Landscape Ecology

, Volume 28, Issue 4, pp 755–767 | Cite as

Empirical estimation of dispersal resistance surfaces: a case study with red-cockaded woodpeckers

  • Anne M. Trainor
  • Jeffrey R. Walters
  • William F. Morris
  • Joseph Sexton
  • Aaron Moody
Research article


Persistence of wildlife populations depends on the degree to which landscape features facilitate animal movements between isolated habitat patches. Due to limited data availability, the effect of landscape features on animal dispersal is typically estimated using expert opinion. With sufficient data, however, resistance surfaces can be estimated empirically. After modeling suitable prospecting habitat using an extensive dataset from the federally endangered red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), we used data from over 800 prospecting events from 34 radio-tagged birds to identify the best relationship between habitat suitability and resistance surfaces. Our results demonstrated that juvenile female P. borealis prospecting for new territories beyond their natal territories preferred to traverse through forests with tall canopy and minimal midstory vegetation. The non-linear relationship between habitat suitability and resistance surfaces was the most biologically relevant transformation, which in turn identified the specific forest composition that promoted and inhibited prospecting and dispersal behavior. These results corresponded with over 60 % of dispersal events from an independent dataset of short-distance dispersal events. This new understanding of P. borealis prospecting behavior will help to identify areas necessary for maintaining habitat connectivity and to implement effective management strategies. Our approach also provides a framework to not only estimate and evaluate resistance surfaces based on species-specific responses to intervening landscape features, but also addresses an often-neglected step, selecting a biologically relevant function to transform habitat suitability model into a resistance surface.


Natal dispersal Picoides borealis Prospecting Radio-telemetry LiDAR 



We thank D. Urban, C. Song, J. Weiss for suggestions regarding study design and analyses. J. Kappes, D. Kesler, and D. Kuefler collaborated in the design and execution of the radio-telemetry field study. We would also like to thank the Sandhills Ecological Institute and Fort Bragg’s Endangered Species Branch for all their efforts in collecting and organizing the extensive monitoring data. We are grateful to the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program for providing LiDAR data. We thank Z. Cleveland, P. Beier and an anonymous reviewer for extremely helpful suggestions and comments. Funding for this project was provided by the U.S. Department of Defense Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (RC-1471).

Supplementary material

10980_2013_9861_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (19 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 19 kb)


  1. Adriaensen F, Chardon JP, De Blust G, Swinnen E, Villalba S, Gulinck H, Matthysen E (2003) The application of ‘least-cost’ modelling as a functional landscape model. Landsc Urban Plan 64:233–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beier P, Majka DR, Spencer WD (2008) Forks in the road: choices in procedures for designing wildlife linkages. Conserv Biol 22:836–851PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beier P, Majka DR, Newell SL (2009) Uncertainty analysis of least-cost modeling for designing wildlife linkages. Ecol Appl 19:2067–2077PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Britcher JJ, Patten JM (2004) Red-cockaded Woodpecker management on Fort Bragg: then and now. In: Costa R, Daniels SJ (eds) Red-cockaded Woodpecker: road to recovery. Hancock House Publishers, Blaine, pp 116–126Google Scholar
  5. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Chetkiewicz CB, Boyce MS (2009) Use of resource selection functions to identify conservation corridors. J Appl Ecol 46:1036–1047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clobert J, Wolff JO, Nichols JD, Danchin E, Dhondt AA (2001) Introduction. In: Clobert J, Danchin E, Dhondt AA, Nichols JD (eds) Dispersal. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp xvii–xxiGoogle Scholar
  8. Conner RN, Rudolph DC, Walters JR (2001) The red-cockaded Woodpecker: surviving in a fire-maintained ecosystem. University of Texas Press, AustinGoogle Scholar
  9. Conner RN, Shackelford CE, Schaefer RR et al (2002) Avian community response to southern pine ecosystem restoration for red-cockaded woodpeckers. Wilson Bull 114:324–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Costa R, Daniels SJ (2004) Red-cockaded Woodpecker: road to recovery. Hancock House Publishers, BlaineGoogle Scholar
  11. Daniels SJ, Walters JR (2000) Between-year breeding dispersal in red-cockaded woodpeckers: multiple causes and estimated cost. Ecology 81:2473–2484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fahrig L, Merriam G (1994) Conservation of fragmented populations. Conserv Biol 8:50–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ferreras P (2001) Landscape structure and asymmetrical inter-patch connectivity in a metapopulation of the endangered Iberian lynx. Biol Conserv 100:125–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Forsman ED, Anthony RG, Reid JA, Loschl PJ, Sovern SG, Taylor M, Biswell BL, Ellingson A, Meslow EC, Miller GS, Swindle KA, Thrailkill JA, Wagner FF, Seaman DE (2002) Natal and breeding dispersal of Northern spotted owls. Wildl Monogr 149:1–35Google Scholar
  15. Frost C (2006) History and future of the longleaf pine ecosystem. In: Shibu J, Jokela EJ, Miller DL (eds) The longleaf pine ecosystem: ecology, silviculture, and restoration. Springer, New York, pp 9–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gillies CCS, St. Clair CC (2008) Riparian corridors enhance movement of a forest specialist bird in fragmented tropical forest. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:19774–19779PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Griffith GE, Omernik JM, McGinley M (2007) Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina. In: Cleveland CJ (ed) Encyclopedia of Earth, edn. Environmental information coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment, Washington, D.C.
  18. Haig SM, Walters JR, Plissner JH (1994) Genetic evidence for monogramy in the cooperatively breeding red-cockaded woodpecker. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 34:295–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hall LS, Krausman PR, Morrison ML (1997) The habitat concept and a plea for standard terminology. Wildl Soc Bull 25:173–182Google Scholar
  20. Hooper RG, Lennartz MR (1981) Foraging behavior of the red-cockaded woodpecker in South Carolina. Auk 98:321–334Google Scholar
  21. Kesler DC, Walters JR, Kappes JJ Jr (2010) Social influences on dispersal and the fat-tailed dispersal distribution in red-cockaded woodpeckers. Behav Ecol 21:1337–1343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Magle SB, Theobald DM, Crooks KR (2009) A comparison of metrics predicting landscape connectivity for a highly interactive species along an urban gradient in Colorado, USA. Landscape Ecol 24:267–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Manly BFJ, McDonald LL, Thomas DL et al (2002) Resource selection by animals: statistical design and analysis for field studies. Kluwer, BostonGoogle Scholar
  24. McGaughey RJ (2008) FUSION/LDV: software for LIDAR data analysis and visualization—version 2.65:1-123Google Scholar
  25. Norris DR, Stutchbury BJM (2001) Extraterritorial movements of a forest songbird in a fragmented landscape. Conserv Biol 15:729–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ott RL, Longnecker M (2001) An introduction to statistical methods and data analysis. Duxbury, Pacific GroveGoogle Scholar
  27. Pasinelli G, Walters JR (2002) Social and environmental factors affect natal dispersal and philopatry of male red-cockaded woodpeckers. Ecology 83:2229–2239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Peet RK (2006) Ecological classification of longleaf pine woodlands. In: Jose S, Jokela EJ, Miller DL (eds) The longleaf pine ecosystem: ecology, silviculture, and restoration. Springer, New York, pp 51–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Platt WJ, Evans GW, Rathbun SL (1988) The population dynamics of a long-lived conifer (Pinus palustris). Am Nat 131:491–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Provencher L, Herring BJ, Gordon DR et al (2001) Longleaf pine and oak responses to hardwood reduction techniques in fire-suppressed Sandhills in northwest Florida. For Ecol Manage 148:63–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Richard Y, Armstrong DP (2010) Cost distance modelling of landscape connectivity and gap-crossing ability using radio-tracking data. J Appl Ecol 47:603–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Richard-Zawacki CL (2009) Effects of slope and riparian habitat connectivity on gene flow in an endangered Panamanian frog, Atelopus varius. Divers Distrib 15:796–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rudolph DC, Conner RN, Schaefer RR (2002) Red-cockaded Woodpecker foraging behavior in relation to midstory vegetation. Wilson Bull 114:235–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sawyer SC, Epps CW, Brashares JS (2011) Placing linkages among fragmented habitats: do least-cost models reflect how animals use landscapes? J Appl Ecol 48:668–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schadt S, Knauer F, Kaczensky P et al (2002) Rule-based assessment of suitable habitat and patch connectivity for the Eurasian lynx. Ecol Appl 12:1469–1483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schultz CB, Crone EE (2001) Edge-mediated dispersal behavior in a prairie butterfly. Ecology 82:1879–1892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Selonen V, Hanski IK (2006) Habitat exploration and use in dispersing juvenile flying squirrels. J Anim Ecol 75:1440–1449PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Singleton PH, Gaines WL, Lehmkuhl JF (2004) Landscape permeability for grizzly bear movements in Washington and southwestern British Columbia. Ursus 15:90–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Smart L, Swenson JJ, Christensen NJ, Sexton JO (2012) Three-dimensional characterization of pine forest type and Red-cockaded Woodpecker habitat by small-footprint, discrete-return lidar. For Ecol Manage 281:100–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sun D, Dawson R, Li H et al (2007) A landscape connectivity index for assessing desertification: a case study of Minqin County, China. Landscape Ecol 22:531–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Trakhtenbrot A, Nathan R, Perry G, Richardson DM (2005) The importance of long-distance dispersal in biodiversity conservation. Divers Distrib 11:173–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2003) Recovery plan for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis): second revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  43. U.S. Department of the Interior (1970) Conservation of endangered species and other fish or wildlife. Fed Regist 199:1647–1648Google Scholar
  44. Verbeylen G, De Bruyn L, Adriaensen F, Matthysen E (2003) Does matrix resistance influence red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris L. 1758) distribution in an urban landscape? Landscape Ecol 18:791–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Walters JR (1990) Red-cockaded Woodpeckers: a ‘primitive’ cooperative breeder. In: Stacey PB, Koenig WD (eds) Cooperative breeding in birds. Cambridge University Press, Great Britain, pp 69–101Google Scholar
  46. Walters JR, Doerr PD, Carter JH (1988) The cooperative breeding system of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker. Ethology 78:275–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Walters JR, Daniels SJ, Carter JH et al (2002) Defining quality of Red-cockaded Woodpecker foraging habitat based on habitat use and fitness. J Wildl Manage 66:1064–1082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wood DR, Vilella FJ, Burger LW (2008) Red-cockaded Woodpecker home range use and macrohabitat selection in a loblolly-shortleaf pine forest. Wilson J Ornithol 120:793–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zeller KA, McGarigal K, Whiteley AR (2012) Estimating landscape resistance to movement: a review. Landscape Ecol 27:777–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne M. Trainor
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jeffrey R. Walters
    • 3
  • William F. Morris
    • 4
  • Joseph Sexton
    • 5
  • Aaron Moody
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of GeographyUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA
  2. 2.School of Forestry and Environmental StudiesYale UniversityNew HavenUSA
  3. 3.Department of Biological SciencesVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA
  4. 4.Biology DepartmentDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  5. 5.Global Land Cover FacilityUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  6. 6.Department of Geography and Curriculum for the Environment and EcologyUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations