Spatial, temporal, and density-dependent components of habitat quality for a desert owl - PubMed
- ️Thu Jan 01 2015
Spatial, temporal, and density-dependent components of habitat quality for a desert owl
Aaron D Flesch et al. PLoS One. 2015.
Erratum in
-
Correction: Spatial, Temporal, and Density-Dependent Components of Habitat Quality for a Desert Owl.
Flesch AD, Hutto RL, van Leeuwen WJ, Hartfield K, Jacobs S. Flesch AD, et al. PLoS One. 2015 Oct 20;10(10):e0141178. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0141178. eCollection 2015. PLoS One. 2015. PMID: 26485526 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
Abstract
Spatial variation in resources is a fundamental driver of habitat quality but the realized value of resources at any point in space may depend on the effects of conspecifics and stochastic factors, such as weather, which vary through time. We evaluated the relative and combined effects of habitat resources, weather, and conspecifics on habitat quality for ferruginous pygmy-owls (Glaucidium brasilianum) in the Sonoran Desert of northwest Mexico by monitoring reproductive output and conspecific abundance over 10 years in and around 107 territory patches. Variation in reproductive output was much greater across space than time, and although habitat resources explained a much greater proportion of that variation (0.70) than weather (0.17) or conspecifics (0.13), evidence for interactions among each of these components of the environment was strong. Relative to habitat that was persistently low in quality, high-quality habitat buffered the negative effects of conspecifics and amplified the benefits of favorable weather, but did not buffer the disadvantages of harsh weather. Moreover, the positive effects of favorable weather at low conspecific densities were offset by intraspecific competition at high densities. Although realized habitat quality declined with increasing conspecific density suggesting interference mechanisms associated with an Ideal Free Distribution, broad spatial heterogeneity in habitat quality persisted. Factors linked to food resources had positive effects on reproductive output but only where nest cavities were sufficiently abundant to mitigate the negative effects of heterospecific enemies. Annual precipitation and brooding-season temperature had strong multiplicative effects on reproductive output, which declined at increasing rates as drought and temperature increased, reflecting conditions predicted to become more frequent with climate change. Because the collective environment influences habitat quality in complex ways, integrated approaches that consider habitat resources, stochastic factors, and conspecifics are necessary to accurately assess habitat quality.
Conflict of interest statement
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Figures

Territory patches were located in two major vegetation communities and weather stations were located near Sasabe, Sonoyta, Cucurpe, Magdelena, and Altar. Regional patch occupancy was estimated in 11 regions: San Miguel, upper Magdalena, Magdalena-Coyotillo, Busani, upper Alter, lower Altar, upper Sasabe, lower Sasabe, upper Plomo, lower Plomo, and Sonoyta. Territory patches were 50 ha in area and are not shown to scale; the study area was approximately 20,000 km2.

Estimates of reproductive output are based on the top-ranked models that include each of the habitat factors represented as summarized in Table 3.

Lower right figure shows the number of negative heterospecific interactions observed divided by the total number of territory patches in each group across a gradient of increasing abundance of potential nest sites. Filled circles in upper figures are patches in semi-desert grasslands whereas those in the lower figure are patches where we observed negative heterospecific interactions. Estimates of reproductive output are based on model 3 in Table 3. Inset in upper left figure shows means (± SE) in each vegetation community.

The 9 territory patches shown all have high abundance of potential nest sites and were selected to illustrate effects. Black pixels (30-m) had ≥20% woody vegetation cover and were classified as woodland and gray pixels had <20% woody vegetation cover. Estimates of R are based on model 3 in Table 3.

Temperature and precipitation were measured at regional scales and estimates are from model 8 in Table 5.

Conspecific density was measured around each focal patch each year and regional occupancy was measured as the proportion of patches occupied in each of 11 watershed regions in each year. Estimates of the effect of local conspecific density are based on model {Density} and estimates of the effect of regional occupancy are adjusted for the effects of local density from model {Density + Occregion} in S4 Appendix.

Patches are sorted in ascending order basis on the estimated habitat effects and only patches with ≥2 observations (n = 92) are shown. Upper figure shows predictions based on estimated habitat effects only (model 3, Table 3), and the middle and lower figures show estimates based on habitat and temporal factors, and habitat and conspecific density, respectively. In lower figures, diamonds are average reproductive output and horozontal lines across bars illustrate the range of estimates among years.

The hypothetical weather gradient in the top figure was standardized based on annual precipitation and mean maximum temperature during the brooding season so as to represent conditions that ranged from wet and cool to hot and dry. Estimates are based on the top-ranked models that included these interactions in Table 6.

Habitat quality was classified as high (>3.0), moderate (>2.4–3.0), or low (0.9–2.4) based on patch-specific predictions of reproductive output from model 3 in Table 3. Slope parameters and SE are from least-squares regression. Estimates are based on the model {Habitat × Density + Weather} in Table 6 and S5 Appendix.
Similar articles
-
Flesch AD. Flesch AD. Proc Biol Sci. 2017 Jul 12;284(1858):20171001. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2017.1001. Proc Biol Sci. 2017. PMID: 28679731 Free PMC article.
-
Flesch AD, Steidl RJ. Flesch AD, et al. Ecol Appl. 2010 Jun;20(4):1021-39. doi: 10.1890/09-0076.1. Ecol Appl. 2010. PMID: 20597287
-
Dugger KM, Anthony RG, Andrews LS. Dugger KM, et al. Ecol Appl. 2011 Oct;21(7):2459-68. doi: 10.1890/10-2142.1. Ecol Appl. 2011. PMID: 22073635
-
The predicted influence of climate change on lesser prairie-chicken reproductive parameters.
Grisham BA, Boal CW, Haukos DA, Davis DM, Boydston KK, Dixon C, Heck WR. Grisham BA, et al. PLoS One. 2013 Jul 11;8(7):e68225. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068225. Print 2013. PLoS One. 2013. PMID: 23874549 Free PMC article.
-
Hoy SR, Millon A, Petty SJ, Whitfield DP, Lambin X. Hoy SR, et al. J Anim Ecol. 2016 Jul;85(4):892-902. doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.12517. Epub 2016 May 3. J Anim Ecol. 2016. PMID: 26990178
Cited by
-
Flesch AD. Flesch AD. Proc Biol Sci. 2017 Jul 12;284(1858):20171001. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2017.1001. Proc Biol Sci. 2017. PMID: 28679731 Free PMC article.
-
Correction: Spatial, Temporal, and Density-Dependent Components of Habitat Quality for a Desert Owl.
Flesch AD, Hutto RL, van Leeuwen WJ, Hartfield K, Jacobs S. Flesch AD, et al. PLoS One. 2015 Oct 20;10(10):e0141178. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0141178. eCollection 2015. PLoS One. 2015. PMID: 26485526 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
References
-
- McGraw JB, Caswell H (1996) Estimation of individual fitness from life-history data. American Naturalist 147: 47–64.
-
- Wiens JA (1989) The ecology of bird communities Volume 1: Foundations and patterns, Volume 2: Processes and variations Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
-
- Van Horne B (1983) Density as a misleading indicator of habitat quality. Journal of Wildlife Management 47: 893–901.
-
- Franklin AB, Anderson DR, Gutierrez RJ, Burnham KP (2000) Climate, habitat quality, and fitness in northern spotted owl populations in northwestern California. Ecological Monographs 70: 539–590.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
Agencies and organizations that funded this work include the U.S. National Park Service, Desert Southwest Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit, Tucson Audubon Society, Arizona Department of Transportation, T&E Inc., Defenders of Wildlife, Center for Biological Diversity, Sonoran Joint Venture, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Zoological Society, Global Owl Project, Sierra Club, University of Montana Graduate College and Shared Earth Foundation. Additionally, the authors acknowledge that these funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources