Seasonal source–sink dynamics at the edge of a species' range

Kanda, L. Leann; Fuller, Todd K.; Sievert, Paul R.; Kellogg, Robert L.

doi:10.1890/08-1263.1

Cited by 56 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Data on current habitat use and preferences, in conjunction with historical records and published information, support the assertion that the pre-settlement distribution of the Swift Fox was largely limited to the shortgrass and mixed-grass ecosystems. By definition, the Swift Fox should encounter the boundary of its realized niche at the edge of its range, where environmental conditions are less than ideal and habitat quality declines (sensu Kanda et al 2009). Grassland ecosystems, however, are inherently dynamic, and the edges of the historical range of the Swift Fox undoubtedly were pliant and reflected prevailing environmental conditions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Historical Range, Current Distribution, and Conservation Status of the Swift Fox, <em>Vulpes velox</em>, in North America

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Swift Fox (Vulpes velox) was once common in the shortgrass and mixed-grass prairies of the Great Plains of North America. The species' abundance declined and its distribution retracted following European settlement of the plains. By the late 1800s, the species had been largely extirpated from the northern portion of its historical range, and its populations were acutely depleted elsewhere. Swift Fox populations have naturally recovered somewhat since the 1950s, but overall abundance and distribution remain below historical levels. In a 1995 assessment of the species' status under the US Endangered Species Act, the US Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that a designation of threatened or endangered was warranted, but the species was "precluded from listing by higher listing priorities." A major revelation of the 1995 assessment was the recognition that information useful for determining population status was limited. Fundamental information was missing, including an accurate estimate of the species' distribution before European settlement and an estimate of the species' current distribution and trends. The objectives of this paper are to fill those gaps in knowledge. Historical records were compiled and, in combination with knowledge of the habitat requirements of the species, the historical range of the Swift Fox is estimated to be approximately 1.5 million km 2 . Using data collected between 2001 and 2006, the species' current distribution is estimated to be about 44% of its historical range in the United States and 3% in Canada. Under current land use, approximately 39% of the species' historical range contains grassland habitats with very good potential for Swift Fox occupation and another 10% supports grasslands with characteristics that are less preferred (e.g., a sparse shrub component or taller stature) but still suitable. Additionally, land use on at least 25% of the historical range supports dryland farming, which can be suitable for Swift Fox occupation. In the United States, approximately 52% of highest quality habitats currently available are occupied by Swift Foxes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Historical Range, Current Distribution, and Conservation Status of the Swift Fox, <em>Vulpes velox</em>, in North America

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This overall pattern of buffering from extreme environmental conditions may explain why few urban wildlife studies have identified density-independent factors as important for limiting populations. One notable exception would be the heat island effect in large urban centers reducing the limiting effect of winter weather at northern latitudes for some species (e.g., opossums, Kanda et al 2009). Other possible density-independent factors may include roads and toxins, such as rodenticides (Chaps.…”

Section: Density-independent Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wildlife Population Dynamics in Urban Landscapes

Rodewald

Gehrt

2014

Urban Wildlife

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To say that urban wildlife populations differ from those in other landscapes is, in some ways, to state the obvious, as many studies have well demonstrated how urbanization influences pattern of occurrence and relative abundance of wildlife (e.g., Blair 1996;Marzluff et al. 2001;Sinclair et al. 2005;Chace and Walsh 2006). Identifying the specific ways in which urban and nonurban wildlife populations differ and the drivers of those differences is less understood and requires a more careful examination. The response of a species to urbanization may be the consequence of life history, and behavioral and physiological attributes that promote avoidance, tolerance, or preference for urban systems. For example, urban avoiders, or species that respond negatively to development, tend to be habitat specialists, migratory, and/or sensitive to a wide range of human activities and disturbance (Croci et al. 2008). Species that respond positively to urban development (e.g., synanthropic species, urban exploiters) are often generalists, omnivorous, multi-brooded, and behaviorally flexible. Because these suites of species differ widely in population ecology even in the absence of urbanization, we forgo a direct comparison of these groups of species and, rather, examine how urbanization affects population structure and demography of species occupying both urban and nonurban landscapes (i.e., urban adapters).As we synthesize the literature, we recognize the inherent difficulty of clearly defining a "population." What distinguishes a subpopulation from a population? For some species, this may be quite clear because of limited vagility and strong segregation among habitat types; for others, it may be unclear, particularly those with more generalist habitat requirements and extensive mobility across urban

show abstract

“…Thus, adaptation is used in a restricted sense in this paper to mean a population that has evolved to have an absolute fitness greater than one in the habitat in which it exists. There are a growing number of examples of systems with source-sink structure (e.g., Breininger and Carter 2003;Breininger and Oddy 2004;Johnson 2004;Caudill 2005;Kanda et al 2009). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Canalization and adaptation in a landscape of sources and sinks

Kimbrell

2009

Evol Ecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Landscapes are often spatially heterogeneous, and many species frequently confront novel environments to which they are not adapted. Whether a species becomes adapted to a novel environment, and thus undergoes niche evolution, may depend not only on the genetic architecture of the traits under selection, but also on the structure of the ecological landscape. Different models of gene architecture are used to show that complex genetic architectures tends to produce genetic canalization that slows adaptation to novel environments compared to simpler additive polygenic architectures, but that the topology of the landscape interacts with genetic architecture to influence the probability of adaptation. This interaction can lead to unexpected results, such as a greater probability of adaptation to a novel environment for a population of more highly canalized individuals than a population of less canalized individuals. The interplay between landscape structure and genetic architecture may influence the balance of evolutionary forces acting on a population, and thus whether a species is likely to adapt to the novel environments it confronts.

show abstract

Seasonal source–sink dynamics at the edge of a species' range

Cited by 56 publications

References 25 publications

Historical Range, Current Distribution, and Conservation Status of the Swift Fox, <em>Vulpes velox</em>, in North America

Historical Range, Current Distribution, and Conservation Status of the Swift Fox, <em>Vulpes velox</em>, in North America

Wildlife Population Dynamics in Urban Landscapes

Canalization and adaptation in a landscape of sources and sinks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About