Spatial ecology of large herbivore populations

Owen‐Smith, Norman

doi:10.1111/j.1600-0587.2013.00613.x

Cited by 35 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 154 publications

(174 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The contribution of resource heterogeneity to herbivore survival and persistence is now widely recognized (Fryxell, Wilmshurst, Sinclair, Haydon, & Abrams, 2005; Fynn, 2012; Owen‐Smith, 2014). Resource heterogeneity is both inherent to rangeland ecosystems and generated by disturbances (Fuhlendorf, Fynn, McGranahan, & Twidwell, 2017).…”

Section: The Rangeland Ecology Debatementioning

confidence: 99%

Strategies for global rangeland stewardship: Assessment through the lens of the equilibrium–non‐equilibrium debate

Briske¹,

Coppock

Illius

et al. 2020

Journal of Applied Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This Review assesses the adequacy of current stewardship strategies to address the accelerating challenges confronting global rangeland systems. The assessment was conducted through the lens of the rangeland ecology debate that was initiated in the late 1980s to determine whether equilibrial or non‐equilibrial models more accurately represented the ecological dynamics of rangeland systems. The following lessons have emerged from this prolonged debate: (a) equilibrial and non‐equilibrial dynamics among plants and herbivores always coexist in individual systems; (b) herbivore persistence is strongly influenced by functional resource heterogeneity; (c) biotic feedbacks are highly dependent upon spatial and temporal scale; (d) multiple stable states separated by nonlinear trajectories may coexist on individual ecological sites and (e) management and policy decisions can have important consequences for rangeland systems despite high environmental stochasticity. These lessons demonstrate that scale and functional heterogeneity were critical ‘blind spots’ within the traditional rangeland profession. In contrast, pastoral strategies recognized these system variables as essential for exploitation of heterogeneous resource distribution, rather than assuming stable, uniform resource distribution. These divergent perceptions of scale and heterogeneity in grazed ecosystems largely explain the disparate interpretations of ecological carrying capacity that was central to the debate. Programmes supporting supplemental feeding and infrastructure development have created an anthropogenic category of non‐equilibrial dynamics by sustaining large numbers of livestock during droughts. These programmes decouple livestock and rangeland resources to create an additional stewardship dilemma regarding complex trade‐offs between livestock production and the capacity of systems to provision a broad array of global ecosystem services. Synthesis and applications. The fundamental challenge facing the global rangeland community may not be identification of a unified model of rangeland ecology—as assumed during the rangeland debate. Rather, the challenge may be how to best transform rangeland social–ecological systems to provide optimal combinations of ecosystem services to meet the needs of global citizens, while improving the well‐being of millions of rangeland residents who are highly dependent upon provisioning services. A comprehensive accounting of rangeland ecosystem services, supported by institutional governance and delivered as state–community partnerships, may provide the foundation for an alternative stewardship strategy to pursue this critical goal.

show abstract

Section: The Rangeland Ecology Debatementioning

confidence: 99%

Strategies for global rangeland stewardship: Assessment through the lens of the equilibrium–non‐equilibrium debate

Briske¹,

Coppock

Illius

et al. 2020

Journal of Applied Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Large mammals around the world are under increasing pressure from habitat loss and overhunting, with many species holding out only in small, fragmented populations (Dirzo et al , ; Ripple et al , ). Preventing local extirpations and restoring populations across their historical ranges are central conservation goals, given the critical importance of large mammals in food webs and for ecosystem functioning (Gordon & Loison, ; Owen‐Smith, ; Ripple et al , ). While some large mammal populations have recently rebounded (Chapron et al , ), many species still urgently depend on conservation management to restore them across their historical ranges.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Connectivity or isolation? Identifying reintroduction sites for multiple conservation objectives for wisents in Poland

Perzanowski

Bleyhl

Olech

et al. 2019

Animal Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Large herbivores and carnivores today often only occupy small fractions of their former ranges, and restoring them is a conservation priority. Reintroductions may serve two critical goals in this context: (1) to expand and connect existing populations, or (2) to increase the number of separate populations as insurance in case individual populations are lost, for example, to disease. We developed an approach to identify reintroduction sites for both purposes, using an applied example of European bison or wisent (Bison bonasus) in Poland. Using a large occurrence dataset from all extant herds in Poland, we mapped suitable wisent habitats throughout Poland using a species distribution modelling approach. We identified 47 patches of suitable habitat, together covering 20,710 km2, and used graph theory tools to identify the top candidate reintroduction sites for (1) connecting existing herds into larger metapopulations or (2) establishing ‘reservoir’ herds that could serve as a backup in case of mass die‐offs. The most well‐connected habitat patches ranged between 203 and 728 km2 and occurred mainly in north‐western and south‐eastern Poland, in close vicinity to other free‐ranging herds. In contrast, candidate sites for reservoir herds were smaller (204–410 km2) and occurred mainly in central Poland. Our approach provides a possible blueprint for wisent reintroductions in Poland. More broadly, our work also highlights how jointly planning for multiple conservation goals for wide‐ranging species that depend on reintroductions or translocations can be achieved at the regional scale.

show abstract

“…, Monteith et al. , Owen‐Smith ). Additionally, resource availability and structural components of habitat—through their effects on individual body condition, survival, and reproduction—have direct consequences on population dynamics (Bender et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Resource selection of mule deer in a shrub‐steppe ecosystem: influence of woodland distribution and animal behavior

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ungulates inhabiting arid ecosystems are reliant on productive forb and shrub communities during summer months to meet nutritional demands for survival and reproduction. In the western United States, expansion of woodland vegetation into shrub-dominated communities and the potential loss of habitat are of concern with regard to animal populations reliant on robust sagebrush shrub and forb vegetation. We used mixed-effects logistic regression to model resource selection of female mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) during the summers of 2005-2008. We considered selection at two spatial scales, and during three daily activity periods (night, crepuscular, and mid-day) corresponding to resting and foraging. We evaluated habitat variables related to vegetation type, site productivity, terrain attributes, and fine-scale abundance of pinyon-juniper cover. Those attributes allowed us to account for variation in site productivity and animal behaviors that could obscure the true relationship between density of pinyonjuniper woodland and habitat use by mule deer. We detected observable differences in habitat use by mule deer among the three activity periods with significant differences in movement rates. Deer were most active during crepuscular periods corresponding with foraging activity, and least active mid-day when temperatures were highest. Summer habitat consisted of sites with high potential productivity, greater shrub abundance, and greater proximity to riparian areas. Deer avoided high levels of tree cover (>40% coverage) at all spatial and temporal scales, and in general selection declined with increasing pinyonjuniper cover, particularly during foraging periods. Nonetheless, mule deer selected areas with low to intermediate tree cover (10% to 40%) during resting periods and avoided areas of productive shrub and forb vegetation and riparian areas, when surrounded by denser stands of pinyon-juniper cover. These results emphasize the importance of productive shrub and forb vegetation to mule deer inhabiting semi-arid regions and suggest that low levels of tree cover are beneficial, especially during resting periods. Nevertheless, dense pinyon-juniper cover was generally avoided even in areas of high site productivity. These relationships lend support to the concern that increases in large, dense stands of pinyon-juniper reduce availability of summer habitat and alter patterns of resource selection for mule deer, a shrubdependent ungulate.

show abstract

Spatial ecology of large herbivore populations

Cited by 35 publications

References 154 publications

Strategies for global rangeland stewardship: Assessment through the lens of the equilibrium–non‐equilibrium debate

Strategies for global rangeland stewardship: Assessment through the lens of the equilibrium–non‐equilibrium debate

Connectivity or isolation? Identifying reintroduction sites for multiple conservation objectives for wisents in Poland

Resource selection of mule deer in a shrub‐steppe ecosystem: influence of woodland distribution and animal behavior

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About