Navigating fragmented landscapes: Canada lynx brave poor quality habitats while traveling

Abstract

Anthropogenic and natural habitat fragmentation inhibit movement of animals through landscapes. An important challenge for connectivity conservation is determining which conditions facilitate or limit movements, so that these areas can be prioritized for protection or restoration. We examine Canada lynx Lynx canadensis habitat connectivity in the fragmented North Cascade Mountains of Washington, as an example of a highly mobile species that is specialized both on prey and in habitat needs. We identify lynx Habitat Concentration Areas based on Core Habitat Models, parameterize resistance surfaces from our Matrix Habitat Model, and develop linkages of habitat lynx use to move between patches of high quality habitat. We identify a number of linkages for lynx comprised of habitat conditions that differed from high quality core patches identified from our habitat modeling. Radio‐locations from lynx confirm lower‐quality habitats of low resistance to movement were used by traveling lynx. Our results thus suggest traveling lynx do indeed use a much broader range of habitats than do lynx moving within core areas. For lynx in the North Cascades, our results show that maintaining connectivity will require preserving habitats and linkages that would previously have been deemed unsuitable for lynx. Maintaining connectivity for lynx is particularly important given the many recent large wildfires in this region that have reduced the number of mature forest stands that form prime habitat for lynx. Policy implications. Our results strongly suggest that habitat connectivity models should be based on empirical information of animal location data and focused on matrix habitat analysis. Traveling predators use a wide suite of habitats, resulting in more and broader linkage zones that should inform conservation efforts. Failure to identify these areas of functional connectivity could result in the oversight of usable linkage zones, leaving them without protection and vulnerable to degradation.

Why do several small patches hold more species than few large patches?

“…As long as patches are close enough together, persistence across multiple patches could occur by frequent immigration and/or by individual space use that incorporates multiple patches. Indeed, tracking studies of mammalian predators indicate that individuals often move through non-habitat, linking patches together (LaPoint, Gallery, Wikelski, & Kays, 2013;Scharf, Belant, Beyer, Wikelski, & Safi, 2018;Vanbianchi, Gaines, Murphy, & Hodges, 2018). The lack of support for the predicted dominance of SL > SS based on minimum patch size requirements also suggests that Tjørve's (2010) prediction of higher species density on large patches than small patches is likely not supported.…”

Post-fire movements of Pacific marten (Martes caurina) depend on the severity of landscape change

“…Narrow forest openings are easier to cross than wide ones, and large patches of residual habitat offer more potential resources than small ones. Thus, differing patterns of burn severity and post-fire salvage logging may affect which parts of the landscape support resident animals [ 37 ], serve as travel corridors [ 38 ], or entirely exclude certain species [ 39 ]. Substantial landscape change post-fire may create ecological traps, where the presence of residual forest structure draws animals into low-quality habitat [ 40 , 41 ], or perceptual traps, where animals fail to recognize residual high-quality habitat [ 42 ].…”

Mapping connectivity and conflict risk to identify safe corridors for the Persian leopard

“…In our study, the habitat use of prey In other human-dominated landscapes, however, prey can be abundant (Chapron et al 2014), which can explain why our results on the impact of agricultural extent on large carnivore existence diverge from prior studies. Despite the absence of habitat patches in the modified landscape, these areas may still be valuable as dispersal corridors (Vanbianchi et al 2018). However, low landscape permeability due to the existence of roads and residential areas pose major barriers to leopard dispersal in the eastern part of the study area.…”