Using individual-based movement models to assess inter-patch connectivity for large carnivores in fragmented landscapes

Abstract Most rare and endangered large carnivores such as tiger ( Panthera tigris ) exist in human-dominated landscapes as small, fragmented and isolated populations across their range. Connectivity between the remaining populations in the habitat fragments is essential for their long-term persistence and focus of management initiatives. We describe an individual-based, spatially explicit model of tiger movement behavior based on previously developed habitat models to (i) quantify inter-patch connectivity among major (protected) habitat patches in the Terai Arc Landscape of India and Nepal and (ii) investigate the effect of potential management initiatives, e.g. restoring corridors, on enhancing connectivity among fragmented protected habitats. Connectivity was not solely a function of distance between patches, but an outcome of the interplay between movement behavior and landscape composition, with asymmetric connectivity explained by canalizing or diffusing effects of the landscape, and depending on the landscape context of the starting patch. Patch connectivity was mostly determined by autocorrelation in tiger movement, the daily movement capacity, landscape structure, and the amount of matrix habitat. Several habitat patches were likely to be island-like and already effectively isolated. However, simulating scenarios of corridor restoration showed that most habitat patches in India and between India and Nepal could recover connectivity, which may mitigate negative genetic consequences of small population size and effective isolation on tiger populations in this landscape. Combining habitat models with individual-based models is a powerful and robust approach that could be widely applied to delineate dispersal corridors of large carnivores and quantify patch connectivity even if data are scarce.

[1]  T. Wiegand,et al.  The relative effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on population genetic variation in the red‐cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) , 2010, Molecular ecology.

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

[3]  C. Carroll,et al.  Spatial viability analysis of Amur tiger Panthera tigris altaica in the Russian Far East: the role of protected areas and landscape matrix in population persistence , 2006 .

[4]  T. Wiegand,et al.  Assessing habitat suitability for tiger in the fragmented Terai Arc Landscape of India and Nepal , 2011 .

[5]  James L. D. Smith,et al.  The contribution of variance in lifetime reproduction to effective population size in Tigers , 1991 .

[6]  Thorsten Wiegand,et al.  Individual movement behavior, matrix heterogeneity, and the dynamics of spatially structured populations , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

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

[8]  S. Nandy,et al.  Monitoring the Chilla–Motichur wildlife corridor using geospatial tools , 2007 .

[9]  L. Fahrig How much habitat is enough , 2001 .

[10]  S. Saura,et al.  Comparison and development of new graph-based landscape connectivity indices: towards the priorization of habitat patches and corridors for conservation , 2006, Landscape Ecology.

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

[12]  Sarah E. Gergel,et al.  Testing assumptions of cost surface analysis—a tool for invasive species management , 2007, Landscape Ecology.

[13]  Bruce T. Milne,et al.  Detecting Critical Scales in Fragmented Landscapes , 1997 .

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

[15]  Justin M. Calabrese,et al.  A comparison-shopper's guide to connectivity metrics , 2004 .

[16]  A. N. M. Hossain,et al.  Female tiger Panthera tigris home range size in the Bangladesh Sundarbans: the value of this mangrove ecosystem for the species’ conservation , 2011, Oryx.

[17]  Volker Grimm,et al.  Patterns for parameters in simulation models , 2007 .

[18]  Timothy H. Keitt,et al.  LANDSCAPE CONNECTIVITY: A GRAPH‐THEORETIC PERSPECTIVE , 2001 .

[19]  M. Elgar,et al.  The Use of Corridors by Mammals in Fragmented Australian Eucalypt Forests , 1997 .

[20]  Daniel Simberloff,et al.  The Contribution of Population and Community Biology to Conservation Science , 1988 .

[21]  Jana Verboom,et al.  Dispersal and habitat connectivity in complex heterogeneous landscapes: an analysis with a GIS based random walk model , 1996 .

[22]  C. Carroll Connectivity Conservation: Linking connectivity to viability: insights from spatially explicit population models of large carnivores , 2006 .

[23]  B. Danielson,et al.  Spatially Explicit Population Models: Current Forms and Future Uses , 1995 .

[24]  Santiago Saura,et al.  A common currency for the different ways in which patches and links can contribute to habitat availability and connectivity in the landscape , 2010 .

[25]  E. Wikramanayake,et al.  The Fate of Wild Tigers , 2007 .

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

[27]  T. Wiegand,et al.  Individual-based movement models reveals sex-biased effects of landscape fragmentation on animal movement , 2012 .

[28]  Stephanie Kramer-Schadt,et al.  Between ecological theory and planning practice: (Re-) Connecting forest patches for the wildcat in Lower Saxony, Germany , 2012 .

[29]  Paul C. Paquet,et al.  Conservation Biology and Carnivore Conservation in the Rocky Mountains , 1996 .

[30]  Lucas N Joppa,et al.  Understanding movement data and movement processes: current and emerging directions. , 2008, Ecology letters.

[31]  Todd R. Lookingbill,et al.  Combining a dispersal model with network theory to assess habitat connectivity. , 2010, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[32]  Eliot J. B. McIntire,et al.  Evaluating functional connectivity with matrix behavior uncertainty for an endangered butterfly , 2013, Landscape Ecology.

[33]  M. Sunquist,et al.  Ecology behaviour and resilience of the tiger and its conservation needs , 1999 .

[34]  Mark V. Lomolino,et al.  CORRIDORS AND MAMMAL COMMUNITY STRUCTURE ACROSS A FRAGMENTED, OLD‐GROWTH FOREST LANDSCAPE , 2000 .

[35]  James L. D. Smith,et al.  Landscape Analysis of Tiger Distribution and Habitat Quality in Nepal , 1998 .

[36]  Raman Sukumar,et al.  The Asian Elephant: Ecology and Management , 1990 .

[37]  P. Ferreras Landscape structure and asymmetrical inter-patch connectivity in a metapopulation of the endangered Iberian lynx , 2001 .

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

[39]  P. Nikolakaki,et al.  A GIS site-selection process for habitat creation: estimating connectivity of habitat patches , 2004 .

[40]  Hans Van Dyck,et al.  Landscape connectivity and animal behavior: functional grain as a key determinant for dispersal , 2007, Landscape Ecology.

[41]  Andrew Fall,et al.  Testing the importance of spatial configuration of winter habitat for woodland caribou: An application of graph theory , 2006 .

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

[43]  Heather Fry,et al.  A user’s guide , 2003 .

[44]  E. Revilla,et al.  A movement ecology paradigm for unifying organismal movement research , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[45]  Eric J. Gustafson,et al.  The Effect of Landscape Heterogeneity on the Probability of Patch Colonization , 1996 .

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

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

[48]  Thorsten Wiegand,et al.  Dealing with Uncertainty in Spatially Explicit Population Models , 2004, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[49]  Séverine Vuilleumier,et al.  Animal dispersal modelling: handling landscape features and related animal choices , 2006 .

[50]  Stephanie Kramer-Schadt,et al.  What you see is where you go? Modeling dispersal in mountainous landscapes , 2007, Landscape Ecology.

[51]  A. Morzillo,et al.  An integration of habitat evaluation, individual based modeling, and graph theory for a potential black bear population recovery in southeastern Texas, USA , 2010, Landscape Ecology.

[52]  L. Fahrig,et al.  Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure , 1993 .

[53]  Hugh P Possingham,et al.  Tradeoffs of different types of species occurrence data for use in systematic conservation planning. , 2006, Ecology letters.

[54]  Quantifying Landscape Connectivity: Key Patches And Key Corridors , 2003 .

[55]  Sean C. Ahearn,et al.  TIGMOD: an individual-based spatially explicit model for simulating tiger/human interaction in multiple use forests , 2001 .

[56]  S. Goyal,et al.  Conservation status of the Chila-Motichur corridor for elephant movement in Rajaji-Corbett national parks area, India , 1990 .

[57]  J. Tracey Connectivity Conservation: Individual-based modeling as a tool for conserving connectivity , 2006 .

[58]  Larry B. Crowder,et al.  An individual-based, spatially-explicit simulation model of the population dynamics of the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker, Picoides borealis , 1998 .

[59]  E. Revilla,et al.  Lynx reintroductions in fragmented landscapes of Germany : Projects with a future or misunderstood wildlife conservation? , 2005 .

[60]  Justin S. Brashares,et al.  Placing linkages among fragmented habitats: do least‐cost models reflect how animals use landscapes? , 2011 .

[61]  James L. D. Smith The Role of Dispersal in Structuring the Chitwan Tiger Population , 1993 .

[62]  Karin Frank,et al.  Analyzing the effect of stepping stones on target patch colonisation in structured landscapes for Eurasian lynx , 2011, Landscape Ecology.

[63]  Eric J. Gustafson,et al.  Simulating dispersal of reintroduced species within heterogeneous landscapes , 2004 .

[64]  Kevin R. Crooks,et al.  Connectivity Conservation: Connectivity conservation: maintaining connections for nature , 2006 .

[65]  Karin Frank,et al.  Breaking Functional Connectivity into Components: A Novel Approach Using an Individual-Based Model, and First Outcomes , 2011, PloS one.

[66]  Erik Matthysen,et al.  The application of 'least-cost' modelling as a functional landscape model , 2003 .

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

[68]  Jianguo Wu,et al.  Population viability of the Siberian Tiger in a changing landscape: Going, going and gone? , 2011 .

[69]  E. Wikramanayake,et al.  Designing a Conservation Landscape for Tigers in Human‐Dominated Environments , 2004 .

[70]  Thorsten Wiegand,et al.  Expansion of Brown Bears (Ursus arctos) into the Eastern Alps: A Spatially Explicit Population Model , 2004, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[71]  Thorsten Wiegand,et al.  RULE-BASED ASSESSMENT OF SUITABLE HABITAT AND PATCH CONNECTIVITY FOR THE EURASIAN LYNX , 2002 .