Connecting models to movements: testing connectivity model predictions against empirical migration and dispersal data
- 909 Downloads
Connectivity has become a top conservation priority in response to landscape fragmentation. Many methods have been developed to identify areas of the landscape with high potential connectivity for wildlife movement. However, each makes different assumptions that may produce different predictions, and few comparative tests against empirical movement data are available.
We compared predictive performance of the most-used connectivity models, cost-distance and circuit theory models. We hypothesized that cost-distance would better predict elk migration paths, while circuit theory would better predict wolverine dispersal paths, due to alignment of the methods’ assumptions with the movement ecology of each process.
We used each model to predict elk migration paths and wolverine dispersal paths in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, then used telemetry data collected from actual movements to assess predictive performance. Methods for validating connectivity models against empirical data have not been standardized, thus we applied and compared four alternative methods.
Our findings generally supported our hypotheses. Circuit theory models consistently predicted wolverine dispersal paths better than cost-distance, though cost-distance models predicted elk migration paths only slightly better than circuit theory. In most cases, our four validation methods supported similar conclusions, but provided complementary perspectives.
We reiterate suggestions that alignment of connectivity model assumptions with focal species movement ecology is an important consideration when selecting a modeling approach for conservation practice. Additional comparative tests are needed to better understand how relative model performance may vary across species, movement processes, and landscapes, and what this means for effective connectivity conservation.
KeywordsCervus elaphus Circuit theory Cost-distance Gulo gulo Least cost path Wildlife corridor
- Ament RA, McGowen P, McClure ML, Rutherford A, Ellis C, Grebenc J (2014) Highway mitigation for wildlife in Northwest Montana. Sonoran Institute, Bozeman. http://largelandscapes.org/media/publications/Highway-Mitigation-Wildlife-NW-Montana_1.pdf Google Scholar
- Bates W, Jones A (2007) Least-cost corridor analysis for evaluation of lynx habitat connectivity in the Middle Rockies. The Nature Conservancy, Salt Lake CityGoogle Scholar
- Cook J (2002) Nutrition and food. In: Toweill D, Thomas J (eds) North American elk: ecology and management. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C., pp 259–349Google Scholar
- Copeland JP, McKelvey KS, Aubry KB, Landa A, Persson J, Inman RM, Krebs J, Lofroth E, Golden H, Squires JR, Magoun A, Schwartz MK, Wilmot J, Copeland CL, Yates RE, Kojola I, May R (2010) The bioclimatic envelope of the wolverine (Gulo gulo): do climatic constraints limit its geographic distribution? Can J Zool 88:233–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Craighead L, Craighead A, Roberts EA (2001) Bozeman Pass wildlife linkage and highway safety study. Proceedings of the 2001 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, pp 405–422Google Scholar
- Despain D (1990) Yellowstone vegetation: consequences of environment and history in a natural setting. Roberts Rinehard Publishers Inc, BoulderGoogle Scholar
- Dingle H (1996) Migration: the biology of life on the move. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Frankel OH, Soule ME (1981) Nature reserves. In: Frankel OH, Soule ME (eds) Conservation and evolution. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 97–132Google Scholar
- Grigg JL (2007) Gradients of predation risk affect distribution and migration of a large herbivore. Montana State University, ThesisGoogle Scholar
- Ims RA (1995) Movement patterns related to spatial structures. Mosaic landscapes and ecological processes. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 85–109Google Scholar
- Inman RM, Brock BL, Inman KH, Sartorius SS, Aber BC, Giddings B, Cain SL, Orme ML, Fredrick JA, Oakleaf BJ, Alt KL, Odell E, Chapron G (2013) Developing priorities for metapopulation conservation at the landscape scale: wolverines in the Western United States. Biol Conserv 166:276–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Inman RM, Packila ML, Inman KH, Aber B, Spence R, McCauley D (2009) Greater Yellowstone Wolverine Program Progress Report. Ennis, MontanaGoogle Scholar
- Inman RM, Packila ML, Inman KH, McCue AJ, White GC, Persson J, Aber BC, Orme ML, Alt KL, Cain SL, Fredrick JA, Oakleaf BJ, Sartorius SS (2012) Spatial ecology of wolverines at the southern periphery of distribution. J Wildl Manag 76:778–792Google Scholar
- Irwin L (2002) Migration. In: Toweill DE, Thomas JW (eds) North American elk: Ecology and Management. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C., pp 493–513Google Scholar
- Krosby M, Breckheimer I, Pierce DJ, Singleton PH, Hall SA, Halupka KC, Gaines WL, Long RA, McRae BH, Cosentino BL, Schuett-Hames JP (2015) Focal species and landscape “naturalness” corridor models offer complementary approaches for connectivity conservation planning. Landscape Ecol 30(10):2121–2132Google Scholar
- Lohr SL (2010) Sampling: Design and Analysis. Brooks/Cole, BostonGoogle Scholar
- McRae B, Shah V (2009) Circuitscape user guide. University of California, Santa BarbaraGoogle Scholar
- Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks (2011) Montana Connectivity Project: a statewide analysis. Final report. Helena, MontanaGoogle Scholar
- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (2007) Western Regional Climate Center. Historic temperature and precipitation data for Ennis, Montana, 1948–2006. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/index.html. Accessed Jan 2007
- Pinheiro J, Bates D, Debroy S, Sarkar D, R Core Team (2013) nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1-122. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/nlme/nlme.pdf
- R Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. https://www.R-project.org
- Rainey M (2012) Validating alternative methods of modeling wildlife corridors using relocation data from migrating elk and dispersing wolverines. Dissertation, Montana State UniversityGoogle Scholar
- Walker R, Craighead L (1997) Analyzing wildlife movement corridors in Montana using GIS. In: ESRI user conference, San Diego, pp 8–11Google Scholar
- Washington Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Working Group (2010) Washington connected landscapes project: statewide analysis. Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife, and Transportation, Olympia. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01324/wdfw01324.pdf