Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 219–231 | Cite as

Gap-crossing decisions by forest birds: an empirical basis for parameterizing spatially-explicit, individual-based models

  • Marc Bélisle
  • André Desrochers
Article

Abstract

Spatially-explicit, individual-based models are increasingly used to evaluate the effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on habitat use and population persistence. Yet, they are criticized on the basis that they rely on little empirical data, especially regarding decision rules of moving individuals. Here we report the results of an experiment measuring the gap-crossing decisions of forest birds attracted to a recording of chickadee(Poecile atricapillus) mobbing calls, and provided with options to travel to the speaker by either crossing an open area (short cut) or taking a longer route under forest cover (detour). We performed the experiment in winter and late summer near Québec City, Québec, Canada. We recorded 1078 travel paths from 6 resident and 12 migratory species in 249 experimental sites. In both seasons, birds preferred to travel under forest cover rather than cross open areas, even when the forested detour conveyed a substantially longer route than the short cut in the open. Only when the detour under forest cover. This was considerably longer than the short-cut in the open, in both relative and absolute terms, were birds more likely to take short cuts, indicating that gap-crossing decisions are scale dependent. However, birds rarely ventured >25 m from forest edges despite having the opportunity to do so. Except for Hairy Woodpeckers (Picoides villosus) which ventured further into the open, all species showed similar gap-crossing decisions. Residents remained marginally closer to forest edges in late summer as compared to in winter. Conspecific group size had no influence on gap-crossing decisions. This experiment supports the hypothesis that forest bird movements are constrained in fragmented landscapes, and provides opportunities to calibrate spatially-explicit, individual-based models addressing the influence of landscape composition and configuration on dispersal.

Connectivity Corridor Dispersal Forest birds Fragmentation Habitat loss Movement Playback experiment Spatially-explicit models 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anders A.D., Faaborg J. and Thompson F.R. 1998. Postfledging dispersal, habitat use, and home-range size of juvenile Wood Thrushes. Auk 115: 349-358.Google Scholar
  2. Baillie S.R., Sutherland W.J., Freeman S.N., Gregory R.D. and Paradis E. 2000. Consequences of large-scale processes for the conservation of bird populations. Journal of Applied Ecology 37: 88-102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bart J. 1995. Acceptance criteria for using individual-based models to make management decisions. Ecological Applications 5: 411-420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beauchamp G., Bélisle M. and Giraldeau L.-A. 1997. Influence of conspecific attraction on the spatial distribution of learning foragers in a patchy habitat. Journal of Animal Ecology 66: 671-682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beier P. and Noss R.F. 1998. Do habitat corridors provide connectivity? Conservation Biology 12: 1241-1252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bélanger L. and Grenier M. 1998. Importance et causes de la fragmentation forestière dans les agroécosystèmes du sud du Québec. Série de rapport technique numéro 327. Direction de la conservation de l'environnement, Service canadien de la faune, région du Québec, Environnement Canada, Sainte-Foy, Québec, Canada.Google Scholar
  7. Bélisle M. and St. Clair C.C. 2001. Cumulative effects of barriers on the movements of forest birds. Conservation Ecology 5: 9.Google Scholar
  8. Bélisle M., Desrochers A. and Fortin M.-J. 2001. Influence of forest cover on the movements of forest birds: a homing experiment. Ecology 82: 1893-1904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bernstein C., Kacelnik A. and Krebs J.R. 1991. Individual decisions and the distribution of predators in a patchy environment. II. The influence of travel costs and structure of the environment. Journal of Animal Ecology 60: 205-225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brooker L., Brooker M. and Cale P. 1999. Animal dispersal in fragmented habitat: measuring habitat connectivity, corridor use, and dispersal mortality. Conservation Ecology 3: 4.Google Scholar
  11. Cohen J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Hillsdale, NJ, USA.Google Scholar
  12. Conroy M.J., Cohen Y., James F.C., Matsinos Y.G. and Maurer B.A. 1995. Parameter estimation, reliability, and model improvement for spatially explicit models of animal populations. Ecological Applications 5: 17-19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cresswell W. 1995. Selection of avian prey by wintering Sparrowhawks Accipiter nisus in southern Scotland. Ardea 83: 381-389.Google Scholar
  14. Curio E. 1978. The adaptive significance of avian mobbing I. Teleonomic hypotheses and predictions. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 48: 175-183.Google Scholar
  15. Curio E. and Regelmann K. 1985. The behavioural dynamics of Great Tits (Parus major) approaching a predator. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 69: 3-18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Danielson B.J. 1992. Habitat selection, interspecific interactions and landscape composition. Evolutionary Ecology 6: 399-411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Davies K., Margules C. and Lawrence J. 2000. Which traits of species predict population declines in experimental forest fragments? Ecology 81: 1450-1461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Desrochers A. and Fortin M.-J. 2000. Understanding avian responses to boundaries: a case study with chickadee winter flocks. Oikos 91: 376-384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Desrochers A. and Hannon S.J. 1997. Gap crossing decisions by forest songbirds during the post-fledging period. Conservation Biology 11: 1204-1210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Desrochers A., Hannon S.J. and Nordin K.E. 1988. Winter survival and territory acquisition in a northern population of Black-capped Chickadees. Auk 105: 727-736.Google Scholar
  21. Desrochers A., Hannon S.J., Bélisle M. and St. Clair C.C. 1999. Movement of songbirds in fragmented forests: Can we “scale up” from behaviour to explain occupancy patterns in the landscape. In: Adams N. and Slotow R. (eds), Acta XXII Congressus Internationalis Ornithologici. University of Natal, Durban, South Africa, pp. 2447-2464.Google Scholar
  22. Diffendorfer J. 1998. Testing models of source-sink dynamics and balanced dispersal. Oikos 81: 417-433.Google Scholar
  23. Dolby A.S. and Grubb T.C. 1999. Effects of winter weather on horizontal and vertical use of isolated forest fragments by bark-foraging birds. Condor 101: 408-412.Google Scholar
  24. Donovan T.M., Lamberson R.H., Kimber A., Thompson F.R. and Faaborg J. 1995a. Modelling the effects of habitat fragmentation on source and sink demography of neotropical migrant birds. Conservation Biology 9: 1396-1407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Donovan T.M., Thompson F.R., Faaborg J. and Probst J.R. 1995b. Reproductive success of migratory birds in habitat sources and sinks. Conservation Biology 9: 1380-1395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Drolet B., Desrochers A. and Fortin M.-J. 1999. Effects of landscape structure on nesting songbird distribution in a harvested boreal forest. Condor 101: 699-704.Google Scholar
  27. Dunning J.B. 1984. Body weights of 686 species of North American birds. Western Bird Banding Association,, Monograph no 1.Google Scholar
  28. Dunning J.B., Stewart D.J., Danielson B.J., Noon B.R., Root T.L., Lamberson R.H. et al. 1995. Spatially explicit population models: current forms and future uses. Ecological Applications 5: 3-11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fahrig L. and Merriam G. 1994. Conservation of fragmented populations. Conservation Biology 8: 50-59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fall A. and Fall J. 2001. A domain-specific language for models of landscape dynamics. Ecological Modelling 137: 1-21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Götmark F. and Post P. 1996. Prey selection by sparrowhawks, Accipiter nisus: relative predation risk for breeding passerine birds in relation to their size, ecology and behaviour. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B 351: 1559-1577.Google Scholar
  32. Götmark F. and Unger U. 1994. Are conspicuous birds profitable prey? Field experiments with hawks and stuffed prey species. Auk 111: 251-262.Google Scholar
  33. Grubb T.C. and Doherty P.F. 1999. On home-range gap-crossing. Auk 116: 618-628.Google Scholar
  34. Gunn J.S., Desrochers A., Villard M.-A., Bourque J. and Ibarzabal J. 2000. Playbacks of mobbing calls of Black-capped Chickadees as a method to estimate reproductive activity of forest birds. Journal of Field Ornithology 71: 472-483.Google Scholar
  35. Gustafson E.J. and Gardner R.H. 1996. The effect of landscape heterogeneity on the probability of patch colonization. Ecology 77: 94-107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hanski I. 1999. Metapopulation ecology. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  37. Harris R.J. and Reed J.M. 2001. Territorial movements of Black-throated Blue Warblers in a landscape fragmented by forestry. Auk 118: 544-549.Google Scholar
  38. Hinsley S.A. 2000. The costs of multiple patch use by birds. Landscape Ecology 15: 765-775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hurd C.R. 1996. Interspecific attraction to the mobbing calls of black-capped chickadees (Parus atricapillus). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 38: 287-292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ims R.A. 1995. Movement patterns related to spatial structures. In: Hansson L., Fahrig L. and Merriam G. (eds), Mosaic Landscapes and Ecological Processes. Chapman & Hall, London, UK, pp. 85-109.Google Scholar
  41. Ims R.A. and Yoccoz N.G. 1997. Studying transfer in metapopulations: emigration, migration and immigration. In: Hanski I. and Gilpin M. (eds), Metapopulation Biology: Ecology, Genetics, and Evolution. Academic Press, London, UK, pp. 247-265.Google Scholar
  42. Jonsen I.D. and Taylor P.D. 2000a. Fine-scale movement behaviors of calopterygid damselflies are influenced by landscape structure: an experimental manipulation. Oikos 88: 553-562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Jonsen I. and Taylor P.D. 2000b. Calopteryx damselfly dispersions arising from multiscale responses to landscape structure. Conservation Ecology 4: 4.Google Scholar
  44. Keitt T.H., Urban D.L. and Milne B.T. 1997. Detecting critical scales in fragmented landscapes. Conservation Ecology 1: 4.Google Scholar
  45. Kleinbaum D.G., Kupper L.L. and Muller K.E. 1988. Applied Regression Analysis and other Multivariable Methods. 2nd edn. Duxbury Press, Belmont, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  46. Kotliar N.B. and Wiens J.A. 1990. Multiple scales of patchiness and patch structure: a hierarchical framework for the study of heterogeneity. Oikos 59: 253-260.Google Scholar
  47. Lamberson R.H., Noon B.R., Voss C. and McKelvey K.S. 1994. Reserve design for territorial species: the effects of patch size and spacing on the viability of the Northern Spotted Owl. Conservation Biology 8: 185-195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Letcher B., Priddy J., Walters J. and Crowder L. 1998. An individual-based, spatially-explicit simulation model of the population dynamics of the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker, Picoides borealis. Biological Conservation 86: 1-14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lima S.L. and Dill L.M. 1990. Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Canadian Journal of Zoology 68: 619-640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lima S.L. and Zollner P.A. 1996. Towards a behavioral ecology of ecological landscapes. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11: 131-135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Matthysen E., Adriaensen F. and Dhondt A.A. 1995. Dispersal distances of nuthatches, Sitta europaea, in a highly fragmented forest habitat. Oikos 72: 375-381.Google Scholar
  52. McNamara J.M. and Houston A.I. 1990. The value of fat reserves and the tradeoff between starvation and predation. Acta Biotheoretica 38: 37-61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mooij W.M. and DeAngelis D.L. 1999. Error propagation in spatially explicit population models: a reassessment. Conservation Biology 13: 930-933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Peters R.H. 1991. A Critique for Ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  55. Porneluzi P.A. and Faaborg J. 1999. Season-long fecundity, survival, and viability of Ovenbirds in fragmented and unfragmented landscapes. Conservation Biology 13: 1151-1161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pravosudov V.V. and Grubb T.C. 1997. Energy management in passerine birds during the nonbreeding season. A review. Current Ornithology 14: 189-234.Google Scholar
  57. Rail J.-F., Darveau M., Desrochers A. and Huot J. 1997. Territorial responses of boreal forest birds to habitat gaps. Condor 99: 976-980.Google Scholar
  58. Robinson S.K., Thompson F.R., Donovan T.M., Whitehead D. and Faaborg J. 1995. Regional forest fragmentation and the nesting success of migratory birds. Science 267: 1987-1990.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Roland J. and Taylor P.D. 1997. Insect parasitoid species respond to forest structure at different spatial scales. Nature 386: 710-713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Romey W.L. 1996. Individual differences make a difference in the trajectories of simulated schools of fish. Ecological Modelling 92: 65-77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ruckelshaus M., Hartway C. and Kareiva P. 1997. Assessing the data requirements of spatially explicit dispersal models. Conservation Biology 11: 1298-1306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ruckelshaus M., Hartway C. and Kareiva P. 1999. Dispersal and landscape errors in spatially explicit population models: a reply. Conservation Biology 13: 1223-1224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rytkonen S., Kuokkanen P., Hukkanen M. and Huhtala K. 1998. Prey selection by Sparrowhawks Accipiter nisus and characteristics of vulnerable prey. Ornis Fennica 75: 77-87.Google Scholar
  64. Schippers P., Verboom J., Knaapen J.P. and van Apeldoorn R.C. 1996. Dispersal and habitat connectivity in complex heterogeneous landscapes: an analysis with a GIS-based random walk model. Ecography 19: 97-106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Schumaker N.H. 1996. Using landscape indices to predict habitat connectivity. Ecology 77: 1210-1225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Schumaker N.H. 1998. A users guide to the PATCH model. EPA/600/R-98/135. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR, USA.Google Scholar
  67. Sieving K.E., Willson M.F. and De Santo T.L. 1996. Habitat barriers to movement of understory birds in fragmented south-temperate rainforest. Auk 113: 944-949.Google Scholar
  68. South A. 1999. Dispersal in spatially explicit population models. Conservation Biology 13: 1039-1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. SPSS 1997. SPSS 8.0 for Windows. SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA.Google Scholar
  70. St. Clair C.C., Bélisle M., Desrochers A. and Hannon S.J. 1998. Winter response of forest birds to habitat corridors and gaps. Conservation Ecology 2: 13.Google Scholar
  71. Taylor P.D., Fahrig L., Henein K. and Merriam G. 1993. Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68: 571-573.Google Scholar
  72. Tischendorf L. 1997. Modelling individual movements in heterogeneous landscapes: potentials of a new approach. Ecological Modelling 103: 33-42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Todd I.A. and Cowie R.J. 1990. Measuring the risk of predation in an energy currency: field experiments with foraging blue tits, Parus caeruleus. Animal Behaviour 40: 112-117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Travis J.M.J. and French D.R. 2000. Dispersal functions and spatial models: expanding our dispersal toolbox. Ecology Letters 3: 163-165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Trexler J.C. and Travis J. 1993. Nontraditional regression analyses. Ecology 74: 1629-1637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Turchin P. 1998. Quantitative Analysis of Movement. Sinauer Associates Inc., Sunderland, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  77. Urban D. and Keitt T. 2001. Landscape connectivity: a graph-theoretic perspective. Ecology 82: 1205-1218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. van Langevelde F. 2000. Scale of habitat connectivity and colonization in fragmented nuthatch populations. Ecography 23: 614-622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. van Langevelde F., Schotman A., Claassen F. and Sparenburg G. 2000. Competing land use in the reserve site selection problem. Landscape Ecology 15: 243-256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Vega Rivera J.H., Rappole J.H., McShea W.J. and Haas C.A. 1998. Wood Thrush postfledging movements and habitat use in northern Virginia. Condor 100: 69-78.Google Scholar
  81. Villard M.-A., Trzcinski M.K. and Merriam G. 1999. Fragmentation effects on forest birds: relative influence of woodland cover and configuration on landscape occupancy. Conservation Biology 13: 774-783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Weinberg H.J. and Roth R.R. 1998. Forest area and habitat quality for nesting Wood Thrushes. Auk 115: 879-889.Google Scholar
  83. Wiegand T., Moloney K.A., Naves J. and Knauer F. 1999. Finding the missing link between landscape structure and population dynamics: A spatially explicit perspective. American Naturalist 154: 605-627.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. With K.A., Gardner R.H. and Turner M.G. 1997. Landscape connectivity and population distributions in heterogeneous environments. Oikos 78: 151-169.Google Scholar
  85. Zollner P.A. and Lima S.L. 1999. Search strategies for landscapelevel interpatch movements. Ecology 80: 1019-1030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Zollner P. 2000. Comparing the landscape level perceptual abilities of forest sciurids in fragmented agricultural landscapes. Landscape Ecology 15: 523-533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marc Bélisle
    • 1
  • André Desrochers
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre de recherche en biologie forestièreUniversité LavalSainte-FoyCanada

Personalised recommendations