Influence of local and landscape factors on distributional dynamics: a species-centred, fitness-based approach
Name:
Flesch_2017_PRSB_post_print.pdf
Size:
1.229Mb
Format:
PDF
Description:
Final Accepted Manuscript
Author
Flesch, Aaron D.Affiliation
Univ Arizona, Sch Nat Resources & Environm, Desert LabIssue Date
2017-07-05
Metadata
Show full item recordPublisher
ROYAL SOCCitation
Influence of local and landscape factors on distributional dynamics: a species-centred, fitness-based approach 2017, 284 (1858):20171001 Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological SciencesRights
© 2017 The Author(s) Published by the Royal Society. All rights reserved.Collection Information
This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at repository@u.library.arizona.edu.Abstract
In spatially structured populations, distributional dynamics are driven by the quantity, connectivity and quality of habitat. Because these drivers are rarely measured directly and simultaneously at relevant scales, information on their relative importance remains unclear. I assessed the influence of both direct and indirect measures of local habitat quality, and of landscape habitat amount and connectivity on long-term territory occupancy dynamics of non-migratory pygmy owls. Direct measures of local habitat quality based on territory-specific reproductive output had greater effects on distribution than landscape factors, but only when spatio-temporal fluxes in performance linked to environmental stochasticity and intraspecific competition were considered. When habitat quality was measured indirectly based on habitat structure, however, landscape factors had greater effects. Although all landscape factors were important, measures of landscape connectivity that were uncorrelated with habitat amount and based on attributes of matrix structure and habitat configuration that influence dispersal movements had greater effects than habitat effective area (amount weighted by quality). Moreover, the influence of connectivity (but not habitat effective area) depended on local habitat quality. Such results suggest the relative importance of local habitat quality in driving distribution has been underestimated and that conservation strategies should vary spatially depending on both local and landscape contexts.Note
12 month embargo; Published online: 5 July 2017.ISSN
0962-84521471-2954
Version
Final accepted manuscriptSponsors
National Park Service; Tucson Audubon Society; TE Inc.; Defenders of Wildlife; Center for Biological Diversity; US Fish and Wildlife Service; Sonoran Joint Venture; Arizona Zoological Society; Sierra Clubae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1098/rspb.2017.1001
