Should metapopulation restoration strategies increase patch area or number of patches?

Nicol, Sam; Possingham, Hugh P.

doi:10.1890/08-2216.1

Cited by 32 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Potential costs or benefits of resource patchiness to vulnerable exploiters are generally construed in terms of trade-offs between more patches and larger patches in supplementing resources to mitigate habitat loss and fragmentation (Etienne 2004, Nicol andPossingham 2010). Models of such scenarios conflate the effects of pattern (fragmentation) with those of richness (habitat loss), and thus ignore the management option to redistribute resources without overall enrichment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patchiness in resource distribution mitigates habitat loss: insights from high-shore grazers

Skov¹,

Hawkins²,

Volkelt-Igoe³

et al. 2011

Ecosphere

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Theory predicts that coarse-grained heterogeneity in the spatial distribution of resources benefits the abundances of exploiter populations that are vulnerable to habitat loss, in contrast to finegrained habitat fragmentation. This generic principle has never been tested empirically, despite its potential application across scales of exploitation from foraging ranges to metapopulations. We designed a field experiment to measure population responses to the distributional pattern of limiting resources independently of resource richness. Populations of the rocky-shore snail Melarhaphe neritoides were monitored for responses in density to controlled manipulations of the pattern and abundance of refuges. On two shores, one with naturally high snail density and one with naturally low density, snail refuges were made by drilling holes into each of three 0.5-m 2 plots in each of two categories of distribution pattern:patchy or even, at each of four richness levels: 4, 16, 36, or 64 holes per plot. We found that snail densities over the subsequent 2 yrs remained higher in patchy than even plots at the low-density shore, and higher in even than patchy plots at the high-density shore. Grazed areas were larger in patchy than even plots at low refuge richness, switching to larger in even than in patchy at high refuge richness. Both scales of pattern-by-richness interaction were explained by density-dependent overlap of foraging ranges around refuges. The novel implication for wildlife management is that vulnerable populations (often species of conservation concern) may benefit from clumping their resources, whereas robust populations (often pest species) may benefit from even distributions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patchiness in resource distribution mitigates habitat loss: insights from high-shore grazers

Skov¹,

Hawkins²,

Volkelt-Igoe³

et al. 2011

Ecosphere

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…More sites Capacity to move between sites (Nicol and Possingham 2010) Less connected Links would have limited worth (Bennett 2003) Intermediate Bigger Lower mortality rate associated with less emigration and failure to locate site (Thomas 2000) More connected Assist with locating patches (Thomas 2000), especially matrix restoration (Donald and Evans 2006) Biodivers Conserv (2017) 26:527-552 531 More connected Assist with dispersal, providing within dispersal range (Doerr et al 2011) Dispersal mode Animalborne More connected Assists with animal movement (Brudvig et al 2009) Wind-borne More sites More edge to reach non-target habitat (Brudvig et al 2009) …”

Section: Highmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In contrast, immigration rates to multiple smaller conservation sites can often be higher (Fahrig 2003), the landscape-scale risk of extinction lower (Hartley and Kunin 2003;Groeneveld 2005;Nicol and Possingham 2010) and the variety of habitat greater (Dover and Settele 2009;Oliver et al 2010). Consequently, landscapes with several smaller sites can hold more species than a single large site (Simberloff and Abele 1976;Groeneveld 2005;Báldi 2008;Rybicki and Hanski 2013), but could be missing habitat specialist or interior species with large body size (Cardillo et al 2005) or resource and area requirements (e.g.…”

Section: Space For Naturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Where sites are forecast to remain climatically suitable, large reserves will benefit species with poor dispersal capability (Hodgson et al 2009a, b). Conversely, for species with high dispersal rates, it is recommended to focus on patch number initially before increasing area (Nicol and Possingham 2010), enabling species to utilise the ''stepping-stones'' and shift in response to warming temperatures (Hodgson et al 2012).…”

Section: Bigger or More?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As human land conversion has greatly increased habitat isolation (Bennett 2003;Nicol and Possingham 2010), connectivity is often promoted to counteract biodiversity loss associated with habitat degradation (Williams et al 2005;Donald and Evans 2006;Lees and Peres 2008). Connectivity is now also fundamental to facilitate species range shifts in response to climatic change (Lawson et al 2012;Thomas et al 2012;Lawson et al 2013) and is thus commonly recommended for climate change adaptation (Heller and Zavaleta 2009).…”

Section: Exploiting Connectivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Old concepts, new challenges: adapting landscape-scale conservation to the twenty-first century

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Landscape-scale approaches to conservation stem largely from the classic ideas of reserve design: encouraging bigger and more sites, enhancing connectivity among sites, and improving habitat quality. Trade-offs are imposed between these four strategies by the limited resources and opportunities available for conservation programmes, including the establishment and management of protected areas, and wildlife-friendly farming and forestry. Although debate regarding trade-offs between the size, number, connectivity and quality of protected areas was prevalent in the 1970-1990s, the implications of the same trade-offs for ongoing conservation responses to threats from accelerating environmental change have rarely been addressed. Here, we reassess the implications of reserve design theory for landscape-scale conservation, and present a blueprint to help practitioners to prioritise among the four strategies. We consider the new perspectives placed on landscape-scale conservation programmes by twenty-first century pressures including climate change, invasive species and the need to marry food security with biodiversity conservation. A framework of the situations under which available theory and evidence recommend that each of the four strategies be prioritized is provided, seeking to increase the clarity required for urgent conservation decision-making.

show abstract

References

2012

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Should metapopulation restoration strategies increase patch area or number of patches?

Cited by 32 publications

References 44 publications

Patchiness in resource distribution mitigates habitat loss: insights from high-shore grazers

Patchiness in resource distribution mitigates habitat loss: insights from high-shore grazers

Old concepts, new challenges: adapting landscape-scale conservation to the twenty-first century

References

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About