Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 30, Issue 4, pp 715–728 | Cite as

Testing the relevance of binary, mosaic and continuous landscape conceptualisations to reptiles in regenerating dryland landscapes

  • Melissa J. BrutonEmail author
  • Martine Maron
  • Noam Levin
  • Clive A. McAlpine
Research Article

Abstract

Context

Fauna distributions are assessed using discrete (binary and mosaic) or continuous conceptualisations of the landscape. The value of the information derived from these analyses depends on the relevance of the landscape representation (or model) used to the landscape and fauna of interest. Discrete representations dominate analyses of landscape context in disturbed and regenerating landscapes; however within-patch variation suggests that continuous representations may help explain the distribution of fauna in such landscapes.

Objectives

We tested the relevance of binary, mosaic, and continuous conceptualisations of landscape context to reptiles in regenerating dryland landscapes.

Methods

For each of thirteen reptile groups, we compared the fit of models consisting of one landscape composition and one landscape heterogeneity variable for each of six landscape representations (2× binary, 2× mosaic, and 2× continuous), at three buffer distances. We used Akaike weights to assess the relative support for each model. Maps were created from Landsat satellite images.

Results

Reptiles varied in their response to landscape context; however, the binary landscape representation with classes ‘intact/disturbed’ was best supported overall. Species richness was best described by a binary landscape representation with classes ‘wooded/clear’, whereas reptile abundance was best described by a mosaic landscape representation with classes defined by vegetation type. Five out of ten reptile species responded strongly to a single landscape representation, with the most relevant representation and conceptualisation varying among species.

Conclusions

Our findings support the use of multiple landscape conceptualisations and representations during analyses of landscape context for fauna in regenerating landscapes.

Keywords

Australia Biodiversity conservation Landscape context Land management Landsat Landscape gradient model Queensland Remote sensing Scale 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Australia Zoo for allowing access to their private conservation reserve, and for providing long-term field accommodation facilities and support for this project. The Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland and Warroo-Balonne Landcare provided supplementary funding for the field component of this research. All procedures were carried out with approval from The University of Queensland Animal Ethics Committee (GPEM/187/10) and a Queensland Environment Protection Agency permit (WISP07547310).

Supplementary material

10980_2015_157_MOESM1_ESM.docx (30 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 30 kb)

References

  1. Amici V, Geri F, Battisti C (2010) An integrated method to create habitat suitability models for fragmented landscapes. J Nat Conserv 18:215–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson DR (2008) Model based inference in the life sciences: a primer on evidence. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andruskiw M, Fryxell JM, Thompson ID, Baker JA (2008) Habitat-mediated variation in predation risk by the American marten. Ecology 89:2273–2280CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Beck DD (1995) Ecology and energetics of three sympatric rattlesnake species in the Sonoran Desert. J Herpetol 29(2):211–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett AF, Radford JQ, Haslem A (2006) Properties of land mosaics: implications for nature conservation in agricultural environments. Biol Conserv 133:250–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boser BE, Guyon IM, Vapnik VN (1992) A training algorithm for optimal margin classifiers. In: Haussler D (ed) Proceedings of the 5th annual ACM workshop on computational learning theory, ACM Press, Pittsburgh, PA 1992, p. 144–152Google Scholar
  7. Bowen ME, McAlpine CA, House APN, Smith GC (2007) Regrowth forests on abandoned agricultural land: a review of their habitat values for recovering forest fauna. Biol Conserv 140:273–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bruton MJ, McAlpine CA, Maron M (2013) Regrowth woodlands are valuable habitat for reptile communities. Biol Conserv 165:95–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer Science+Business Media, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Burnham KP, Anderson DR, Huyvaert KP (2011) AIC model selection and multimodel inference in behavioral ecology: some background, observations, and comparisons. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:23–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 20:37–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cooke CN, Carter RW, Fuller RA, Hockings M (2012) Managers consider multiple lines of evidence important for biodiversity management decisions. J Environ Manag 113:341–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. R Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  14. Cunningham RB, Lindenmayer DB, Crane M, Michael D, MacGregor C (2007) Reptile and arboreal marsupial response to replanted vegetation in agricultural landscapes. Ecol Appl 17:609–619CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Edwards GP, de Preu N, Crealy IV, Shakeshaft BJ (2002) Habitat selection by feral cats and dingoes in a semi-arid woodland environment in central Australia. Austral Ecol 27:26–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fahrig L, Baudry J, Brotons L, Burel FG, Crist TO, Fuller RJ, Sirami C, Siriwardena GM, Martin JL (2011) Functional landscape heterogeneity and animal biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Ecol Lett 13:101–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2006) Beyond fragmentation: the continuum model for fauna research and conservation in human-modified landscapes. Oikos 112:473–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fischer J, Lindenmayer D (2007) Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: a synthesis. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 16:265–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fischer J, Lindenmayer D, Fazey I (2004a) Appreciating ecological complexity: habitat contours as a conceptual landscape model. Conserv Biol 18:1245–1253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fischer J, Lindenmayer D, Cowling A (2004b) The challenge of managing multiple species at multiple scales: reptiles in an Australian grazing landscape. J Appl Ecol 41:32–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB, Barry S, Flowers E (2005) Lizard distribution patterns in the Tumut fragmentation ‘‘Natural Experiment’’ in south-eastern Australia. Biol Conserv 123:301–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fitch HS (1955) Habits and adaptations of the great plains skink (Eumeces obsoletus). Ecol Monogr 25:59–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Franklin JF, Lindenmayer DB (2009) Importance of matrix habitats in maintaining biological diversity. PNAS 106:349–350CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Guarino F (2002) Spatial ecology of a large carnivorous lizard, Varanus varius (Squamata: Varanidae). J Zool 258:449–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Guerschman JP, Hill MJ, Renzullo LJ, Barrett DJ, Marks AS, Botha EJ (2009) Estimating fractional cover of photosynthetic vegetation, non-photosynthetic vegetation and bare soil in the Australian tropical savanna region upscaling the EO-1 Hyperion and MODIS sensors. Remote Sens Environ 113:928–945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hansson L, Fahrig L, Merriam G (1995) Mosaic landscapes and ecological processes. Chapman & Hall, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hoechstetter S, Walz U, Thinh NX (2011) Adapting lacunarity techniques for gradient-based analyses of landscape surfaces. Ecol Complex 8:229–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hsu CW, Chang CC, Lin CJ (2010) A practical guide to support vector classification. National Taiwan University, TaipeiGoogle Scholar
  29. Ismail N, Jemain AA (2007) Handling overdispersion with negative binomial and generalized poisson regression models. Casualty Actuar Soc Forum Winter:103–158Google Scholar
  30. Jackman S (2013) pscl: Political Science Computational Laboratory Version 1.04.4. Version 1.04.4 ed. http://cran.r-project.org
  31. Kitchener DJ, How RA, Dell J (1988) Biology of Oedura reticulata and Gehyra variegata (Gekkonidae) in an isolated woodland of Western Australia. J Herpetol 22:401–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Levin N, Heimowitz A (2012) Mapping spatial and temporal patterns of Mediterranean wildfires from MODIS. Remote Sens Environ 126:12–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Levin N, McAlpine C, Phinn S, Price B, Pullar D, Kavanagh RP, Law BS (2009) Mapping forest patches and scattered trees from SPOT images and testing their ecological importance for woodland birds in a fragmented agricultural landscape. Int J Remote Sens 30:3147–3169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Leyequien E, Verrelst J, Slot M, Schaepman-Strub G, Heitkonig IMA, Skidmore A (2007) Capturing the fugitive: applying remote sensing to terrestrial animal distribution and diversity. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 9:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lindenmayer DB, Likens GE (2009) Adaptive monitoring: a new paradigm for long-term research and monitoring. Trends Ecol Evol 24:482–486CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Lindenmayer DB, Fischer J, Hobbs R (2007) The need for pluralism in landscape models: a reply to Dunn and Majer. Oikos 116:1419–1421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lindenmayer DB, Wood JT, MacGregor C, Michael DR, Cunningham RB, Crane M, Montague-Drake R, Brown D, Muntz R, Driscoll DA (2008) How predictable are reptile responses to wildfire? Oikos 117:1086–1097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Loehle C, Wigley TB, Shipman PA, Fox SF, Rutzmoser S, Thill RE, Melchiors MA (2005) Herpetofaunal species richness responses to forest landscape structure in Arkansas. For Ecol Manag 209:293–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Manning AD, Lindenmayer DB, Nix HA (2004) Continua and Umwelt: novel perspectives on viewing landscapes. Oikos 104:621–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McElhinny C, Gibbons JW, Brack C, Bauhus J (2006) Fauna-habitat relationships: a basis for identifying key stand structural attributes in temperate Australian eucalypt forests and woodlands. Pac Conserv Biol 12:89–110Google Scholar
  41. McGarigal K, Tagil S, Cushman SA (2009) Surface metrics: an alternative to patch metrics for the quantification of landscape structure. Landscape Ecol 24:433–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McIntyre S, Barrett GW (1992) Habitat variegation, an alternative to fragmentation. Conserv Biol 6:146–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McIntyre S, Hobbs R (1999) A framework for conceptualizing human effects on landscapes and its relevance to management and research models. Conserv Biol 13:1282–1292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Moses T, Holland PW (2010) A comparison of statistical selection strategies for univariate and bivariate log-linear models. Br J Math Stat Psychol 63:557–574CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Nagendra H, Lucas R, Honrado JP, Jongman RH, Tarantino C, Adamo M, Mairota P (2013) Remote sensing for conservation monitoring: assessing protected areas, habitat extent, habitat condition, species diversity, and threats. Ecol Indic 33:45–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Neldner VJ, Wilson BA, Thompson EJ, Dillewaard HA (2012) Methodology for survey and mapping of regional ecosystems and vegetation communities in Queensland, Version 3.2. Department of Science Information Technology Innovation and the Arts. Queensland Government, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  47. Newsome TM, Ballard GA, Dickman CR, Fleming PJS, Howden C (2013) Anthropogenic resource subsidies determine space use by Australian arid zone dingoes: an improved resource selection modelling approach. PLoS One 8:e63931CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Parkes T, Delaney M, Dunphy M, Woodford R, Bower H, Bower S, Bailey D, Joseph R, Nagle J, Roberts T, Lymburner S (2012) Big Scrub: a cleared landscape in transition back to forest? Ecol Manag Restor 13:212–223Google Scholar
  49. Pianka ER, Pianka HD (1976) Comparative ecology of twelve species of nocturnal lizards (Gekkonidae) in the Western Australian desert. Copeia 1976:125–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pike DA, Webb JK, Shine R (2011a) Chainsawing for conservation: ecologically informed tree removal for habitat management. Ecol Manag Restor 12:110–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pike DA, Webb JK, Shine R (2011b) Removing forest canopy cover restores a reptile assemblage. Ecol Appl 21:274–280CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Price B, McAlpine C, Kutt AS, Phinn SR, Pullar DV, Ludwig JA (2009) Continuum or discrete patch landscape models for savanna birds? Towards a pluralistic approach. Ecography 32:745–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Price B, Kutt AS, McAlpine CA (2010) The importance of fine-scale savanna heterogeneity for reptiles and small mammals. Biol Conserv 143:2504–2513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Queensland Government (2006a) Regional ecosystems 6.0. 6.0 edn. Department of environment and resource managementGoogle Scholar
  55. Queensland Government (2006b) Survey and mapping of pre-clearing vegetation communities and regional ecosystems version 6.0. 6.0 edn. Queensland Department of environment and resource managementGoogle Scholar
  56. Read JL (1998) The ecology of sympatric scincid lizards (Ctenotus) in arid South Australia. Aust J Zool 46:617–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Recio MR, Mathieu R, Hall GB, Moore AB, Seddon PJ (2013) Landscape resource mapping for wildlife research using very high resolution satellite imagery. Methods in Ecology and Evolution (in press)Google Scholar
  58. Rittenhouse CD, Shifley SR, Dijak WD, Fan Z, Thompson WD III, Millspaugh JJ, Perez JA, Sandeno CM (2011) Application of landscape and habitat suitability models to conservation: the Hosier National forest land-management plan. In: Li C, Lafortezza R, Chen J (eds) Landscape ecology in forest management and conservation: challenges and solutions for global change. Higher Education Press/Springer-Verlag, Beijing, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 299–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sarre SD (1998) Demographics and population persistence of Gehyra variegata (Gekkonidae) following habitat fragmentation. J Herpetol 32:153–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sattler P, Williams R (eds) (1999) The conservation status of Queensland’s bioregional ecosystems. Environmental Protection Agency, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  61. Schutz AJ, Driscoll DA (2008) Common reptiles unaffected by connectivity or condition in a fragmented farming landscape. Austral Ecol 33:641–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Simbotwe MP (1984) Resource partitioning in a woodland reptile community of the Kafue flats, Zambia. Afr J Ecol 22:281–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Spence-Bailey LM, Nimmo DG, Kelly LT, Bennett AF, Clarke MF (2010) Maximising trapping efficiency in reptile surveys: the role of seasonality, weather conditions and moon phase on capture success. Wildl Res 37:104–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Stark RC, Fox SF, Leslie DMJ (2005) Male Texas horned lizards increase daily movements and area covered in spring: a mates searching strategy? J Herpetol 39:169–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tews J, Brose U, Grimm V, Tielbörger K, Wichmann MC, Schwager M, Jeltsch F (2004) Animal species diversity driven by habitat heterogeneity/diversity: the importance of keystone structures. J Biogeogr 31:79–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tucker CJ (1979) Red and photographic infrared linear combinations for monitoring vegetation. Remote Sens Environ 8:127–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. van Jaarsveld AS, Freitag S, Chown SL, Muller C, Koch S, Hull H, Bellamy C, Kruger M, Endrody-Younga S, Mansell MW, Scholtz CH (1998) Biodiversity assessment and conservation strategies. Science 279:2106–2109Google Scholar
  68. Wall M, Shine R (2013) Ecology and behaviour of Burton’s legless lizard (Lialis burtonis, Pygopodidae) in tropical Australia. Asian Herpetol Res 4:9–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wilson SK, Knowles DG (1988) Australia’s reptiles: a photographic reference to the terrestrial reptiles of Australia. Collins Publishers Australia, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  70. With KA (1994) Using fractal analysis to assess how species perceive landscape structure. Landscape Ecol 9:25–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Yang X, Fu B, Chen L (2013) Remote sensing and geospatial analysis for landscape pattern characterization. In: Fu B, Jones KB (eds) Landscape ecology for sustainable environment and culture. Springer, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Melissa J. Bruton
    • 1
    Email author
  • Martine Maron
    • 1
    • 2
  • Noam Levin
    • 1
    • 3
  • Clive A. McAlpine
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Landscape Ecology and Conservation Group, School of Geography, Planning and Environmental ManagementThe University of QueenslandSt. LuciaAustralia
  2. 2.ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental DecisionsThe University of QueenslandSt. LuciaAustralia
  3. 3.Department of GeographyHebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations