Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Habitat connectivity for pollinator beetles using surface metrics

Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Measuring habitat connectivity in complex landscapes is a major focus of landscape ecology and conservation research. Most studies use a binary landscape or patch mosaic model for describing spatial heterogeneity and understanding pattern-process relationships. While the value of landscape gradient approaches proposed by McGarigal and Cushman are recognized, applications of these newly proposed three dimensional surface metrics remain under-used. We created a gradient map of habitat quality from several GIS layers and applied three dimensional surface metrics to measure connectivity between 67 locations in Indiana, USA surveyed for one group of ecosystem service providers, flower longicorn beetles (Cerambycidae: Lepturinae). The three dimensional surface metrics applied to the landscape gradient model showed great potential to explain the differences of lepturine assemblages among the 2,211 studied landscapes (between site pairs). Surface kurtosis and its interaction with geographic distance were among the most important metrics. This approach provided unique information about the landscape through four configuration metrics. There were some uniform trends of the responses of many species to some of surface metrics, however some species responded differently to other metrics. We suggest that three dimensional surface metrics applied to a habitat surface map created with insight into species requirements is a valuable approach to understanding the spatial dynamics of species, guilds, and ecosystem services.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price includes VAT (France)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  • Austin MP (1985) Continuum concept, ordination methods, and niche theory. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 16(1):39–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin MP (2002) Spatial prediction of species distribution: an interface between ecological theory and statistical modelling. Ecol Model 157(2–3):101–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey R (2009) Mesoscale: landform differentiation (landscape mosaics). In: Bailey R (ed) Ecosystem geography, from ecoregions to sites, 2nd edn. Springer, New York, pp 127–144

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Barbalat S (1996) Influence of forest management on three wood-eating beetle families in the Areuse gorges (Canton of Neuchatel, Switzerland). Rev Suisse Zool 103:553–564

    Google Scholar 

  • Beasom SL, Wiggers EP, Giardino JR (1983) A technique for assessing land surface ruggedness. J Wildl Manage 47(4):1163–1166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin D (1907) Annual report of the State Entomologist of Indiana. Library of the museum of comparative zoology. Harvard University, Cambridge 216 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolstad PV, Swank W, Vose J (1998) Predicting southern appalachian overstory vegetation with digital terraindata. Landscape Ecol 13:271–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booth RG, Cox ML, Madge RB (1990) IIE guides to insects of importance to man. 3. Coleoptera. CAB International, Wallingford, p 384

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnett MR, August PV, Brown JH, Killingbeck KT (1998) The influence of geomorphological heterogeneity on biodiversity: a patch–scale perspective. Conserv Biol 12(2):363–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cushman SA (2006) Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on amphibians: a review and prospectus. Biol Conserv 128(2):231–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cushman SA, McKenzie D, Peterson DL, Littell J, McKelvey K (2007) Research agenda for integrated landscape modelling. USDA For. Serv. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-194

  • Cushman SA, Gutzweiler K, Evans JS, McGarigal K (2010) The gradient paradigm: a conceptual and analytical framework for landscape ecology. In: Cushman SA, Huettmann F (eds) Spatial complexity, informatics, and wildlife conservation. Springer, New York, pp 83–108

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Evans JS, Cushman SA (2009) Gradient modeling of conifer species using random forests. Landscape Ecol 24(5):673–683

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farina A (2010) Ecology, cognition and landscape. Linking natural and social systems. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2006) Beyond fragmentation: the continuum model for fauna research and conservation in human–modified landscapes. Oikos 112(2):473–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forman RTT (1995) Land mosaics: the ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Forman RTT, Godron M (1981) Patches and structural components for a landscape ecology. Bioscience 31(10):733–740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goslee S, Urban D (2012) Ecodist: dissimilarity-based functions for ecological analysis. R package version 1.2.7. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ecodist. Accessed 15 Feb 2012

  • Hanks LM (1999) Influence of the larval host plant on reproductive strategies of cerambycid beetles. Annu Rev Entomol 44:483–505

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hijmans RJ, van Etten J (2011) Raster: geographic analysis and modeling with raster data. R package version 1.8. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/raster. Accessed 15 Feb 2012

  • Hoechstetter S, Walz U, Dang LH, Thinh NX (2008) Effects of topography and surface roughness in analyses of landscape structure: a proposal to modify the existing set of landscape metrics. Landsc Online 1:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homer C, Huang C, Yang L, Wyile B, Coan M (2004) Development of a 2001 national land-cover database for the United States. Photogramm Eng Rem S 70(7):829–840

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchinson GE (1957) Concluding remarks. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol 22:415–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaeger JAG (2000) Landscape division, splitting index, and effective mesh size: new measures of landscape fragmentation. Landscape Ecol 15(2):115–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenness J (2004) Calculating landscape surface area from digital elevation models. Wildl Soc Bull 30:829–839

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kent M (2009) Biogeography and landscape ecology: the way forward—gradients and graph theory. Prog Phys Geog 33(3):424–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koh I, Rowe H, Holland JD. Graph and circuit theory connectivity models of conservation biological control. Ecol Appl

  • Lingafelter SW (2007) Illustrated key to the longhorned woodboring beetles of the eastern United States. Terry NS (ed) Coleopterists Society Special Publication No. 3, Maryland

  • Linsley EG (1959) Ecology of Cerambycidae. Ann Rev Entomol 4:99–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linsley EG, Chemsak JA (1972) Taxonomy and classification of the subfamily Lepturinae, Part VI, No. 1. University of California Press, Berkely

    Google Scholar 

  • Linsley EG, Chemsak JA (1976) Taxonomy and classification of the subfamily Lepturinae, Part VI, No. 2. University of California Press, Berkely

    Google Scholar 

  • Makino S, Goto H, Hasegawa M, Okabe K, Tanaka H, Inoue T, Okochi I (2007) Degradation of longicorn beetle (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae, Disteniidae) fauna caused by conversion from broad-leaved to man-made conifer stands of Cryptomeria japonica (Taxodiaceae) in central Japan. Ecol Res 22(3):372–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manning AD, Lindenmayer DB, Nix HA (2004) Continua and umwelt: novel perspectives on viewing landscapes. Oikos 104(3):621–628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGarigal K, Cushman SA (2005) The gradient concept of landscape structure. In: Wiens J, Moss M (eds) Issues and perspectives in landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 112–119

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Neel MC, Ene E (2002) FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for categorical maps. http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html. Accessed 5 April 2013

  • McGarigal K, Tagil S, Cushman SA (2009) Surface metrics: an alternative to patch metrics for the quantification of landscape structure. Landscape Ecol 24(3):433–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mcintyre S, Barrett GW (1992) Habitat variegation: an alternative to fragmentation. Conserv Biol 6(1):146–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melton MA (1957) An analysis of the relations among elements of climate, surface properties, and geomorphology. ONR Report 11 NR 389-042 Department of Geology, Columbia University, New York

  • Michelsen A (1963) Observations on the sexual behaviour of some longicorn beetles, subfamily Lepturinae (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). Behaviour 22(1–2):152–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moretti M, Barbalat S (2004) The effects of wildfires on wood-eating beetles in deciduous forests on the southern slope of the Swiss Alps. Forest Ecol Manag 187(1):85–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myneni RB, Hall FG, Sellers PJ, Marshak AL (1995) The interpretation of spectral vegetation indexes. IEEE T Geosci Remote 33(2):481–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okubo A, Kareiva P (2001) Some examples of animal diffusion. In: Okubo A, Levin SA (eds) Diffusion and ecological problems: modern perspectives. Springer, New York, pp 170–196

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pike RJ (2000) Geomorphometry diversity in quantitative surface analysis. Prog Phys Geogr 24:1–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Raje KR, Abdel-Moniem HEM, Farlee L, Ferris VR, Holland JD (2012) Abundance of pest and benign Cerambycidae both increase with decreasing forest productivity. Agr Forest Entomol 14(2):165–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Development Core Team (2012) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing, version 2.14.1. Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3–900051–07–9. http://www.R-project.org

  • Rehfeld GE, Crookston NL, Warmell MV, Evans JS (2006) Empirical analyses of plant-climate relationships for the western United States. Int J Plant Sci 167(6):1123–1150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rouse JW, Haas RH, Schell JA, Deering DW (1974) Monitoring vegetation systems in the Great Plains with ERTS Third ERTS–1 symposium, section A. NASA/GSFC United States, pp 309–317

  • Sanson GD, Stolk R, Downes BJ (1995) A new method for characterizing surface roughness and available space in biological systems. Funct Ecol 9:127–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoenholtz SH, Miegroet HV, Burger JA (2000) A review of chemical and physical properties as indicators of forest soil quality: challenges and opportunities. Forest Ecol Manag 138(1–3):335–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumm SA (1956) Evolution of drainage basins and slopes in badlands at Perth Amboy, New Jersey. Bull Geol Soc Am 67:597–646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sebastiá MT (2004) Role of topography and soils in grassland structuring at the landscape and community scales. Basic Appl Ecol 5(4):331–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sellers PJ (1985) Canopy reflectance, photosynthesis and transpiration. Int J Remote Sens 6(8):1335–1372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shelford VE (1931) Some concepts of bioecology. Ecology 12(3):455–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SPIP™ The scanning probe image processor. Image metrology. APS, Lyngby. http://www.imagemet.com/

  • Strahler AN (1952) Hypsometric (area-altitude) analysis of erosional topography. Bull Geol Soc Am 63:1117–1142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanson FJ, Kratz TK, Caine N, Woodmansee RG (1988) Landform effects on ecosystem patterns and processes. Bioscience 38(2):92–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor P, Fahrig L, Henein K, Merriam G (1993) Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68:571–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner MG (2005) Landscape ecology: what is the state of the science? Annu Rev Ecol Evol S 36:319–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulyshen MD, Hanula JL, Horn S, Kilgo JC, Moorman CE (2004) Spatial and temporal patterns of beetles associated with coarse woody debris in managed bottomland hardwood forests. Forest Ecol Manag 199(2–3):259–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urban D, Goslee S, Pierce K, Lookingbill T (2002) Extending community ecology to landscapes. Ecoscience 9(2):200–212

    Google Scholar 

  • VanDerWal J, Falconi L, Januchowski S, Shoo L, Storlie C. (2012) SDMTools: Species distribution modelling tools: Tools for processing data associated with species distribution modelling exercises. R package version 1.1-5. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/SDMTools. Accessed 15 Feb 2012

  • White RE (1983) Beetles: a field guide to the beetles of North America. Houghton Mifflin, Harcourt

    Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker RH (1967) Gradient analysis of vegetation. Biol Rev 49:207–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiens JA (1989) Spatial scaling in ecology. Funct Ecol 3(4):385–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson JP, Gallant JC (2000) Terrain analysis: principles and applications. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu J (2007) Scale and scaling: a cross-disciplinary perspective. In: Wu J, Hobbs RJ (eds) Key topics in landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wu J, Richard H (2002) Key issues and research priorities in landscape ecology: an idiosyncratic synthesis. Landscape Ecol 17:355–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yanega D (1996) Field guide to northeastern longhorned beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang S (2010) Landscape scaling and occupancy modelling with Indiana longhorrned beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Purdue University, Dissertation

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker N, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Mixed effects modelling for nested data. In: Gail M, Krickeberg K, Samet J, Tsiatis A, Wong W (eds) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New York, pp 101–142

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. Kevin McGarigal and Dr. Samuel Cushman for their feedback on the metrics used, Anders Kühle for the great technical support with the SPIP™ program, and Jeremy VanDerWal for help in implementing the SDMtools package in R. Three very helpful reviews helped us improve the analysis and the text. Insu Koh performed the random walk analysis to determine landscape shape. Kapil Raje, John Shukle and Tommy Mager helped with field collections. This research was supported by a governmental general mission scholarship administrated by the Egyptian Cultural and Education Bureau, Washington, DC, and by the Department of Entomology at Purdue University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Entomology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA

    Hossam Eldien M. Abdel Moniem & Jeffrey D. Holland

  2. Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, 41522, Egypt

    Hossam Eldien M. Abdel Moniem

Authors
  1. Hossam Eldien M. Abdel Moniem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeffrey D. Holland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeffrey D. Holland.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 16 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Abdel Moniem, H.E.M., Holland, J.D. Habitat connectivity for pollinator beetles using surface metrics. Landscape Ecol 28, 1251–1267 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9886-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9886-9

Keywords

search

Navigation