration-patch area relationships in fragmented landscapes. Journal of Animal Ecology 72: 533–545.Google Scholar
  37. Schultz C.B. and Crone E.E. 2001. Edge-mediated dispersal behavior in a prairie butterfly. Ecology 82: 1879–1892.Google Scholar
  38. Stamps J.A., Buechner M. and Krishnan V.V. 1987. The effects of edge permeability and habitat geometry on emigration from patches of habitat. American Naturalist 129: 533–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Taylor P.D., Fahrig L., Henein K. and Merriam G. 1993. Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68: 571–573.Google Scholar
  40. Tischendorf L. and Fahrig L. 2000. On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos 90: 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Turchin P. 1998. Quantitative analysis of movement: measuring and modeling population redistribution in animals and plants. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts, USA.Google Scholar
  42. Vandermeer J., Hoffman B. Krantz-Ryan S.L., Wijayratne U., Buff J. and Franciscus V. 2001. Effect of habitat fragmentation on gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar L.) dispersal: the quality of the matrix. American Midland Naturalist 145: 188–193.Google Scholar
  43. Wiens J.A. 2001. The landscape context of dispersal. In: Clobert J., Danchin E., Dhondt A.A. and Nichols J.D. (eds), Dispersal, pp. 96–109. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  44. Wiens J.A., Crawford C.S. and Gosz J.R. 1985. Boundary dynamics: a conceptual framework for studying landscape ecosystems. Oikos 45: 421–427.Google Scholar
  45. Wiens J.A., Crist T.O. and Milne B.T. 1993b. On quantifying insect movements. Environmental Entomology 22: 709–715.Google Scholar
  46. Wiens J.A. and Milne B.T. 1989. Scaling of ‘landscapes’ in landscape ecology, or, landscape ecology from a beetle’s perspective. Landscape Ecology 3: 87–96.Google Scholar
  47. Wiens J.A., Schooley R.L. and Weeks Jr. R.D. 1997. Patchy landscapes and animal movements: do beetles percolate? Oikos 78: 257–264.Google Scholar
  48. Wiens J.A., Stenseth N.C., Van Horne B. and Ims R.A. 1993a. Ecological mechanisms and landscape ecology. Oikos 66: 369–380.Google Scholar
  49. With K.A. and Crist T.O. 1995. Critical thresholds in species responses to landscape structure. Ecology 76: 2446–2459.Google Scholar
  50. Wolff J.O., Schauber E.M. and Edge W.D. 1997. Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on the behavior and demography of gray-tailed voles. Conservation Biology 11: 945–956.Google Scholar
  51. Wratten S.D., Bowie M.H., Hickman J.M., Evans A.M., Sedcole J.R. and Tylianakis J.M. 2003. Field boundaries as barriers to movement of hover flies (Diptera: Syrphidae) in cultivated land. Oecologia 134: 605–611.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biology and Graduate Degree Program in EcologyColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA

Personalised recommendations