A multispecies test of source–sink indicators to prioritize habitat for declining populations

For species at risk of decline or extinction in source–sink systems, sources are an obvious target for habitat protection actions. However, the way in which source habitats are identified and prioritized can reduce the effectiveness of conservation actions. Although sources and sinks are conceptually defined using both demographic and movement criteria, simplifications are often required in systems with limited data. To assess the conservation outcomes of alternative source metrics and resulting prioritizations, we simulated population dynamics and extinction risk for 3 endangered species. Using empirically based habitat population models, we linked habitat maps with measured site‐ or habitat‐specific demographic conditions, movement abilities, and behaviors. We calculated source–sink metrics over a range of periods of data collection and prioritized consistently high‐output sources for conservation. We then tested whether prioritized patches identified the habitats that most affected persistence by removing them and measuring the population response. Conservation decisions based on different source–sink metrics and durations of data collection affected species persistence. Shorter time series obscured the ability of metrics to identify influential habitats, particularly in temporally variable and slowly declining populations. Data‐rich source–sink metrics that included both demography and movement information did not always identify the habitats with the greatest influence on extinction risk. In some declining populations, patch abundance better predicted influential habitats for short‐term regional persistence. Because source–sink metrics (i.e., births minus deaths; births and immigrations minus deaths and emigration) describe net population conditions and cancel out gross population counts, they may not adequately identify influential habitats in declining populations. For many nonequilibrium populations, new metrics that maintain the counts of individual births, deaths, and movement may provide additional insight into habitats that most influence persistence.     

Integrating Landscape and Metapopulation Modeling Approaches: Viability of the Sharp-Tailed Grouse in a Dynamic Landscape

Abstract:  The lack of management experience at the landscape scale and the limited feasibility of experiments at this scale have increased the use of scenario modeling to analyze the effects of different management actions on focal species. However, current modeling approaches are poorly suited for the analysis of viability in dynamic landscapes. Demographic (e.g., metapopulation) models of species living in these landscapes do not incorporate the variability in spatial patterns of early successional habitats, and landscape models have not been linked to population viability models. We link a landscape model to a metapopulation model and demonstrate the use of this model by analyzing the effect of forest management options on the viability of the Sharp-tailed Grouse (  Tympanuchus phasianellus ) in the Pine Barrens region of northwestern Wisconsin (U.S.A.). This approach allows viability analysis based on landscape dynamics brought about by processes such as succession, disturbances, and silviculture. The landscape component of the model (LANDIS) predicts forest landscape dynamics in the form of a time series of raster maps. We combined these maps into a time series of patch structures, which formed the dynamic spatial structure of the metapopulation component (RAMAS). Our results showed that the viability of Sharp-tailed Grouse was sensitive to landscape dynamics and demographic variables such as fecundity and mortality. Ignoring the landscape dynamics gave overly optimistic results, and results based only on landscape dynamics (ignoring demography) lead to a different ranking of the management options than the ranking based on the more realistic model incorporating both landscape and demographic dynamics. Thus, models of species in dynamic landscapes must consider habitat and population dynamics simultaneously.