Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 185–192 | Cite as

Effects of patch attributes, barriers, and distance between patches on the distribution of a rock-dwelling rodent (Lagidium viscacia)

  • R. Susan Walker
  • Andrés J. Novaro
  • Lyn C. Branch
Article

Abstract

We tested whether size of habitat patches and distance between patches are sufficient to predict the distribution of the mountain vizcacha Lagidium viscacia a large, rock-dwelling rodent of the Patagonian steppe Argentina, or whether information on other patch and landscape characteristics also is required. A logistic regression model including the distance between rock crevices and depth of crevices, distance between a patch and the nearest occupied patch, and whether or not there was a river separating it from the nearest occupied patch was a better predictor of patch occupancy by mountain vizcachas than was a model based only on patch size and distance between patches. Our results indicate that a simple metapopulation analysis based on size of habitat patches and distance between patches may not provide an accurate representation of regional population dynamics if patches vary in habitat quality independently of patch size and features in the matrix alter connectivity.

Argentina Barriers Chinchillidae Habitat quality Isolation Lagidium Matrix Metapopulation Mountain vizcacha Patagonia Patch size 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. van Apeldoorn R.C., Celada C. and Nieuwenhuizen W. 1994. Dis-tribution and dynamics of the red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris L.) in a landscape with fragmented habitat. Landscape Ecology 9: 227–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnold G.W., Weeldenburg J.R. and Ng V.M. 1995. Factors affecting the distribution and abundance of Western grey kangaroos (Macropus fuliginosus) and euros (M. robustus) in a fragmented landscape. Landscape Ecology 10: 65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Fleishman E., Ray C., Sjögren-Gulve P., Boggs C.L. and Murphy D.D. 2002. Assessing the roles of patch quality, area, and iso-lation in predicting metapopulation dynamics. Conservation Biology 16: 706–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Galende G.I. and Grigera D. 1998. Relaciones alimentárias de La-gidium viscacia (Rodentia, Chinchillidae) con herbívoros intro-ducidos en el Parque Nacional Nahuel Huapi, Argentina. Iheringia, Séria Zoologica, Porto Alegre 84: 3–10.Google Scholar
  5. Galende G.I., Grigera D. and von Thüngen J. 1998. Composición de la dieta del chinchillón (Lagidium viscacia, Chinchillidae) en el noroeste de la Patagonia. Mastozoología Neotropical 5: 123–128.Google Scholar
  6. Hanski I. 1994. A practical model of metapopulation dynamics. Journal of Animal Ecology 63: 151–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hanski I., Pakkala T., Kuussaari M. and Lei G. 1995. Metapopula-tion persistence of an endangered butterfly in a fragmented landscape. Oikos 72: 21–28.Google Scholar
  8. Hill J.K., Thomas C.D. and Lewis O.T. 1996. Effects of habitat patch size and isolation on dispersal by Hesperia comma but-terflies: implications for metapopulation structure. Journal of Animal Ecology 65: 725–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hokit D.G., Stith B.M. and Branch L.C. 1999. Effects of landscape structure in Florida scrub: a population perspective. Ecological Applications 9: 124–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hokit D.G., Stith B.M. and Branch L.C. 2001. Comparison of two types of metapopulation models in real and artificial landscapes. Conservation Biology 15: 1102–1113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hosmer D.W. and Lemeshow S. 1989. Applied Logistic Regression. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  12. Jiménez J.E. 1995. Conservation of the last wild chinchilla (Chin-chilla lanigera) archipelago: a metapopulation approach. Vida Silvestre Neotropical 4: 89–97.Google Scholar
  13. Jonsen I.D., Bourchier R.S. and Roland J. 2001. The influence of matrix habitat on Aphthona flea beetle immigration to leafy spurge patches. Oecologia 127: 287–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Keyghobadi N., Roland J. and Strobeck C. 1999. Influence of landscape on the population genetic structure of the alpine butterfly Parnassus smintheus (Papilionidae). Molecular Ecology 8: 1481–1495.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kindvall O. 1996. Habitat heterogeneity and survival in a bush-cricket metapopulation. Ecology 77: 207–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. King P.S. 1987. Macro-and microgeographic structure of a spa-tially subdivided beetle species in nature. Evolution 41: 401–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. León R.J.C., Bran D., Collantes M., Paruelo J.M. and Soriano A. 1998. Grandes unidades de vegetación de la Patagonia extra andina. Ecología Austral 8: 125–144.Google Scholar
  18. Mazerolle M.J. and Villard M.-A. 1999. Patch characteristics and landscape context as predictors of species presence and abun-dance: a review. Ecoscience 6: 117–124.Google Scholar
  19. Micol T., Doncaster C.P. and Mackinlay L.A. 1994. Correlates of local variation in the abundance of hedgehogs Erinaceus euro-paeus. Journal of Animal Ecology 63: 851–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Moilanen A. and Hanski I. 1998. Metapopulation dynamics: effects of habitat quality and landscape structure. Ecology 79: 2503–2515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moilanen A., Smith A.T. and Hanski I. 1998. Long-term dynamics in a metapopulation of the American pika. The American Naturalist 152: 530–542.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Nagelkerke N.J.D. 1991. A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination. Biometrika 78: 691–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pearson O. 1948. Life history of mountain viscachas in Peru. Journal of Mammalogy 29: 345–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Petit S. and Burel F. 1998. Connectivity in fragmented populations: Abax parallelepipedus in a hedgerow network landscape. Comptes-Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences, Paris, Sciences de la vie 321: 55–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Puig S., Videla F., Cona M., Monge S. and Roig V. 1998. Diet of the mountain vizcacha (Lagidium viscacia Molina 1782) and food availability in northern Patagonia, Argentina. Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde 63: 228–238.Google Scholar
  26. Redford K. and Eisenberg J.F. 1992. Mammals of the Neotropics: The Southern Cone. Vol. 2. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA.Google Scholar
  27. Ricketts T.H. 2001. The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. The American Naturalist 158: 87–99.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Roberts D.W. 1986. Ordination on the basis of fuzzy set theory. Vegetation 66: 123–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Roland J., Keyghobadi N. and Fownes S. 2000. Alpine Parnassius butterfly dispersal: effects of landscape and population size. Ecology 81: 1642–1653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sinclair A.R.E., Krebs C.J. and Smith J.N.M. 1982. Diet quality and food limitation in herbivores: the case of the snowshoe hare. Canadian Journal of Zoology 60: 889–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sjögren-Gulve P. and Ray C. 1996. Using logistic regression to model metapopulation dynamics: Large-scale forestry extir-pates the pool frog. In: McCullough D.R. (ed.), Metapopula-tions and Wildlife Conservation. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 111–138.Google Scholar
  32. SPSS Inc. 1999. SPSS Base 10.0 Applications Guide. SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA.Google Scholar
  33. Stith B.S., Fitzpatrick J.W., Woolfenden G.E. and Pranty B. 1996. Classification and conservation of metapopulations: a case study of the Florida scrub jay. In: McCullough D.R. (ed.), Me-tapopulations and Wildlife Conservation. Island Press, Wash-ington, DC, USA, pp. 187–216.Google Scholar
  34. Vos C.C., Antonisse-de Jong A.G., Goedhart P.W. and Smulders M.J.M. 2001. Genetic similarity as a measure for connectivity between fragmented populations of the moor frog (Rana arva-lis). Heredity 86: 598–608.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Walker R.S. 2001. Effects of Landscape Structure on the Distribu-tion of Mountain vizcacha (Lagidium viscacia) in the Patago-nian Steppe. PhD Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA, 100 pp.Google Scholar
  36. Walker R.S., Ackermann G., Schachter-Broide J., Pancotto V. and Novaro A.J. 2000. Habitat use by mountain vizcachas (Lagid-ium viscacia Molina, 1782) in the Patagonian steppe. Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde 65: 293–300.Google Scholar
  37. Wiens J.A. 1997. Metapopulation dynamics and landscape ecology. In: Hanski I. and Gilpin M.E. (eds), Metapopulation Biology: Ecology, Genetics and Evolution. Academic Press, San Diego, California, USA, pp. 43–68.Google Scholar
  38. Wilcox B.A. 1980. Insular ecology and conservation. In: Soule M.E. and Wilcox B.A. (eds), Conservation Biology: An Evolu-tionary-Ecological Perspective. Sinauer Assoc., Inc., Sunderland, Massachusetts, USA, pp. 95–117.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Susan Walker
    • 1
    • 2
  • Andrés J. Novaro
    • 2
  • Lyn C. Branch
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Wildlife Ecology and ConservationUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  2. 2.Wildlife Conservation Society, at Neuquén Applied Ecology CenterNeuquénArgentina

Personalised recommendations