Contributions of Spatially Explicit Landscape Models To Conservation Biology
The practice of conservation is often a form of land management. One of the most powerful approaches for connecting the needs of a particular species with land usage is the linking of biologically-detailed models of that species dispersal and demography with geographic information systems (GIS). For example, juvenile spotted owls must depart their birthplace in search of unoccupied expanses of old growth forest. Maps that detail the scarcity, fragmentation, and location of remnant old growth stands dramatize how difficult a search these juvenile owls may face in heavily logged portions of the Pacific Northwest. By connecting these spatially detailed maps with a model of how owls disperse and reproduce, managers can construct logging plans that make the best of what little old growth might remain. We call such approaches spatially explicit population models (or SEPMs) because they assign habitats and owls to particular locations in space, and depending upon the number and placement of individuals, they predict population change as a result of dispersal, mortality, and reproduction. The emergence of user-friendly GIS software, the maturing of ecological theory pertaining to population dynamics in fragmented habitats, and the increased popularity of individual behavior simulation models have combined to produce a tremendous enthusiasm for SEPM’s (see Ecological Applications, issue #1, volume 7, 1995).
KeywordsGeographic Information System Suitable Habitat Habitat Patch Conservation Biology Explicit Model
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Groom, M. and N. Schumaker. 1993. Evaluating landscape change: Patterns of worldwide deforestation and local fragmentation. In Biotic interactions and global change, eds. P. Kareiva, J. Kingsolver, and R. Huey, 25–40, Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
- Hanski, I. 1997. Predictive and practical metapopulation models: the incidence function approach. In Spatial ecology: the role of space in population dynamics and interspecific interactions, eds. D. Tilman and P. Kareiva. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Kareiva, P., D. Skelly, and M. Ruckelshaus. 1997. Reevaluating the use of models to predict the consequences of habitat loss and fragmentation. In Enhancing the ecological basis of conservation: heterogenity, ecosystem function, and biodiversity, eds. S.T.A. Pickett, R.S. Ostfeld, H. Schchak, and G.E. Likens. New York: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
- McKelvey, K., B. Noon, and R. Lamberson. 1993. Conservation planning for species occupying fragmented landscapes: the case of the Northern Spotted Owl. In Biotic interactions and global change, eds. P. Kareiva, J. Kingsolver and R. Huey, 424–450. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
- Ruckelshaus, M., C. Hartway, and P. Kareiva 1997. Assessing the data requirements of spatially explicit dispersal models. Conservation Biology, in press.Google Scholar
- Skelly, D. and E. Meir. 1997. Rule-based models for evaluating mechanisms of distributional change. Conservation Biology, in press.Google Scholar
- Steinberg, E. and P. Kareiva. 1997. Challenges and opportunities for empirical evaluation of “spatial theory.” In Spatial ecology: The role of space in population dynamics and interspecific interactions, eds. D. Tilman and P. Kareiva. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar