Landscape Ecology

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 233–245 | Cite as

Landscape patterns as habitat predictors: building and testing models for cavity-nesting birds in the Uinta Mountains of Utah, USA

  • Joshua J. Lawler
  • Thomas C. Edwards


The ability to predict species occurrences quickly is often crucial for managers and conservation biologists with limited time and funds. We used measured associations with landscape patterns to build accurate predictive habitat models that were quickly and easily applied (i.e., required no additional data collection in the field to make predictions). We used classification trees (a nonparametric alternative to discriminant function analysis, logistic regression, and other generalized linear models) to model nesting habitat of red-naped sapsuckers (Sphyrapicus nuchalis), northern flickers (Colaptes auratus),tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor), and mountain chickadees (Parus gambeli) in the Uinta Mountains of northeastern Utah, USA. We then tested the predictive capability of the models with independent data collected in the field the following year. The models built for the northern flicker, red-naped sapsucker, and tree swallow were relatively accurate (84%, 80%, and 75% nests correctly classified,respectively)compared to the models for the mountain chickadee (50% nests correctly classified). All four models were more selective than a null model that predicted habitat based solely on a gross association with aspen forests. We conclude that associations with landscape patterns can be used to build relatively accurate, easy to use, predictive models for some species. Our results stress, however, that both selecting the proper scale at which to assess landscape associations and empirically testing the models derived from those associations are crucial for building useful predictive models.

Habitat mapping Habitat models Mountain chickadee Nest-site selection Northern flicker Prediction Red-naped sapsucker Tree swallow 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Brawn J.D. and Balda R.P. 1988. Population biology of cavity nesters in northern Arizona: do nest sites limit breeding densities? Condor 90: 61-71.Google Scholar
  2. Breiman L., Friedman J.H., Olshen R.A. and Stone C.J. 1984. Classification and regression trees. Wadsworth and Brooks/Cole, Monterey, California, USA.Google Scholar
  3. Cody M.L. 1985. Habitat selection in birds. Academic Press, San Diego, California, USA.Google Scholar
  4. Conner R.N. and Adkisson C.S. 1977. Principal component analysis of woodpecker habitat. Wilson Bulletin 89: 122-129.Google Scholar
  5. De'ath G. and Fabricius K.E. 2000. Classification and regression trees: a powerful yet simple technique for ecological data analysis. Ecology 81: 3178-3192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dobkin D.S., Rich A.C., Pretare J.A. and Pyle W.H. 1995. Nest-site relationships among cavity-nesting birds of riparian and snowpocket aspen woodlands in the Northwestern Great Basin. Condor 97: 694-707.Google Scholar
  7. Dunning J.B. 1993. CRC handbook of avian body masses. CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton, Florida, USA.Google Scholar
  8. Edwards T.C., Deshler E.T., Foster D. and Moisen G.G. 1996. Adequacy of wildlife habitat relation models for estimating spatial distributions of terrestrial vertebrates. Conservation Biology 10: 263-270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ehrlich P.R. and Daily G.C. 1988. Red-naped Sapsuckers feeding at willows: possible keystone herbivores. American Birds 42: 357-365.Google Scholar
  10. Evans K.E. and Conner R.N. 1979. Snag management. In: DeGraaf R.M. and Evans K.E. (eds), Management of north central and northeastern forests for nongame birds. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NC-51., pp. 214-225.Google Scholar
  11. Fielding A.H. and Bell J.F. 1997. A review of methods for the assessment if prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environmental Conservation 24: 38-49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fielding A.H. and Haworth P.F. 1995. Testing the generality of bird habitat models. Conservation Biology 9: 1466-1481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bird populations of aspen forests in western North America Flack J.A.D. 1976..Google Scholar
  14. Freemark K.E., Dunning J.B., Hejl S.J. and Probst J.R. 1995. A landscape ecology perspective for research, conservation, and management. In: Martin T.E. and Finch D.M. (eds), Ecology and management of Neotropical migrant birds. Oxford University Press, New York, USA, pp. 381-421.Google Scholar
  15. Freemark K.E. and Merriam H.G. 1986. Importance of area and habitat heterogeneity to bird assemblages in temperate forest fragments. Biological Conservation 36: 115-141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Hansen A.J. and diCastri F. 1992. Landscape boundaries: consequences for biotic diversity and ecological flows. Ecological Studies 92. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  18. Hawrot R.Y. and Niemi G.J. 1996. Effects of edge type and patch shape on avian communities in a mixed conifer-hardwood forest. Auk 113: 586-598.Google Scholar
  19. Hildén O. 1965. Habitat selection in birds. Annales Zoologici Fennici 2: 53-75.Google Scholar
  20. Karl J.W., Wright N.W., Heglund P.J. and Scott J.M. 1999. Obtaining environmental measures to facilitate vertebrate habitat modeling. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27: 357-365.Google Scholar
  21. Laudenslayer W.F. and Balda R.P. 1976. Breeding bird use of a pinyon-juniper-ponderosa pine ecotone. Auk 93: 571-586.Google Scholar
  22. McGarigal K., and Marks B. 1993. FRAGSTATS, spatial analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest-General Technical Report PW-351. USDA Forest Service, Portland, Oregon, USA.Google Scholar
  23. Peterson A.T. and Cohoon K.P. 1999. Sensitivity of distributional prediction algorithms to geographic completeness. Ecological Modelling 117: 159-164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Raphael M.G. and Marcot B.G. 1986. Validation of a wildlife-habitat-relationships model: vertebrates in a Douglas-fir sere. In: Hagan J.W. and Johnson D.W. (eds), Ecology and conservation of Neotropical migrant birds. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D.C., USA, pp. 129-144.Google Scholar
  25. Raphael M.G. and White M. 1984. Use of snags by cavity-nesting birds in the Sierra Nevada. Wildlife Monographs 86: 1-66.Google Scholar
  26. Rendell W.B. and Robertson R.J. 1990. Influence of forest edge on nest-site selection by Tree Swallows. Wilson Bulletin 102: 634-644.Google Scholar
  27. Robertson R.J., Sutchbury B.J. and Cohen R.R. 1992. Tree Swallow. In: Poole A., Stettenheim P. and Gill F. (eds), The birds of North America, no. 11. The Academy of Natural Sciences; The American Ornithologists' Union, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., USA, pp. 1-28.Google Scholar
  28. Robinson S.K. 1992. Population dynamics of breeding Neotropical migrants in a fragmented Illinois landscape. In: Hagan J.M. and Johnston D.W. (eds), Ecology and conservation of Neotropical migrant land birds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., USA, pp. 408-418.Google Scholar
  29. Salwasser H. 1982. California's wildlife information system and its application to resource decisions. Cal-Neva Wildlife Transactions: 34-39.Google Scholar
  30. Gap analysis: a geographic approach to protection of biological diversity Scott M.J., Davis F., Csuti B., Noss R., Butterfield B., Groves C. et al. 1993..Google Scholar
  31. S-PLUS 4.3 1998. Professional release 2. Math-soft Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.Google Scholar
  32. Stauffer D.F. and Best L.B. 1986. Effects of habitat type and sample size on habitat suitability index models. In: Verner J., Morrison M.L. and Ralph C.J. (eds), Wildlife 2000: modeling habitat relationships of terrestrial vertebrates. University ofWisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, pp. 71-91.Google Scholar
  33. US Fish and Wildlife Service 1981. Standards for the development of suitability index models. Ecological Services Manual 103. United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Ecological Services. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  34. Van Horne B. and Wiens J.A. 1991. Forest bird habitat suitability models and the development of general habitat models. Fish Wildlife Research 8. US Fish and Wildlife Service.Google Scholar
  35. Venables W.N. and Ripley B.D. 1997. Modern applied statistics with S-PLUS. 2nd edn. Springer, New York, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  36. Verner J. and Boss A.S. 1980. California wildlife and their habitats: western Sierra Nevada. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, General Technical Report PSW-37. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experimental Station, Berkeley, California, USA.Google Scholar
  37. Verner J., Morrison M.L. and Ralph C.J. 1986. Wildlife 2000: modeling habitat relationships of terrestrial vertebrates. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.Google Scholar
  38. Wiens J.A. 1989. Spatial scaling in ecology. Functional Ecology 3: 385-397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wilcove D.S. 1985. Nest predation in forest tracts and the decline of migratory songbirds. Ecology 66: 1211-1214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Winternitz B.L. 1980. Birds in aspen. In: Management of western forests and grasslands for nongame birds. USDA General Technical Report INT-86. Intermountain Forest and Range Station, Ogden, Utah, USA, pp. 247-257 Management of western forests and grasslands for nongame birds. USDA General Technical Report INT-86. Intermountain Forest and Range Station, Ogden, Utah, USA.Google Scholar
  41. With K.A. 1994. Using fractal analysis to assess how species perceive landscape structure. Landscape Ecology 9: 25-36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zweig M.H. and Campbell G. 1993. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clinical Chemistry 39: 561-577.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joshua J. Lawler
    • 1
  • Thomas C. Edwards
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Fisheries and Wildlife and The Ecology CenterUtah State UniversityLoganUSA
  2. 2.USGS Biological Resources Division Utah Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research UnitUtah State UniversityLoganUSA

Personalised recommendations