What you see is where you go? Modeling dispersal in mountainous landscapes

Inter-patch connectivity can be strongly influenced by topography and matrix heterogeneity, particularly when dealing with species with high cognitive abilities. To estimate dispersal in such systems, simulation models need to incorporate a behavioral component of matrix effects to result in more realistic connectivity measures. Inter-patch dispersal is important for the persistence of capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus) in central Europe, where this endangered grouse species lives in patchy populations embedded in a mountainous landscape. We simulated capercaillie movements with an individual-based, spatially explicit dispersal model (IBM) and compared the resulting connectivity measure with distance and an expert estimation. We used a landscape comprising discrete habitat patches, temporary habitat, non-habitat forests, and non-habitat open land. First, we assumed that dispersing individuals have perfect knowledge of habitat cells within the perceptual range (null model). Then, we included constraints to perception and accessibility, i.e., mountain chains, open area and valleys (three sub-models). In a full model, all sub-models were included at once. Correlations between the different connectivity measures were high (Spearman’s ρ  >  0.7) and connectivity based on the full IBM was closer to expert estimation than distance. For selected cases, simple distance differed strongly from the full IBM measure and the expert estimation. Connectivity based on the IBM was strongly sensitive to the size of perceptual range with higher sensitivity for the null model compared to the full model that included context dependent perceptual ranges. Our heuristic approach is adequate for simulating movements of species with high cognitive abilities in strongly structured landscapes that influence perception and permeability.

[1]  Simone K. Heinz,et al.  Connectivity in Heterogeneous Landscapes: Analyzing the Effect of Topography , 2005, Landscape Ecology.

[2]  P. Wegge,et al.  Spring-summer movements of male capercaillie Tetrao urogallus: A test of the ‘landscape mosaic’ hypothesis , 2000, Wildlife Biology.

[3]  I. Storch,et al.  Genetic evidence of capercaillie Tetrao urogallus dispersal sources and sinks in the Alps , 2003, Wildlife Biology.

[4]  J. Vandermeer,et al.  Metapopulation Dynamics and the Quality of the Matrix , 2001, The American Naturalist.

[5]  Phil Picton,et al.  Modelling the Effects of Dispersal and Landscape Configuration on Population Distribution and Viability in Fragmented Habitat , 2005, Landscape Ecology.

[6]  J. Höglund,et al.  From connectivity to isolation: genetic consequences of population fragmentation in capercaillie across Europe , 2003, Molecular ecology.

[7]  Donald L. DeAngelis,et al.  UNCERTAINTY IN SPATIALLY EXPLICIT ANIMAL DISPERSAL MODELS , 2003 .

[8]  K. Bollmann,et al.  The Importance of Spatial Scale in Habitat Models: Capercaillie in the Swiss Alps , 2005, Landscape Ecology.

[9]  G. Jacob.  Conservation genetics of the capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus L.) in the Swiss Alps , 2006 .

[10]  Oscar E. Gaggiotti,et al.  Ecology, genetics, and evolution of metapopulations , 2004 .

[11]  Steven F. Railsback,et al.  Individual-based modeling and ecology , 2005 .

[12]  Julien Martin,et al.  Multiscale patterns of movement in fragmented landscapes and consequences on demography of the snail kite in Florida. , 2006, The Journal of animal ecology.

[13]  Lutz Tischendorf,et al.  Modelling individual movements in heterogeneous landscapes: potentials of a new approach , 1997 .

[14]  Thorsten Wiegand,et al.  Fragmented landscapes, road mortality and patch connectivity: modelling influences on the dispersal of Eurasian lynx , 2004 .

[15]  S. Klaus.  To Survive or To Become Extinct: Small Populations of Tetraonids in Central Europe , 1994 .

[16]  Christian Wissel,et al.  Dispersal behaviour in fragmented landscapes: Deriving a practical formula for patch accessibility , 2004, Landscape Ecology.

[17]  I. Storch.  Annual home ranges and spacing patterns of capercaillie in Central Europe , 1995 .

[18]  Anthony M. Starfield,et al.  Qualitative, rule-based modeling , 1990 .

[19]  D. H. Vuren,et al.  Detectability, philopatry, and the distribution of dispersal distances in vertebrates. , 1996, Trends in Ecology & Evolution.

[20]  S. Klaus.  Die Birkhühner : tetrao tetrix und T. mlokosiewiczi , 1960 .

[21]  H. Remmert.  Minimum Animal Populations , 1994, Ecological Studies.

[22]  Miguel Delibes,et al.  Effects of Matrix Heterogeneity on Animal Dispersal: From Individual Behavior to Metapopulation‐Level Parameters , 2004, The American Naturalist.

[23]  I. Storch.  Grouse : status survey and conservation action plan 2006-2010 , 2000 .

[24]  Ilse Storch,et al.  Genetic correlates of spatial population structure in central European capercaillie Tetrao urogallus and black grouse T. tetrix: a project in progress , 2000, Wildlife Biology.

[25]  L. Fahrig,et al.  On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity , 2000 .

[26]  Thorsten Wiegand,et al.  Effects of Habitat Loss and Fragmentation on Population Dynamics , 2005 .

[27]  I. Hanski.  A Practical Model of Metapopulation Dynamics , 1994 .

[28]  S. L. Lima,et al.  SEARCH STRATEGIES FOR LANDSCAPE‐LEVEL INTERPATCH MOVEMENTS , 1999 .

[29]  G. Hess.  Linking Extinction to Connectivity and Habitat Destruction in Metapopulation Models , 1996, The American Naturalist.

[30]  Ilse Storch,et al.  Minimum viable population size of capercaillie Tetrao urogallus: results from a stochastic model , 2000, Wildlife Biology.

[31]  Ilkka Hanski,et al.  Metapopulation structure and migration in the butterfly Melitaea cinxia , 1994 .

[32]  Anders Pape Møller.  Die Birkhuhner: Tetrao tetrix und T. mlokosiewiczi. Siegfried Klaus , Hans-Heiner Bergmann , Christian Marti , Franz Muller , Oleg A. Vitovic , Jochen Wiesner , 1991 .

[33]  Volker Grimm,et al.  Using pattern-oriented modeling for revealing hidden information: a key for reconciling ecological theory and application , 2003 .

[34]  T. Ricketts.  The Matrix Matters: Effective Isolation in Fragmented Landscapes , 2001, The American Naturalist.

[35]  T. Hovestadt,et al.  The effect of patch constellation on the exchange of individuals between habitat-islands , 2004 .

[36]  S. L. Lima,et al.  Towards a behavioral ecology of ecological landscapes. , 1996, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[37]  Néstor Fernández,et al.  Viability and risk assessment in species restoration: Planning reintroductions for the wild boar, a potential disease reservoir , 2006 .

[38]  K. Bollmann,et al.  Verbreitung und Bestand des Auerhuhns Tetrao urogallus in der Schweiz 2001 und ihre Veränderungen im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert , 2003 .

[39]  Darren J. Bender,et al.  MATRIX STRUCTURE OBSCURES THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTERPATCH MOVEMENT AND PATCH SIZE AND ISOLATION , 2005 .

[40]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  SIMPLE CONNECTIVITY MEASURES IN SPATIAL ECOLOGY , 2002 .

[41]  C. Braak,et al.  Toward Ecologically Scaled Landscape Indices , 2001, The American Naturalist.

[42]  N. LeRoy Poff,et al.  Context-dependent perceptual ranges and their relevance to animal movements in landscapes , 2004 .

[43]  R. Kitching,et al.  A simple simulation model of dispersal of animals among units of discrete habitats , 1971, Oecologia.

[44]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  On the use of connectivity measures in spatial ecology , 2001 .

[45]  A. S. Aspbury,et al.  Long-range visibility of greater sage grouse leks: a GIS-based analysis , 2004, Animal Behaviour.

[46]  Bryan K. Epperson,et al.  Geographical Genetics (Mpb-38) , 2003 .

[47]  Thorsten Wiegand,et al.  Finding the Missing Link between Landscape Structure and Population Dynamics: A Spatially Explicit Perspective , 1999, The American Naturalist.

[48]  Karin Frank,et al.  Spatial aspects of metapopulation survival – from model results to rules of thumb for landscape management , 1998, Landscape Ecology.