Content-Length: 324946 | pFad | https://doi.org/10.1023%2FA%3A1021592817039

a=86400 Multi-scale effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on lesser prairie-chicken populations of the US Southern Great Plains | Landscape Ecology Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Multi-scale effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on lesser prairie-chicken populations of the US Southern Great Plains

  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Large-scale patterns of land use and fragmentation have been associatedwith the decline of many imperiled wildlife populations. Lesserprairie-chickens(Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) are restricted to thesouthernGreat Plains of North America, and their population and range have declined by> 90% over the past 100 years. Our objective was to examine scale-dependentrelationships between landscape structure and change and long-term populationtrends for lesser prairie-chicken populations in the southern Great Plains. Weused a geographic information system (GIS) to quantify landscape composition,pattern and change at multiple scales (extents) for fragmented agriculturallandscapes surrounding 10 lesser prairie-chicken leks. Trend analysis oflong-term population data was used to classify each population and landscape(declined, sustained). We analyzed metrics of landscape structure and changeusing a repeated measures analysis of variance to determine significant effects(α = 0.10) between declining and sustained landscapes across multiplescales. Four metrics of landscape structure and change (landscape change index,percent cropland, increases in tree-dominated cover types, and changes in edgedensity) contained significant interactions between population status andscale,indicating different scaling effects on landscapes with declining and stablepopulations. Any single spatial scale that was evaluated would not have givencomplete results of the influences of landscape structure and change on lesserprairie-chicken populations. The smallest spatial scales (452, 905, and 1,810ha) predicted that changes in edge density and largest patch sizewere the only important variables, while large-scale analysis (7,238ha) suggested that the amount of cropland, increase in trees(mostly Juniperus virginiana), and general landscapechanges were most important. Changes in landscape structure over the pastseveral decades had stronger relationships with dynamics of lesserprairie-chicken populations than current landscape structure. Observed changessuggest that these local populations may be appropriately viewed from ametapopulation perspective and future conservation efforts should evaluateeffects of fragmentation on dispersal, colonization, and extinction patterns.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aldrich J.W. 1963. Geographic orientation of American Tetraonidae. Journal of Wildlife Management 27: 529–545.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andren H. 1994. Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71: 355–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archer S. 1994. Woody plant encroachment into Southwestern grasslands and savannas: rates, patterns, and proximate causes. In: Varva M., Laycock W.A. and Pieper R.D. (eds), Ecological Implications of Livestock Herbivory in the West. Society for Range Management, Denver, Colorado, USA, pp. 13–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergin T.M., Best L.B., Freemark K.E. and Koehler K.J. 2000. Effects of landscape structure on nest predation in roadsides of a midwestern agroecosystem: a multi-scale analysis. Landscape Ecology 15: 131–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bissonette J.A. 1997. Scale-sensitive ecological properties: Historical context, current meaning. In: Bissonette J.A. (ed.), Wildlife and Landscape Ecology: Effects of Pattern and Scale. Springer, New York, New York, USA, pp. 3–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke D. and Goulet H. 1998. Landscape and area effects on beetle assemblages in Ontario. Ecography 21: 472–479.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cannon R.W. and Knopf F.L. 1981. Lesser prairie-chicken densities on shinnery oak and sand sagebrush rangelands in Oklahoma. Journal of Wildlife Management 45: 521–524.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlile D.W., Skalski J.R., Batker J.E., Thomas J.M. and Cullinam V.I. 1989. Determination of ecological scale. Landscape Ecology 2: 203–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins B.T. 1990. Using re-randomizing tests in route-regression analysis of avian population trends. In: Sauer J.R. and Droege S. (eds), Survey Designs and Statistical Methods for the Estimation of Avian Population Trends. Vol. 90. US Fish. Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep., pp. 63–70.

  • Coppedge B.R., Engle D.M., Masters R.E. and Gregory M.S. 2001. Avian Response to landscape change in fragmented southern Great Plains grasslands. Ecological Applications 11: 47–59.

  • Costanza R. and Maxwell T. 1994. Resolution and predictability: an approach to the scaling problem. Landscape Ecology 9: 47–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford J.A. 1980. Status, problems, and research needs of the lesser prairie-chicken. In: Vohs P.A. and Knopf F.L. (eds), Proceedings prairie grouse symposium. Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA, pp. 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford J.A. and Bolen E.G. 1976. Effects of land use on lesser prairie-chickens in Texas. Journal of Wildlife Management 40: 96–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutler A. 1991. Nested faunas and extinction in fragmented habitats. Conservation Biology 5: 496–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davison V.E. 1940. An eight year census of lesser prairie-chickens. Journal of Wildlife Management 4: 55–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Debinski D.M. and Holt R.D. 2000. A survey and overview of habitat fragmentation experiments. Conservation Biology 14: 342–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Environmental Systems Research Institute INC 1995. Understanding GIS: The ARC/INFO method. Version 7 for UNIX and Open VMS. John Wiley & Sons Inc, New York, New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farina A. 2000. Landscape Ecology in Action. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forman R.T.T. and Godron M. 1986. Landscape Ecology. John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fritz R.S. 1979. Consequences of insular population structure: distribution and extinction of spruce grouse populations. Oecologia 42: 57–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuhlendorf S.D. and Smeins F.E. 1996. Spatial scale influence on long-term temporal patterns of a semi-arid grassland. Landscape Ecology 11: 107–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuhlendorf S.D. and Smeins F.E. 1999. Scaling effects in a semiarid grassland. Journal of Vegetation Science 10: 731–738.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuhlendorf S.D., Smeins F.E. and Grant W.E. 1996. Simulation of a fire-sensitive ecological threshold: a case study of Ashe juniper on the Edwards Plateau of Texas, USA. Ecological Modelling 90: 245–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuhlendorf S.D., Zhang H., Tunnell T.R., Engle D.M. and Fernald Cross A. 2000. Effects of grazing on restoration of southern mixed prairie soils. Restoration Ecology 10: 401–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner R.H. 1998. Pattern, process and the analysis of spatial scales. In: Peterson D.L. and Parker V.T. (eds), Ecological Scale: Theory and Applications. Columbia University Press, New York, New York, USA, pp. 17–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giesen K.M. 1994a. Movements and nesting habitat of lesser prairie-chicken hens in Colorado. Southwestern Naturalist 39: 96–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giesen K.M. 1994b. Breeding range and population status of lesser prairie-chickens in Colorado. Prairie Naturalist 26: 175–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giesen K.M. 1998. The lesser prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus). In: Poole A. and Gill F. (eds), The Birds of North America, No. 364. The Birds of North America Inc, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, pp. 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glenn S.M., Collins S.L. and Gibson D.J. 1992. Disturbances in tallgrass prairie: Local and regional effects on community heterogeneity. Landscape Ecology 7: 243–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greig-Smith P. 1983. Quantitative Plant Ecology. 3rd edn. University of California Press, Berkeley, California, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargis C.D., Bissonette J.A. and David J.L. 1998. The behavior of landscape metrics commonly used in the study of habitat fragmentation. Landscape Ecology 13: 167–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson A.S. and DeArment R. 1963. The lesser prairie chicken in the Texas panhandle. Journal of Wildlife Management 27: 733–737.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones R.E. 1963. Identification and analysis of lesser and greater prairie-chicken habitat. Journal of Wildlife Management 27: 757–778.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kershaw K.A. 1957. The use of cover and frequency in the detection of pattern in plant communities. Ecology 38: 291–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knick S.T. and Rotenberry J.T. 2000. Ghosts of habitat past: contribution of landscape change to current habitats used by shrubland birds. Ecology 8: 220–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolasa J. and Waltho N. 1998. A hierarchical view of habitat and its relationship to species abundance. In: Peterson D.L. and Parker V.T. (eds), Ecological Scale: Theory and Applications. Columbia University Press, New York, New York, USA, pp. 55–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law B.S. and Dickman C.R. 1998. The use of habitat mosaics by terrestrial vertebrate fauna: implications for conservation and management. Biodiversity and Conservation 7: 323–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leimgruber P., McShea W.J. and Rappole J.H. 1994. Predation on artifical nests in large forest blocks. Journal of Wildlife Management 58: 254–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leopold A. 1933. Game Management. Scribners sons, New York, New York, USA, 481 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin S.A. 1992. The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73: 1943–1967.

    Google Scholar 

  • Littell R.C., Milliken G.A., Stroup W.W. and Wolfinger R.D. 1996. SAS® System for mixed models. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGarigal K. and Marks B.J. 1995. FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-351. US Dept. of Ag. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGarigal K. and McComb W.C. 1995. Relationship between landscape structure and breeding birds in the Oregon coast range. Ecological Monographs 65: 235–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menge B.A. and Olson A.M. 1990. Role of scale and environmental factors in the regulation of community structure. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 5: 52–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller J.N., Brooks R.P. and Croonquist M.J. 1997. Effects of landscape patterns on biotic communities. Landscape Ecology 12: 137–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milne B.T., Johnston K.M. and Forman R.T.T. 1989. Scale-dependent proximity of wildlife habitat in a spatially-neutral Bayesian model. Landscape Ecology 2: 101–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moses L.E. and Rabinowitz D. 1990. Estimating (relative) species abundance from route counts of the Breeding Bird Survey. In: Sauer J.R. and Droege S. (eds), Survey Designs and Statistical Methods for the Estimation of Avian Population Trends. Vol. 90(1). US Fish. Wildl. Serv. Biol Rep., pp. 71–79.

  • Niemuth N.D. 2000. Land use and vegetation associated with greater prairie-chicken leks in an agricultural landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management 64: 278–286

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill R.V., DeAngelis D.L., Waide J.B. and Allen T.F.H. 1986. A Hierarchical Concept of Ecosystems. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersy, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pulliam H.R. 1988. Sources, sinks, and population regulation. American Naturalist 132: 652–661.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pulliam H.R., Dunning J.B. Jr and Liu J. 1992. Population dynamics in complex landscapes: a case study. Ecological Applications 2: 165–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riley T.Z. and Davis C.A. 1993. Vegetation characteristics of lesser prairie-chicken brood foraging sites. Prairie Naturalist 25: 243–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riley T.Z., Davis C.A., Ortiz M. and Wisdom M.J. 1992. Vegetative characteristics of successful and unsuccessful nests of lesser prairie chickens. Journal of Wildlife Management 56: 383–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riley T.Z., Davis C.A., Candelaria M.A. and Suminski H.R. 1994. Lesser prairie-chicken movements and home ranges in New Mexico. Prairie Naturalist 26: 183–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie M.E. 1997. Populations in a landscape context: Sources, sinks and metapopulations. In: Bissonette J.A. (ed.), Wildlife and Landscape Ecology: Effects of Pattern and Scale. Springer, New York, New York, USA, pp. 160–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritters K.H., O’Neill R.V., Hunsaker C.T., Wickham J.D., Yankee D.H., Timmins S.P. et al. 1995. A factor analysis of landscape pattern and structure metrics. Landscape Ecology 10: 23–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan M.L., Burger L.W. Jr, Jones D.P. and Wywialowski A.P. 1998. Breeding ecology of greater prairie-chickens (Tympanuchus cupido) in relation to prairie landscape configuration. American Midland Naturalist 140: 111–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • SAS Institute. 1985. SAS user’s guide: statistics. SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saab V. 1999. Importance of spatial scale to habitat use by breeding birds in riparian forests: a hierarchical analysis. Ecological Applications 9: 135–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider D.C. 1994. Quantitative Ecology: Spatial and Temporal Scaling. Academic Press, San Diego, California, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stommel H. 1963. Varieties of oceanographic experience. Science 139: 572–576.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sugihara G. and May R. 1990. Applications of fractals in ecology. Tree 5: 79–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swetnam T.W., Alien C.D. and Betancourt J.L. 1999. Applied historical ecology: using the past to manage for the future. Ecological Applications 9: 1189–1206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor M.A. and Guthery F.S. 1980a. Status, Ecology, and Management of the Lesser Prairie-chicken. US For. Serv. Gen. Tech.

  • Rep. RM-77. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.

  • Taylor M.S. and Guthery F.S. 1980b. Fall-winter movements, ranges, and habitat use of lesser prairie-chickens. Journal of Wildlife Management 44: 521–524.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tscharntke T. 1992. Fragmentation of Phragmites habitats, minimum viable population size, habitat suitability, and local extinction of moths, midges, flies, aphids, and birds. Conservation Biology 6: 530–536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner M.G. 1990. Spatial and temporal analysis of landscape patterns. Landscape Ecology 4: 21–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner M.G. and Gardner R.H. 1991. Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology: The Analysis and Interpretation of Landscape Heterogeneity. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner M.G., Pearson S.M., Romme W.M. and Wallace L.L. 1997. Landscape heterogeneity and ungulate dynamics: What spatial scales are important? In: Bissonette J.A. (ed.), Wildlife and Landscape Ecology. Springer, New York, New York, USA, pp. 331–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiens J.A. 1989. Spatial scaling in ecology. Functional Ecology 3: 385–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiens J.A., Stenseth N.C., Van Horne B. and Ims R.A. 1993. Ecological mechanisms and landscape ecology. Oikos 66: 369–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiens J.A., Crist T.O., With K.A. and Milne B.T. 1995. Fractal patterns of insect movement in microlandscape mosaics. Ecology 76: 663–666.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodward A.J.W., Fuhlendorf S.D., Leslie D.M. Jr and Shackford J. 2001. Influence of landscape composition and change on lesser prairie-chicken populations. American Midland Naturalist 145: 261–274.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Rangeland Ecology and Management, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, 74078, USA

    Samuel D. Fuhlendorf & Alan J.W. Woodward

  2. Oklahoma Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, US Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Department of Zoology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, 74078, USA

    David M. Leslie & John S. Shackford

Authors
  1. Samuel D. Fuhlendorf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alan J.W. Woodward
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. David M. Leslie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. John S. Shackford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fuhlendorf, S.D., Woodward, A.J., Leslie, D.M. et al. Multi-scale effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on lesser prairie-chicken populations of the US Southern Great Plains. Landscape Ecol 17, 617–628 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021592817039

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021592817039









 ApplySandwichStrip

pFad - (p)hone/(F)rame/(a)nonymizer/(d)eclutterfier!      Saves Data!


--- a PPN by Garber Painting Akron. With Image Size Reduction included!

Fetched URL: https://doi.org/10.1023%2FA%3A1021592817039

Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy