Comparing landscape suitability and permeability with and without migration data: the influence of species movement behavior

Comparing landscape suitability and permeability with and without migration data: the influence of species movement behavior

Maintaining landscape connectivity through identifying movement corridors is the most recommended conservation strategyto reduce the negative impacts of habitat loss and isolation. The basis of most connectivity modelling approaches for modelling corridorsis that species choose movement pathways based on the same criteria they used to choose habitats. However, species behave differentlyin using landscape elements for moving than for selecting habitat. In other words, suitability of a given landscape feature may differbetween moving and habitat use stages. In this study, we evaluated how the availability of migration occurrence points for wild sheep(Ovis orientalis) could affect the outputs of distribution models and consequently the strength and extent of landscape connectivity formigratory movements of this species in central Iran. We employed concepts of Maximum entropy and circuit theory and developed 2groups of habitat suitability and connectivity models with and without migration data. Comparing the results of the developed modelsshowed that the main differences in the outputs of MaxEnt models were associated with suitability values predicted for the unprotectedmigration habitats. Without migration occurrence points, MaxEnt did not identify the traditionally used migration habitats. In contrast,Circuitscape represented a similar performance in predicting the main migration corridor of the species when using or not using themigration occurrence data. These differences could be associated with wild sheep’s different behavior in the selection of habitat duringmovement and home range stages. Owning to this difference, we suggest using migration data in modelling landscape connectivity asthese data may include different environmental conditions to those collected from home range habitats. For wild sheep, we recommendprotecting the migration corridor at least during migration time. Maintaining such connectivity would also largely depend on managingthe unprotected matrix through preventing expansion of human land uses in the vicinity of the corridor and buffering it to somedistance.

___

  • Ahmadi M, Balouchi BN, Jowkar H, Hemami MR, Fadakar D et al. (2017). Combining landscape suitability and habitat connectivity to conserve the last surviving population of cheetah in Asia. Diversity and Distribution 23 (6): 592-603.
  • Bashari H, Hemami MR (2013). A predictive diagnostic model for wild sheep (Ovis orientalis) habitat suitability in Iran. Journal for Nature ConseBerger J (2004). The last mile: how to sustain long-distance migration in mammals. Conservation Biology 18 (2): 320-331.
  • Berger JSL, Cain E, Cheng P, Dratch K, Ellison J et al. (2014). Optimism and challenge for science based conservation of migratory species in and out of U.S. national parks. Conservation Biology 28 (1): 4-12.
  • Bolger DT, Newmark WD, Morrison TA, Doak DF (2008). The need for integrative approaches to understand and conserve migratory ungulates. Ecology Letters 11 (1): 63-77.
  • Brost B, Beier P (2012). Use of land facets to design linkages for climate 550 change. Ecological Applications 22 (1): 87-103.
  • Caro T, Jones T, Davenport TR (2009). Realities of documenting wildlife corridors in tropical countries. Biological Conservation 142 (11): 2807-2811.
  • Cushman SA, McRae B, Adriaensen F, Beier P, Shirley M et al. (2013). Biological corridors and connectivity [Chapter 21]. In: Macdonald DW, Willis KJ (editors). Key Topics in Conservation Biology 2. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 384-404.
  • Dickson BG, Roemer GW, McRae BH, Rundall JM (2013). Models of Regional Habitat Quality and Connectivity for Pumas (Puma concolor) in the Southwestern United States. PLoS one 8 (12).
  • Elith J, Graham CH, Anderson RP, Dudík M, Ferrier S et al. (2006). Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data. Ecography 29 (2): 129-151.
  • Elith J, Phillips SJ, Hastie T, Dudík M, Chee YE et al. (2011). A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists. Diversity and Distributions 17 (1): 43-57.
  • Elliot NB, Cushman SA, Macdonald DW, Loveridge AJ (2014). The devil isin the dispersers: Predictions of landscape connectivity change with demography. Journal of Applied Ecology 51 (5): 1169-1178.
  • Fielding AH, Bell JF (1997). A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environmental Conservation 24 (1): 38-49.
  • Forman RTT, Godron M (1986). Landscape Ecology. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley, pp. 619.
  • Fryxell JM (1991). Forage quality and aggregation by large herbivores. American Naturalist 138 (2): 478-498.
  • Gangadharan A, Vaidyanathan S, Clair CC (2017). Planning connectivity at multiple scales for large mammals in a human-dominated biodiversity hotspot. Journal for Nature Conservation 36: 38-47.
  • Gastón A, Blázquez‐Cabrera S, Garrote G, Mateo‐Sánchez MC, Beier P et al. (2016). Response to agriculture by a woodland species depends on cover type and behavioral state: Insights from resident and dispersing Iberian lynx. Journal of Applied Ecology 53 (3): 814-824.
  • Heller NE, Zavaleta ES (2009). Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: a review of 22 years of recommendations. Biological Conservation 142 (1): 14-32.
  • Hijmans RJ, Cameron SE, Parra JL, Jones PG, Jarvis A (2005). Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. nternational Journal of Climatology. A Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 25 (15): 1965-1978.
  • Keeley AT, Beier P, Gagnon JW (2016). Estimating landscape resistance from habitat suitability: Effects of data source and nonlinearities. Landscape Ecology 31 (9): 2151-62.
  • Keeley AT, Beier P, Keeley BW, Fagan MC (2017). Habitat suitability is a poor proxy for landscape connectivity during dispersal and mating movements. Landscape and Urban Planning 161: 90-102.
  • Khosravi R, Hemami MR, Cushman SA (2018a). Multispecies assessment of core areas and connectivity of desert carnivores in central Iran. Diversity and Distributions 24 (2): 193-207.
  • Khosravi R, Hemami MR, Malekian M, Silva TL, Rezaei HR et al. (2018b). Efect of landscape features on genetic structure of the goitered gazelle (Gazella subgutturosa) in Central Iran. Conservation Genetics 19 (2): 323-336.
  • Khosravi R, Hemami MR, Malekian M, Flint A, Flint L (2016). MaxEnt modelling for predicting potential distribution of goitered gazelle in central Iran: the effect of extent and grain size on performance of the model. Turkish Journal of Zoology 40 (4): 574-585.
  • LaPoint S, Gallery P, Wikelski M, Kays R (2013). Animal behavior, costbased corridor models, and real corridors. Landscape Ecology 28 (8): 1615-1630.
  • Malakoutikhah S, Fakheran S, Soffianian AR (2013). Applying Circuitscape Theory to identify migration corridors between Mooteh and Ghamishloo wildlife refuges in Isfahan ProvinceIran. Journal of Applied Ecology 2 (5): 77-89.
  • Mateo-Sánchez MC, Balkenhol N, Cushman S, Pérez T, Domínguez A et al. (2015). Estimating effective landscape distances and movement corridors: comparison of habitat and genetic data. Ecosphere 6 (4): 1-16.
  • McClure ML, Hansen AJ, Inman RM (2016). Connecting models to movements: testing connectivity model predictions against empirical migration and dispersal data. Landscape Ecology 31 (7): 1419-1432.
  • McRae BH, Beier P (2007). Circuit theory predicts gene flow in plant and animal populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104 (50): 19885-19890.
  • McRae BH, Dickson BG, Keitt TH, Shah VB (2008). Using Circuit theory to model connectivity in ecology, evolution and conservation. Ecology 89 (10): 2712-2724.
  • McRae BH, Shah VB (2009). Circuitscape user’s guide. Santa Barbara, USA: The University of California.
  • Phillips SJ, Anderson RP, Schapire RE (2006). Maximum entropy modelling of species geographic distributions. Ecological Modelling 190 (3-4): 231-259.
  • Phillips SJ, Dudík M (2008). Modelling of species distributions with MaxEnt: new extensions and a comprehensive evaluation. Ecography 31 (2): 161-175.
  • Poor EE, Loucks C, Jakes A, Urban DL (2012). Comparing Habitat Suitability and Connectivity Modelling Methods for Conserving Pronghorn Migrations. PloS One 7 (11).
  • Rabinowitz A, Zeller KA (2010). A range-wide model of landscape connectivity and conservation for the jaguar, Panthera onca. Biological Conservation 143 (4): 939-45.rvation 21 (5): 319-325.
  • Ramiadantsoa T, Ovaskainen O, Rybicki J, Hanski I (2015). Largescale habitat corridors for biodiversity conservation: A forest corridor in Madagascar. PLoS One 10 (7).
  • Rudnick DA, Ryan SJ, Beier P, Cushman SA, Dieffenbach F et al. (2012). The role of landscape connectivity in planning and implementing conservation and restoration priorities. Issues in Ecology 16: 1-20.
  • Sawyer H, Kauffman MJ, Nielson RM, Horne JS (2009). Identifying and prioritizing ungulate migration routes for landscape‐level conservation. Ecological Applications 19 (8): 2016-2025.
  • Schloss CA, Lawler JJ, Larson ER, Papendick HL, Case MJ et al. (2011). Systematic conservation planning in the face of climate change: bet-hedging on the Columbia Plateau. PloS One 6 (12): 699.
  • Shah VB, McRae BH (2008). Circuitscape: a tool for landscape ecology. In: G. Varoquaux, T. Vaught, J. Millman (editors). Proceedings of the 7th Python in Science Conference 7: 62-66.
  • Sony RK, Sen S, Kumar S, Sen M, Jayahari KM (2018). Niche models inform the e ff ects of climate change on the endangered Nilgiri Tahr (Nilgiritragus hylocrius) populations in the southern Western Ghats, India. Ecological Engineering 120: 355-363.
  • Tapia-Armijos MF, Homeier J, Espinosa CI, Leuschner C, de la Cruz M (2015). Deforestation and forest fragmentation in South Ecuador since the 1970s – Losing a hotspot of biodiversity. PLoS One 10 (9).
  • Taylor PD (2006). Landscape Connectivity: A return to the Basics. Connectivity Conservation 29-43. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Taylor PD, Fahrig L, Henein K, Merriam G (1993). Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 571-573.
  • Theobald DM, Reed SE, Fields K, Soulé M (2012). Connecting natural landscapes using a landscape permeability model to prioritize conservation activities in the United States. Conservation Letters 5 (2): 123-133.
  • Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2000). On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos 90 (1): 7-19.
  • Trainor AM, Walters JR, Morris WF, Sexton J, Moody A (2013). Empirical estimation of dispersal resistance surfaces: A case study with red-cockaded woodpeckers. Landscape Ecology 28 (4): 755-767.
  • Young N, Carter L, Evangelista P (2011). A MaxEnt Model v3.3.3e Tutorial (ArcGIS v10). Fort Collins, Colorado.
  • Zeller KA, McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Beier P, Vickers TW et al. (2017). Sensitivity of resource selection and connectivity models to landscape definition. Landscape Ecology 32 (4): 832-855.