Coupling movement and landscape ecology for animal conservation in production landscapes

Abstract

Habitat conversion in production landscapes is among the greatest threats to biodiversity, not least because it can disrupt animal movement. Using the movement ecology framework, we review animal movement in production landscapes, including areas managed for agriculture and forestry. We consider internal and external drivers of altered animal movement and how this affects navigation and motion capacities and population dynamics. Conventional management approaches in fragmented landscapes focus on promoting connectivity using structural changes in the landscape. However, a movement ecology perspective emphasizes that manipulating the internal motivations or navigation capacity of animals represents untapped opportunities to improve movement and the effectiveness of structural connectivity investments. Integrating movement and landscape ecology opens new opportunities for conservation management in production landscapes.

Keywords: connectivity; corridor; dispersal; fragmentation; landscape behavioural ecology; perceptual range.

Figure 1.

The movement ecology framework [7] applied to animal movement and population dynamics in production landscapes. Dot points represent empirical examples of external factors affecting the animals' internal state, navigation capacity, motion capacity and movement path, with flow-on effects for population dynamics. Numbers in square brackets indicate examples supporting each component of the framework and correspond to the reference list.

Figure 2.

(a) Carnaby's cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus latirostris). (b) Influence of habitat fragmentation on the foraging movements and breeding of Carnaby's cockatoo in grazing–cropping landscapes of south-western Australia. Dark and light areas indicate native vegetation and exotic crops, respectively. (c–e) Foraging distance (c) is presented as mean and s.e., and breeding success (d) and fledgling weight (e) are presented as mean, minimum and maximum values. C, Coomallo Creek; M, Manmanning. Data adapted from Saunders [17,18]. Photo (a) is courtesy of Simon Cherriman and Landsat imagery (b) is courtesy of the US Geological Survey.

Figure 3.

Generalized importance of external factors for different dispersal stages. Bar width and shading indicates relative importance for each stage. Adapted from Matthysen [39].

Figure 4.

Fitness benefit of memory-based movement relative to the spatio-temporal complexity of the landscape. Adapted from Fagan et al. [47].

Figure 5.

Orienting plantation rows to connect habitat patches and stepping stones may aid connectivity for species that preferentially move along the rows.