The Effect of Landscape Heterogeneity on the Probability of Patch Colonization

The effect of landscape heterogeneity on the dispersal of organisms between habitat islands is poorly understood. Preferred pathways for dispersal (i.e., corridors), as well as dispersal barriers, are difficult to identify when the landscape matrix is composed of a complex mixture of land cover types. We developed an individual-based dispersal model to measure immigration and emigration rates between habitat islands within hetero- geneous landscapes. Dispersing individuals of a model organism were simulated as self- avoiding random walkers (SAW) traversing a digital land cover map, with each habitat type assigned a priori a probability that the SAW would enter that habitat type. Each individual began the dispersal process on a random site at the edge of a deciduous forest patch and was allowed to move until it reached a different deciduous forest patch. Visu- alization of the movement patterns across the landscape was achieved by tabulating the frequency of visitation Qf successful dispersers to each grid cell on the map. The model was used to estimate the probabilities of disperser transfer between patches by varying the a priori probabilities of movement into each habitat type in order to: (1) estimate the effect of changing landscape heterogeneity on the transfer probabilities, and (2) visualize dispersal corridors and barriers as perceived by model organisms operating by specific movement rules and at specific scales. The results show that 89% of the variability in dispersal success can be accounted for by differences in the size and isolation of forest patches, with closer and larger patches having significantly greater exchange of dispersing organisms. However, changes in the heterogeneity of the landscape matrix could significantly enhance or decrease emigration success from an individual patch, depending on the landscape. Changes in emigration success from an individual patch resulting from changes in matrix heterogeneity were not predictable, and transfer rates between patches were not symmetrical due to differences in the proximity of neighboring patches, and differences in the funneling at- tributes of certain landscape patterns. Visualizations showed that corridors are often diffuse and difficult to identify from structural features of the landscape. A wide range of organisms with differing movement capabilities can be simulated using the approach presented to increase our understanding of how landscape structure affects organism dispersal.

[1]  Alan Hastings,et al.  Dispersal strategies in patchy environments , 1984 .

[2]  Community organization: effects of landscape fragmentation , 1988 .

[3]  T. M. Lillesand,et al.  Remote Sensing and Image Interpretation , 1980 .

[4]  Lenore Fahrig,et al.  Effect of Spatial Arrangement of Habitat Patches on Local Population Size , 1988 .

[5]  M. Gilpin,et al.  The effect of conspecific attraction on metapopulation dynamics , 1991 .

[6]  P. Kareiva Population dynamics in spatially complex environments: theory and data , 1990 .

[7]  M. Scheffer,et al.  Estimating habitat isolation in landscape planning , 1992 .

[8]  Ilkka Hanski,et al.  Dynamics of regional distribution: the core and satellite species hypothesis , 1982 .

[9]  B. Mandelbrot Fractal Geometry of Nature , 1984 .

[10]  D. DeAngelis,et al.  New Computer Models Unify Ecological TheoryComputer simulations show that many ecological patterns can be explained by interactions among individual organisms , 1988 .

[11]  George R. Parker,et al.  Using an index of habitat patch proximity for landscape design , 1994 .

[12]  H. Eugene Stanley,et al.  Form: An Introduction to Self-Similarity and Fractal Behavior , 1986 .

[13]  H. Pulliam,et al.  Sources, Sinks, and Population Regulation , 1988, The American Naturalist.

[14]  Edward O. Wilson,et al.  Threats to Biodiversity. , 1989 .

[15]  Ilkka Hanski,et al.  Single‐species metapopulation dynamics: concepts, models and observations , 1991 .

[16]  D. Tilman Competition and Biodiversity in Spatially Structured Habitats , 1994 .

[17]  George R. Parker,et al.  Evaluating spatial pattern of wildlife habitat: a case study of the wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) , 1994 .

[18]  N. Stenseth,et al.  Ecological mechanisms and landscape ecology , 1993 .

[19]  Monica G. Turner,et al.  Ecological implications of landscape fragmentation , 1993 .

[20]  A. Ōkubo,et al.  Di?usion and ecological problems: mathematical models , 1980 .

[21]  J. Franklin Preserving Biodiversity: Species, Ecosystems, or Landscapes? , 1993, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[22]  R. Hobbs,et al.  Biological Consequences of Ecosystem Fragmentation: A Review , 1991 .

[23]  Jianguo Liu,et al.  Population Dynamics in Complex Landscapes: A Case Study. , 1992, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[24]  James H. Brown,et al.  Turnover Rates in Insular Biogeography: Effect of Immigration on Extinction , 1977 .

[25]  Francis Gilbert,et al.  The equilibrium theory of island biogeography : fact or fiction? , 1980 .

[26]  Robert H. Gardner,et al.  Lattices and landscapes , 1993 .

[27]  Robert V. O'Neill,et al.  Pattern, process, and predictability: the use of neutral models for landscape analysis , 1991 .

[28]  Steven D. Gaines,et al.  The Dynamics of Juvenile Dispersal: Why Field Ecologists Must Integrate , 1993 .

[29]  Mats Gyllenberg,et al.  Two General Metapopulation Models and the Core-Satellite Species Hypothesis , 1993, The American Naturalist.

[30]  R. Macarthur,et al.  The Theory of Island Biogeography , 1969 .

[31]  L. Fahrig,et al.  Habitat Patch Connectivity and Population Survival , 1985 .

[32]  Ilkka Hanski,et al.  Single-Species Spatial Dynamics May Contribute to Long-Term Rarity and Commonness , 1985 .

[33]  L. Hansson,et al.  Dispersal and connectivity in metapopulations , 1991 .

[34]  H. Pulliam,et al.  Sources, Sinks, and Habitat Selection: A Landscape Perspective on Population Dynamics , 1991, The American Naturalist.