Landscape Ecology

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 177–185 | Cite as

The importance of patch attributes and context to the management and recovery of an endangered lagomorph

  • Elizabeth Forys
  • Stephen R. Humphrey


We investigated the role of patch attributes and context on patch occupancy of the Lower Keys marsh rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris hefneri). The Lower Keys marsh rabbit is a federally endangered lagomorph endemic to the Lower Keys of Florida. The marsh rabbit occurs in subpopulations on patches of high marsh that interact to form a metapopulation. Between March 1991 and July 1993, all known patches of high marsh in the Lower Keys were surveyed for presence or absence of marsh rabbit pellets three times per year. Of the 59 habitat patches, 20 had pellets present during all of the surveys (occupied patches), 22 had pellets present during at least one survey (variable patches), and 17 never had any pellets present (empty). Ten variables were measured at each of the 59 patches; seven of these variables concerned attributes of the patch (food, cover, patch size), and three were patch context variables (distance of patch to other patches, distance of patch to other features). Two discriminant function analysis (DFA) were performed. The first DFA compared empty patches to occupied patches (both variably and consistently occupied). Patch isolation explained the most variation in patch occupancy followed by area. The second DFA compared the variably occupied sites with the consistently occupied sites, and patch attributes variables involving the type and height of vegetation were significant. Management efforts for the Lower Keys marsh rabbit should be aimed at both improving habitat quality and decreasing distance between patches.

Lower Keys marsh rabbit Sylvilagus palustris hefneri Lower Keys of Florida metapopulation structure patch occupancy patch attributes patch context habitat quality discriminant function analysis 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. ARC/INFO, Environmental Systems Research Institute, 1990. ARC/info User's Guide, Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, California. 124 p.Google Scholar
  2. Brown, J.H. and Kodric-Brown, A. 1977. Turnover rates in insular biogeography: effects of immigration on extinction. Ecology 58: 445–449.Google Scholar
  3. Canfield, R.H. 1941. Application of the line intercept method in sampling range vegetation. J For 39: 388–394.Google Scholar
  4. Capen, D.E., Fenwich, J.W., Inkley, D.B. and Boynton, A.C. 1986. Multivariate models of songbird habitat in New England forests. In Wildlife 2000: Modeling Habitat Relationships of Terrestrial Vertebrates. pp. 171–176. Edited by J. Verner, M.L. Morrison, and C.J. Ralph. University of Wisconsin Press, Wisconsin.Google Scholar
  5. Chapman, J.A. and Flux, J.E.C. 1990. Introduction and overview of the order Lagomorpha. In Rabbits, Hares and Pikas: Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. pp. 1–6. Edited by J.A. Chapman and J.E. C. Flux. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  6. Chen, E. and Gerber, J.F. 1990. Climate. In Ecosystems of Florida. pp. 11–34. Edited by R. L. Myers and J.J. Ewel. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando, Florida.Google Scholar
  7. Dobson, F.S. and Jones, W.T. 1985. Multiple causes of dispersal. Am Nat 126: 855–858.Google Scholar
  8. Dunson, W. A. and Lazell, J. D. Jr. 1982. Urinary concentrating capacity of Rattus rattus and other mammals from the Lower Florida Keys. Comp Biochem Physiol: 17–21.Google Scholar
  9. Forys, E. A. 1995. Metapopulations of marsh rabbits: a population viability analysis of the Lower Keys marsh rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris hefneri). Ph.D. Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville. 244 pp.Google Scholar
  10. Forys, E. A. and Humphrey, S. R. 1996. Spatial organization of the endangered Lower Keys marsh rabbit in a highly fragmented environment. J Mammal 77: 1042–1048.Google Scholar
  11. Forys, E. A. and Humphrey, S. R. 1997. Comparison of 2 methods to estimate density of an endangered lagomorph. JWildl Manage 61: 86–92.Google Scholar
  12. Gilpin, M. E. and Soulé, M. E. 1986. Minimum viable populations: processes of species extinction. In Conservation Biology: The Science of Scarcity and Diversity. pp. 19–34. Edited by M. E. Soulé. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  13. Gotelli, N. J. 1991. Metapopulation models: The rescue effect, the propagule rain, and the core-satellite hypothesis. Am Nat 138: 768–776.Google Scholar
  14. Gottfried, B. M. 1982. A seasonal analysis of small mammal populations on woodlot islands. Can J Zool 60: 1660–1664.Google Scholar
  15. Gutzwiller, K. J. and Anderson, S. H. 1987. Multiscale associations between cavity-nesting birds and features of Wyoming streamside woodlands. Condor 89: 534–548.Google Scholar
  16. Gutzwiller, K. J. and Anderson, S. H. 1992. Interception of moving organisms: influences of patch shape, size, and orientation on community structure. Landsc Ecol 6: 293–303.Google Scholar
  17. Hanski, I. 1982. Dynamics of regional distribution: the core and satellite species hypothesis. Oikos 38: 210–221.Google Scholar
  18. Hanski, I. 1991. Single species metapopulation systematics: concepts, models and observations. Biol J Linn Soc 42: 17–38.Google Scholar
  19. Hanski, I. and Gilpin, M. 1991. Metapopulation dynamics: Brief history and conceptual domain. Biol J Linn Soc 42: 3–16.Google Scholar
  20. Hanski, I., Kuussaari, M. and Nieminen, M. 1994. Metapopulation structure and migration in the butterfly Melitaea cinxia. Ecology 75: 747–762.Google Scholar
  21. Harrison, S. 1994. Metapopulations and conservation. In Largescale Ecology and Conservation Biology. pp. 89–103. Edited by P. J. Edwards, R. M. May and N. R. Webb. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, England.Google Scholar
  22. Henderson, M. T., Merriam, G., and Wegner, J. 1985. Patchy environments and species survival: chipmunks in an agricultural mosaic. Biol Con 31: 95–105.Google Scholar
  23. Holt, R. D. 1993. The influence of regional processes on local communities. In Ecological Communities: Historical and Geologic Perspectives. pp. 77–88. Edited by R. E. Ricklefs and D. Schluter. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  24. Lachenbruch, P.A. 1975. Discriminant Analysis. Hafner, New York. 128 pp.Google Scholar
  25. Lamberson, R. H., McKelvey, K., Noon, B. R. and Voss, C. 1992. A dynamic analysis of the northern spotted owl viability in a fragmented forest landscape. Con Biol 6: 505–512.Google Scholar
  26. Levins, R. 1970. Extinctions. In Some Mathematical Questions in Biology, Vol. 2. pp. 77–107. Lectures on Mathematics in the Life Sciences. Amer Math Soc, Providence, Rhode Island.Google Scholar
  27. Morrison, D. F. 1976. Multivariate Statistical Methods. Second Edition. McGraw-Hill, New York, New York, 415 pp.Google Scholar
  28. Pietz, P J. and Tester, J. R. 1983. Habitat selection by snowshoe hares in North Central Minnesota. J Wildl Manage 47: 686–696.Google Scholar
  29. SAS. 1988. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Release 6.03 Edition. SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, USA.Google Scholar
  30. Shannon, C. E. and Weaver, W. 1949. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. 125 pp.Google Scholar
  31. Simonetti, J. A. and Fuentes, E. R. 1982. Microhabitat use by European rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) in Central Chile: Are adult and juvenile patterns the same? Oecologia 54: 55–57.Google Scholar
  32. Tomkins, I. R. 1935. The marsh rabbit: an incomplete life history. J Mammal 16: 201–205.Google Scholar
  33. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; endangered status for the Lower Keys rabbit and threatened status for the Squirrel Chimney cave shrimp. Federal Register 55(120): 25588–25591.Google Scholar
  34. van Apeldoorn, R. C. Oostenbrink, W. T., van Winden, A. and van der Zee, F. F. 1992. Effects of habitat fragmentation on the bank vole, Clethrionomys glareolus, in a agricultural landscape. Oikos 65: 265–274.Google Scholar
  35. Verboom, J., Lankester, K. and Metz, J. A. J. 1991. Linking local and regional dynamics in stochastic metapopulation models. Biol J Linn Soc 42: 39–55.Google Scholar
  36. Verboom, B. and van Apeldoorn, R. 1990. Effects of habitat fragmentation on the red squirrel, Sciurus vulgaris L. Landsc Ecol 4: 171–176.Google Scholar
  37. Villard, M. A., Freemark, K. and Merriam, G. 1989. Metapopulation theory and neotropical migrant birds in temperate forests: an empirical investigation. In Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Migrant Landbirds. pp. 474–482. Edited by J. M. Hagen, III and D.W. Johnston. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  38. Wood, D. H. 1988. Estimating rabbit density by counting dung pellets. Austral Wildl Res 15: 665–671.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elizabeth Forys
    • 1
  • Stephen R. Humphrey
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Wildlife Ecology and ConservationUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  2. 2.College of Natural Resources and EnvironmentUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations