liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
A comparison of patch connectivity measures using data on invertebrates in hollow oaks
Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.
Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1369-9351
Department of Biology, Carleton University., Ottawa, ON, Canada.
2010 (English)In: Ecography, ISSN 0906-7590, Vol. 33, no 5, p. 971-978Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

This study aimed at comparing six patch connectivity measures by fitting them to field data. We used occupancy data for eight beetle and two pseudoscorpion species from 281 hollow oaks in southeast Sweden. Species occupancy was modelled in relation to tree characteristics and one measure of patch connectivity at a time. For each connectivity measure we searched for the spatial scale that generated the best fit to field data. Connectivity measures that only include occupied patches provided better model fits than those that include all patches. When occupancy data are absent for surrounding habitat patches, information that reflects occurrence probabilities can be included in the connectivity measure. However, in this study incorporation of such information resulted in only a slight improvement of model fit. A frequently used connectivity measure based on the negative exponential function was relatively poor in explaining species’ occurrence; for eight species out of nine a buffer measure was better. A better fit was obtained when the negative exponential function was modified to take into account that habitat patches may “compete” for the immigrants. The spatial scale with the best fit tended to be larger when we used connectivity measures in which dispersal sources are identified with lower precision. Thus, the outcomes from different multiple‐scale studies are not directly comparable if the density of dispersal sources is not measured in the same way. Overall we conclude that buffer measures are useful, as they give good predictions and are easy to understand and use. If a biologically more realistic measure is needed, one that up‐weights the closest patches should be used. Finally, the possibility that habitat patches may compete with each other for immigrants should be considered when selecting a connectivity measure.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Inc., 2010. Vol. 33, no 5, p. 971-978
National Category
Ecology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-175257DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2009.06363.xISI: 000283690900017Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-78049421574OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-175257DiVA, id: diva2:1547290
Available from: 2021-04-26 Created: 2021-04-26 Last updated: 2021-04-26Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records

Johansson, Victor

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Johansson, Victor
Ecology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 23 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf