A management-oriented framework for selecting metrics used to assess habitat- and path-specific quality in spatially structured populations

Abstract

a b s t r a c tMobile species with complex spatial dynamics can be difficult to manage because their population distributions vary across space and time, and because the consequences of managing particular habitats are uncertain when evaluated at the level of the entire population. Metrics to assess the importance of habitats and pathways connecting habitats in a network are necessary to guide a variety of management decisions. Given the many metrics developed for spatially structured models, it can be challenging to select the most appropriate one for a particular decision. To guide the management of spatially structured populations, we define three classes of metrics describing habitat and pathway quality based on their data requirements (graph-based, occupancy-based, and demographic-based metrics) and synopsize the ecological literature relating to these classes. Applying the first steps of a formal decision-making approach (problem framing, objectives, and management actions), we assess the utility of metrics for particular types of management decisions. Our framework can help managers with problem framing, choosing metrics of habitat and pathway quality, and to elucidate the data needs for a particular metric. Our goal is to help managers to narrow the range of suitable metrics for a management project, and aid in decision-making to make the best use of limited resources.

Constructing and evaluating a continent‐wide migratory songbird network across the annual cycle

“…, Nicol et al. ). Nevertheless, when additional data are available, the construction of a network such as ours will be critical for building year‐round, range‐wide population models designed to predict how a species will respond to environmental change.…”

Model‐based estimators of density and connectivity to inform conservation of spatially structured populations

“…Spatial structure occurs in animal populations that utilize, and are distributed across, multiple habitat types (Kareiva 1990, Dunning et al 1992, Nicol et al 2016. Whether part of the natural ecology of a species, or imposed on a population through disturbance or anthropogenic changes to the landscape, most species exhibit some form of spatial structure including classic metapopulations (Levins 1970, Hanski 1994, stepping-stone population structure (Kimura andWeiss 1964, Crowley 1977), or continuous populations distributed heterogeneously in space as a function of the characteristics of the landscape (Andow et al 1990, Kareiva 1990.…”

“…The ideal number of individuals varies by species and system, but the definition and objective is well defined and explicit. The definition of connectivity, the second component, is notoriously vague, both within the literature and across applications and disciplines (Calabrese and Fagan 2004, Kindlmann and Burel 2008, Nicol et al 2016. Generally, connectivity is defined as "the degree to which the landscape facilitates or impedes movement among resource patches" (Taylor et al 1993).…”

“…Despite being a multiscale process, modeling and predicting connectivity have focused largely on the scale of dispersal, at times interchanging dispersal ability and connectivity synonymously. Moreover, while the term "spatially structured" is often equated with metapopulations (Minor andUrban 2001, Calabrese andFagan 2004), it can be readily applied to continuous populations that are heterogeneously distributed in space (Nicol et al 2016).…”

A guide to calculating habitat‐quality metrics to inform conservation of highly mobile species

“…Nicol et al. () developed a framework for choosing among available habitat‐quality metrics to quantify the quality of habitats used by spatially structured populations within a management context. The framework provides guidance for selecting metrics based on the management objectives, management actions, and available data for a population‐specific context.…”