Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Making the connection: combining habitat suitability and landscape connectivity to understand species distribution in an agricultural landscape

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Context

The current biodiversity crisis has intensified the need to predict species responses to landscape modification and has renewed attention on the fundamental question of what influences the dynamics of species distributions. Landscape composition can affect two main components that dictate distributions: habitat suitability and habitat connectivity. Elucidating the relative importance of these factors and associated landscape features can help prioritize management action for species conservation.

Objectives

Our objective was to use species distribution models and network-based landscape connectivity models to understand which landscape factors were most predictive of the distribution of an anuran, Blanchard’s cricket frog (Acris blanchardi), in an agriculturally-dominated landscape.

Methods

We conducted our study in Ohio, USA, near the edge of the cricket frog’s contracting range. To obtain a current assessment of cricket frog distribution, we surveyed 367 pond and stream locations across three North–South transects. We then tested seven regression models, combining habitat suitability and landscape connectivity metrics, to determine which factors best predicted cricket frog presence.

Results

We detected cricket frogs in 24% of surveyed locations and they were more likely to occupy pond sites than stream sites. Cricket frog presence was best predicted by models with habitat suitability and the number of interconnected habitat patches. We found that, while there was high variation in habitat suitability across the study area, landscape connectivity was relatively uniform where we surveyed.

Conclusions

Agricultural landscapes around the world are often mosaics of land cover types, which may functionally provide connectivity for some species. In such areas, conservation management should focus on preserving and restoring regions of highly suitable habitat. This focus may be particularly relevant for species that do not appear to be dispersal limited and, therefore, able to maintain metapopulation dynamics.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and materials

Upon publication, requests can be made to the corresponding Author for data.

Code availability

Upon publication, requests can be made to the corresponding author for code.

References

  • Albert CH, Rayfield B, Dumitru M, Gonzalez A (2017) Applying network theory to prioritize multispecies habitat networks that are robust to climate and land-use change. Conserv Biol 31:1383–1396

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Allen C, Gonzales R, Parrott L (2020) Modelling the contribution of ephemeral wetlands to landscape connectivity. Ecol Model 419:108944

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baguette M, Dyck H (2007) Landscape connectivity and animal behavior: functional grain as a key determinant for dispersal. Landsc Ecol 22:1117–1129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bahn V, O’Connor RJ, Krohn WB (2006) Effect of dispersal at range edges on the structure of species ranges. Oikos 115:89–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Băncilă RI, Cogălniceanu D, Ozgul A, Schmidt BR (2017) The effect of aquatic and terrestrial habitat characteristics on occurrence and breeding probability in a montane amphibian: insights from a spatially explicit multistate occupancy model. Popul Ecol 59:71–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman BL, Murphy HT, Reside AE, Mokany K, VanDerWal J (2013) Appropriateness of full-, partial- and no-dispersal scenarios in climate change impact modelling. Divers Distrib 19:1224–1234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boone MD, Davis AY, Dumyahn S, Freund A, Mendoza R, Muniz-Torres A (Unpublished data) Use of exurban lands by pond-breeding amphibians in agricultural areas: factors that predict patch occupation in human-dominated habitats

  • Brooks GC, Smith JA, Frimpong EA, Gorman TA, Chandler HC, Haas CA (2019) Indirect connectivity estimates of amphibian breeding wetlands from spatially explicit occupancy models. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 29:1815–1825

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown JL (2014) SDMtoolbox: a python-based GIS toolkit for landscape genetic, biogeographic, and species distribution model analyses. Methods Ecol Evol 5:694–700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown JH, Kodric-Brown A (1977) Turnover rates in insular biogeography: effect of immigration on extinction. Ecology 58:445–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown JH, Stevens GC, Kaufman DM (1996) The geographic range: size, shape, boundaries, and internal structure. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 27:597–623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bull EL (2009) Dispersal of newly metamorphosed and juvenile western toads (Anaxyrus boreas) in northeastern Oregon, USA. Herpetol Conserv Bio 4:236–247

    Google Scholar 

  • Channell R, Lomolino MV (2000) Dynamic biogeography and conservation of endangered species. Nature 403:84–86

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Clauzel C, Fotete J, Girardet X, Vuidel G (2016) Graphab 2.0 User Manual. 2016-05-12

  • Cord A (2011) Inclusion of habitat availability in species distribution models through multi-temporal remote sensing data? Ecol Appl 21:3285–3298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elith J, Leathwick JR (2009) Species distribution models: ecological explanation and prediction across space and time. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 40:677–697

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elith J, Phillips SJ, Hastie T, Dudik M, Chee YE, Yates CJ (2011) A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists. Divers Distrib 17:43–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evangelista PH, Kumar S, Stohlgren TJ, Jarnevich CS, Crall AW, Norman JB, Barnett DT (2008) Modelling invasion for a habitat generalist and specialist plant species. Divers Distrib 14:808–817

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiske I, Chandler R (2011) unmarked: an R package for fitting hierarchical models of wildlife occurrence and abundance. J Stat Softw 43:1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foltête JC, Clauzel C, Vuidel G (2012a) A software tool dedicated to the modelling of landscape networks. Environ Model Softw 38:316–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foltête JC, Clauzel C, Vuidel G, Tournant P (2012b) Integrating graph-based connectivity metrics into species distribution models. Landsc Ecol 27:557–569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez-Salazar C, Stephens CR, Marquet PA (2013) Comparing the relative contributions of biotic and abiotic factors as mediators of species’ distributions. Ecol Model 248:57–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould WR, Patla DA, Daley R, Corn PS, Hossack BR, Bennetts RE, Peterson CR (2012) Estimating occupancy in large landscapes: evaluation of amphibian monitoring in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. Wetlands 32:379–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray RH, Brown LE, Blackburn L (2005) Decline of northern cricket frogs (Acris crepitans). In: Lannoo MJ (ed) Amphibian declines: the status of United States species. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 441–443

    Google Scholar 

  • Guisan A, Thuiller W (2005) Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol Lett 8:993–1009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Haddad NM, Brudvig LA, Clobert J et al (2015) Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems. Sci Adv 1:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartel T, Nemes S, Öllerer K, Cogalniceanu D, Moga C, Arntzen JW (2010) Using connectivity metrics and niche modelling to explore the occurrence of the northern crested newt Triturus cristatus (Amphibia, Caudata) in a traditionally managed landscape. Environ Conserv 37:195–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hein CL, Öhlund G, Englund G (2011) Dispersal through stream networks: modelling climate-driven range expansions of fishes. Divers Distrib 17:641–651

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hernandez PA, Graham CH, Master LL, Albert DL (2006) The effect of sample size and species characteristics on performance of different species distribution modeling methods. Ecography 29:773–785

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holt RD, Keitt TH, Lewis MA, Maurer BA, Taper ML (2005) Theoretical models of species’ borders: single species approaches. Oikos 108:18–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holtmann L, Philipp K, Becke C, Fartmann T (2017) Effects of habitat and landscape quality on amphibian assemblages of urban stormwater ponds. Urban Ecosyst 20:1249–1259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homer CG, Dewitz JA, Yang L, Jin S, Danielson P, Xian GZ, Coulston J, Herold N, Wickham J, Megown K (2015) Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States—representing a decade of land cover change information. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 81(5):345–354

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S (2000) Chapter 5—applied logistic regression, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York, NY, pp 160–164

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jeliazkov A, Lorrillière R, Besnard A, Garnier J, Silvestre M, Chiron F (2019) Cross-scale effects of structural and functional connectivity in pond networks on amphibian distribution in agricultural landscapes. Freshw Biol 64:997–1014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joly P (2019) Behavior in a changing landscape: using movement ecology to inform the conservation of pond-breeding amphibians. Front Ecol Evol 7:1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keyghobadi N (2007) The genetic implications of habitat fragmentation for animals. Can J Zool 85:1049–1064

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehtinen RM, Skinner AA (2006) The enigmatic decline of Blachard’s cricket frog (Acris crepitans blanchardi): a test of the habitat acidification hypothesis. Copeia 2006:159–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehtinen RM, Witter JA (2014) Detecting frogs and detecting declines: an examination of occupancy and turnover patterns at the range edge of Blanchard’s Cricket Frog (Acris blanchardi). Herpetol Conserv Bio 9:502–515

    Google Scholar 

  • Levins R (1969) Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental heterogeneity for biological control. Bull Entomol Soc Am 15:237–240

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, Lachman GB, Droege S, Royle JA, Langtimm CA (2002) Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one. Ecology 83:2248–2255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matos C, Petrovan SO, Wheeler PM, Ward AI (2019) Landscape connectivity and spatial prioritization in an urbanizing world: a network analysis approach for a threatened amphibian. Biol Conserv 237:238–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazerolle MJ (2019) AICcmodavg: model selection and multimodel inference based on (Q)AIC(c). R package version 2.2-1

  • McCallum ML (2010) Future climate change spells catastrophe for Blanchard’s cricket frog, Acris blanchardi (Amphibia:Anura:Hylidae). Acta Herpetol 5:119–130

    Google Scholar 

  • NOAA (2021) 1991–2020 US Climate Normals for Lima OH. National Centers for Environmental Information. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/us-climate-normals/

  • Ofori BY, Stow AJ, Baumgartner JB, Beaumont LJ (2017) Combining dispersal, landscape connectivity and habitat suitability to assess climate-induced changes in the distribution of Cunningham’s skink, Egernia cunninghami. PLoS ONE 12:e0184193

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • OGRIP. Ohio geographically referenced information program: digital elevation model. Data downloaded from https://ogrip.oit.ohio.gov/ServicesData/GEOhioSpatialInformationPortal/USGSGeodataDistribution(Historical)/DEM.aspx. Accessed 26 Feb 2021

  • Ohio Frog and Toad Calling Survey. Data provided by Jeff Davis. http://Ohioamphibians.com. Accessed 26 Feb 2021

  • Pascual-Hortal L, Saura S (2006) Comparison and development of new graph-based landscape connectivity indices: towards the prioritization of habitat patches and corridors for conservation. Landsc Ecol 21:959–967

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson RG, Dawson TP (2015) Predicting the impacts of climate change on the distribution of species: are bioclimate envelope models useful? Glob Ecol Biogeogr 12:361–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfingsten RA, Davis JG, Matson TO, Lipps G, Wynn D, Armitage BJ (2013) Amphibians of Ohio. Ohio Biological Survey. 900 pp

  • Phillips SJ, Anderson RP, Schapire RE (2006) Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol Model 190:231–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poff NL (1997) Landscape filters and species traits: towards mechanistic understanding and prediction in stream ecology. J N Am Benthol Soc 16:391–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poniatowski D, Stuhldreher G, Loffler F, Fartmann T (2018) Patch occupancy of grassland specialists: habitat quality matters more than habitat connectivity. Biol Conserv 225:237–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puglis HJ, Boone MD (2012) Effects of terrestrial buffer zones on amphibians on golf courses. PLoS ONE 7:e39590

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pulliam HR (2000) On the relationship between niche and distribution. Ecol Lett 3:349–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Core (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/

  • Rayfield B, Fortin M-J, Fall A (2011) Connectivity for conservation: a framework to classify network measures. Ecology 92:847–858

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ribeiro R, Carretero MA, Sillero N, Alarcos G, Ortiz-Santaliestra M, Lizana M, Llorente GA (2011) The pond network: can structural connectivity reflect on (amphibian) biodiversity patterns? Landsc Ecol 26:673–682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudnick DS, Ryan SJ, Beier P, Cushman SA, Dieffenbach F, Epps CW, Gerber LR, Hartter J, Jenness JS, Kintsch J, Merenlender AM, Perkl RM, Reziosi DV, Trombulak SC (2012) The roll of landscape connectivity in planning and implementing conservation and restoration priorities. Issues Ecol 16:1–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheele BC, Driscoll DA, Fischer J, Fletcher AW, Hanspach J, Voros J, Hartel T (2015) Landscape context influences chytrid fungus distribution in an endangered European amphibian. Anim Conserv 18:480–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer RD, Muths E, Noon BR (2012) The importance of local and landscape-scale processes to the occupancy of wetlands by pond-breeding amphibians. Popul Ecol 54:487–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schivo F, Mateo-Sanchez MC, Bauni V, Quintana RD (2020) Influence of land-use/land-cover change on landscape connectivity for an endemic threatened amphibian (Argenteohyla siemersi pederseni, Anura: Hylidae). Landsc Ecol 35:1481–1494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sexton JP, McIntyre PJ, Angert AL, Rice KJ (2009) Evolution and ecology of species range limits. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 40:415–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith MA, Green DM (2005) Dispersal and the metapopulation paradigm in amphibian ecology and conservation: are all amphibian populations metapopulations? Ecography 28:110–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svenning J-C, Normand S, Skov F (2008) Postglacial dispersal limitation of widespread forest plant species in nemoral Europe. Ecography 31:316–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treasure AM, Chown SL (2013) Contingent absences account for range limits but not the local abundance structure of an invasive springtail. Ecography 36:146–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trumbo DR, Burgett AA, Hopkins RL, Biro EG, Chase JM, Knouft JH (2012) Integrating local breeding pond, landcover, and climate factors in predicting amphibian distributions. Landsc Ecol 27:1183–1196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urban D, Keitt T (2001) Landscape connectivity: a graph-theoretic perspective. Ecology 82:1205–1218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USGS NHD 2014: United States Geological Survey: National hydrography dataset—Best resolution. Downloaded from The National Map. https://apps.nationalmap.gov/viewer. Accessed 26 Feb 2021

  • USGS NTD 2014: United States Geological Survey: National Transportation Dataset. Downloaded from The National Map. https://apps.nationalmap.gov/viewer/. Accessed 26 Feb 2021

  • Weir LA, Mossman MJ (2005) North American amphibian monitoring program (NAAMP). In: Lannoo M (ed) Amphibian declines: conservation status of United States amphibians. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, pp 307–313

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wetsch O, Strasburg M, McQuigg J, Boone MD (Unplublished data) Is overwintering mortality driving enigmatic declines? Evaluating the impacts of multiple parasites on an anuran across life stages

  • WorldClim. Bioclimatic variables. https://worldclim.org/. Data downloaded 4/2014. Accessed 25 Feb 2021

  • Wright AD, Grant EHC, Zipkin EF (2020) A hierarchical analysis of habitat area, connectivity, and quality on amphibian diversity across spatial scales. Landsc Ecol 35:529–544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Youngquist MB, Boone MD (2014) Movement of amphibians through agricultural landscapes: the role of habitat on edge permeability. Biol Conserv 175:148–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Youngquist MB, Inoue K, Berg DJ, Boone MD (2017) Effects of land use on population presence and genetic structure of an amphibian in an agricultural landscape. Landsc Ecol 32:147–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zamberletti P, Zaffaroni M, Accatino F, Creed IF, Michele CD (2018) Connectivity among wetlands matters for vulnerable amphibian populations in wetlandscapes. Ecol Model 384:119–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This project was funded by National Science Foundation Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant (DDIG) to MBY. We thank Dr. R. Lehtinen and J. Davis for providing data of cricket frog presence across Ohio; T. Drought and K. Inoue for assisting with surveys; M. Strasburg, J. McQuigg, M. Murphy, C. Dvorsky, and O. Wetsch for reading earlier versions of this paper; and S. Rumschlag and T. Hoskins for general support.

Funding

Funding for this project was provided by the National Science Foundation Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant (DDIG) to MBY. Award Number: 1406814.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biology, Miami University, 700 E. High Street, Oxford, OH, 45056, USA

    Melissa B. Youngquist & Michelle D. Boone

  2. Department of Biology, Miami University, 1200 South Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, IL, 60605, USA

    Melissa B. Youngquist

Authors
  1. Melissa B. Youngquist
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michelle D. Boone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MBY designed the study, conducted the investigation, analyzed the data, and wrote the manuscript, and was awarded funding as co-PI. MDB assisted in study design and advised MBY on all aspects of the study, provided editorial advice, and was awarded funding as PI.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Melissa B. Youngquist.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Not applicable.

Ethical approval

Methods were approved by Miami University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. IACUC Project Number: 914.

Consent for publication

All authors consent for publication.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 307 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Youngquist, M.B., Boone, M.D. Making the connection: combining habitat suitability and landscape connectivity to understand species distribution in an agricultural landscape. Landscape Ecol 36, 2795–2809 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-021-01295-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-021-01295-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation