Habitat Selection: Implications for Monitoring, Management, and Conservation

References

• Abrams, P.A., Cressman, R., Křivan, V. 2007. The role of behavioral dynamics in determining the patch distribution of interacting species. Am. Nat. 169: 505-518.
   Google Scholar
• Abramsky, Z., Rosenzweig, M.L., Subach, A. 2001. The cost of interspecific competition in two gerbil species. J. Anim. Ecol. 70: 561-567.
   Google Scholar
• Bach, L.A., Ripa, J., Lundberg, P. 2007. On the evolution and conditional dispersal under environmental and demographic stochasticity. Evol. Ecol. Res. 9: 1-11.
   Google Scholar
• Berryman, A.A. 2002. Population: a central concept for ecology? Oikos 97: 439-442.
   Google Scholar
• Boughton, D.A. 1999. Empirical evidence for complex source-sink dynamics with alternative states in a butterfly metapopulation. Ecology 80: 2727-2739.
   Google Scholar
• Bowers, M.A. 1996. Species as indicators of large-scale environmental change: a computer simulation model of population decline. Ecoscience 3: 502-511.
   Google Scholar
• Bowler, D.E., Benton, T.G. 2005. Causes and consequences of animal dispersal strategies: relating individual behaviour to spatial dynamics. Biol. Rev. 80: 205-225.
   Google Scholar
• Boyce, M.S. 2006. Scale for resource selection functions. Divers. Distrib. 12: 269-276.
   Google Scholar
• Boyce, M.S., McDonald, L.L. 1999. Relating populations to habitats using resource selection functions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 14: 268-272.
   Google Scholar
• Brawn, J.D., Robinson, S.K. 1996. Source-sink population dynamics may complicate the interpretation of long-term census data. Ecology 77: 3-12.
   Google Scholar
• Chalfoun, A.D., Martin, T.E. 2007. Assessments of habitat preferences and quality depend on spatial scale and metrics of fitness. J. Appl. Ecol. 44: 983-992.
   Google Scholar
• Ciarniello, L.M., Boyce, M.S., Seip, D.R. 2007. Grizzly bear habitat selection is scale dependent. Ecol. Appl. 17: 1424-1440.
   Google Scholar
• Cressman, R., Křivan, V. 2006. Migration dynamics for the ideal free distribution. Am. Nat. 168: 384-397.
   Google Scholar
• Cressman, R., Křivan, V., Garay, J. 2004. Ideal free distributions, evolutionary games, and population dynamics in multi-species environments. Am. Nat. 164: 473-489.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, J.M., Stamps, J.A. 2004. The effect of natal experience on habitat preferences. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19: 411-416.
   Google Scholar
• Delibes, M., Gaona, P., Ferreras, P. 2001. Effects of an attractive sink leading into maladaptive habitat selection. Am. Nat. 158: 277-285.
   Google Scholar
• Dias, P.C. 1996. Sources and sinks in population biology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11: 326-330.
   Google Scholar
• Diffendorfer, J.E. 1998. Testing models of source-sink dynamics and balanced dispersal. Oikos 81: 417-433.
   Google Scholar
• Earn, D.J.D., Johnstone, R.A. 1997. A systematic error in tests of ideal free theory. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 264: 1671-1675.
   Google Scholar
• FAO. 2007. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2006. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
   Google Scholar
• Fretwell, S.D. 1972. Populations in a seasonal environment. Monographs in population biology. Vol. 5. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 224 pp.
   Google Scholar
• Fretwell, S.D., Lucas, H.L. 1969. On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. I. Theoretical development. Acta Biotheor. 19: 16-36.
   Google Scholar
• Fryxell, J.M., Wilmshurst, J.F., Sinclair, A.R.E., Haydon, D.T., Holt, R.D., Abrams, P.A. 2005. Landscape scale, heterogeneity, and the viability of Serengeti grazers. Ecol. Lett. 8: 328-335.
   Google Scholar
• Gårdmark, A., Jonzén, N., Mangel, M. 2006. Density-dependent body growth reduces the efficiency of marine reserves. J. Appl. Ecol. 43: 61-69.
   Google Scholar
• Gaston, K.J., Blackburn, T.M., Lawton, J.H. 1997. Interspecific abundance range size relationships: An appraisal of mechanisms. J. Anim. Ecol. 66: 579-601.
   Google Scholar
• Gilroy, J.J., Sutherland, W.J. 2007. Beyond ecological traps: perceptual errors and undervalued resources. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22: 351-356.
   Google Scholar
• Greenwood, J.J.D., Baillie, S.R., Gregory, R.D., Peach, W.J., Fuller, R.J. 1995. Some new approaches to conservation monitoring of British breeding birds. Ibis 137: S16-S28 (suppl. 1).
   Google Scholar
• Grinnell, J. 1917. Field tests of theories concerning distributional control. Am. Nat. 51: 115-128.
   Google Scholar
• Hakoyama, H. 2003. The ideal free distribution when the resource is variable. Behav. Ecol. 14: 109-115.
   Google Scholar
• Hart, D.R. 2006. When do marine reserves increase fishery yield? Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 63: 1445-1449.
   Google Scholar
• Haugen, T.O., Winfield, I.J., Vøllestad, L.A., Fletcher, J.M., James, J.B., Stenseth, N.C. 2006. The ideal free pike: 50 years of fitness-maximizing dispersal in Windermere. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 273: 2917-2924.
   Google Scholar
• Hilborn, R., Mangel, M. 1997. The ecological detective: confronting models with data. Princeton University Press, NJ, 338 pp.
   Google Scholar
• Hobbs, N.T. 2003. Challenges and opportunities in integrating ecological knowledge across scales. For. Ecol. Manag. 181: 223-238.
   Google Scholar
• Holt, R.D. 1997. On the evolutionary stability of sink populations. Evol. Ecol. 11: 723-731.
   Google Scholar
• Holt, R.D., Barfield, M. 2001. On the relationship between the ideal free distribution and the evolution of dispersal. In: Clobert, J., Danchin, E., Nichols, J.D., eds. Dispersal. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 83-95.
   Google Scholar
• James, F.C., McCullogh, C.E., Wiedenfeld, D.A. 1996. New approaches to the analysis of population trends in land birds. Ecology 77: 13-27.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, M.D. 2007. Measuring habitat quality: a review. Condor 109: 489-504.
   Google Scholar
• Jonzén, N., Wilcox, C., Possingham, H.P. 2004. Habitat selection and population regulation in temporally fluctuating environments. Am. Nat. 164: E103-114.
   Google Scholar
• Jonzén, N., Rhodes, J.R., Possingham, H.P. 2005. Trend detection in source-sink systems: when should sink habitats be monitored? Ecol. Appl. 15: 326-334.
   Google Scholar
• Kennedy, M., Gray, R.D. 1993. Can ecological theory predict the distribution of foraging animals—a critical analysis of experiments on the ideal free distribution. Oikos 68: 158-166.
   Google Scholar
• Kisdi, E. 2002. Dispersal: risk spreading versus local adaptation. Am. Nat. 159: 579-596.
   Google Scholar
• Knight, T.W., Morris, D.W. 1996. How many habitats do landscapes contain? Ecology 77: 1756-1764.
   Google Scholar
• Kokko, H., Sutherland, W.J. 2001. Ecological traps in changing environments: ecological and evolutionary consequences of a behaviourally mediated Allee effect. Evol. Ecol. Res. 3: 537-551.
   Google Scholar
• Kristan, W.B., III. 2003. The role of habitat selection behaviour in population dynamics: source-sink systems and ecological traps. Oikos 103: 457-468.
   Google Scholar
• Kun, A., Scheuring, I. 2006. The evolution of density-dependent dispersal in a noisy spatial population model. Oikos 115: 308-320.
   Google Scholar
• Lack, D. 1933. Habitat selection in birds. J. Anim. Ecol. 2: 239-262.
   Google Scholar
• Lele, S., Taper, M.L., Gage, S. 1998. Statistical analysis of population dynamics in space and time using estimating functions. Ecology 79: 1489-1502.
   Google Scholar
• Levin, S.A. 1992. The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73: 1943-1967.
   Google Scholar
• Lima, S.L., Zollner, P.A. 1996. Towards a behavioral ecology of ecological landscapes. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11: 131-135.
   Google Scholar
• Lundberg, P., Jonzén, N. 1999a. Spatial population dynamics and the design of marine reserves. Ecol. Lett. 2: 129-134.
   Google Scholar
• Lundberg, P., Jonzén, N. 1999b. Optimal population harvesting in a source-sink environment. Evol. Ecol. Res. 1: 719-729.
   Google Scholar
• Mallord, J.W., Dolman, P.M., Brown, A.F., Sutherland, W.J. 2007. Linking recreational disturbance to population size in a ground-nesting passerine J. Appl. Ecol. 44: 185-195.
   Google Scholar
• Manly, B.F.J., McDonald, L.L., Thomas, D.L. 1993. Resource selection by animals: statistical design and analysis for field studies. Chapman & Hall, London.
   Google Scholar
• Matthysen, E. 2005. Density-dependent dispersal in birds and mammals. Ecography 28: 403-416.
   Google Scholar
• Mayr, E. 1926. Die ausbreitung des Girlitz (Serinus canaria serinus L.). J. Ornithol. 74: 571-671.
   Google Scholar
• McCoy, T.D., Ryan, M.R., Kurzejeski, E.W., Burger, L.W. 1999. Conservation Reserve Program: source or sink habitat for grassland birds in Missouri? J. Wildl. Manage. 63: 530-538.
   Google Scholar
• Morisita, M. 1950. Dispersal and population density of a water strider, Gerris lacustris L. Contributions to Physiology and Ecology, Kyoto University. No. 65 (in Japanese).
   Google Scholar
• Morris, D.W. 1987. Tests of density-dependent habitat selection in a patchy environment. Ecol. Monogr. 57: 269-281.
   Google Scholar
• Morris, D.W. 1989. Density-dependent habitat selection: testing the theory with fitness data. Evol. Ecol. 3: 80-94.
   Google Scholar
• Morris, D.W. 1992. Scales and costs of habitat selection in heterogeneous landscapes. Evol. Ecol. 6: 412-432.
   Google Scholar
• Morris, D.W. 2003. Toward an ecological synthesis: a case for habitat selection. Oecologia 136: 1-13.
   Google Scholar
• Morris, D.W., Diffendorfer, J.E., Lundberg, P. 2004. Dispersal among habitats varying in fitness: reciprocating migration through ideal habitat selection. Oikos 107: 559-575.
   Google Scholar
• Oatway, M.L., Morris, D.W. 2007. Do animals select habitat at small or large scales? An experiment with meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus). Can. J. Zool. 85: 479-487.
   Google Scholar
• Orians, G.H., Wittenberger, J.F. 1991. Spatial and temporal scales in habitat selection. Am. Nat. 137: S29-S49.
   Google Scholar
• Palmqvist, E., Lundberg, P., Jonzén, N. 2000. Linking resource matching and dispersal. Evol. Ecol. 14: 1-12.
   Google Scholar
• Pikitch, E.K., Santora, C., Babcock, E.A., Bakun, A., Bonfil, R., Conover, D.O., Dayton, P., Doukakis, P., Fluharty, D., Heneman, B., Houde, E.D., Link, J., Livingston, P.A., Mangel, M., McAllister, M.K., Pope, J., Sainsbury, K.J. 2004. Ecosystem-based fishery management. Science 305: 346-347.
   Google Scholar
• Pulliam, H.R. 1988. Sources, sinks and population regulation. Am. Nat. 132: 652-661.
   Google Scholar
• Pulliam, H.R., Danielson, B.J. 1991. Sources, sinks and habitat selection: a landscape perspective on population dynamics. Am. Nat. 137: 50-66.
   Google Scholar
• Ranta, E., Lundberg, P., Kaitala, V. 1999. Resource matching with limited knowledge. Oikos 86: 383-385.
   Google Scholar
• Recer, G.M., Blanckenhorn, W.U., Newman, J.A., Tuttle, E.M., Withiam, M.L., Caraco, T. 1987. Temporal resource variability and the habitat-matching rule. Evol. Ecol. 1: 363-378.
   Google Scholar
• Remes, V. 2000. How can maladaptive habitat choice generate source-sink population dymanics? Oikos 91: 579-582.
   Google Scholar
• Rhodes, J.R., Tyre, A.J., Jonzén, N., McAlpine, C.A., Possingham, H.P. 2006. Optimizing presence-absence surveys for detecting population trends. J. Wildl. Manage. 70: 8-18.
   Google Scholar
• Rice, J.C. 2005. Understanding fish habitat ecology to achieve conservation. J. Fish Biol. 67 (suppl. B): 1-22.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenzweig, M.L. 1981. A theory of habitat selection. Ecology 62: 327-335.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenzweig, M.L. 1991. Habitat selection and population interactions: the search for mechanism. Am. Nat. 137: 5-28.
   Google Scholar
• Sanchirico, J.N., Malvadkar, U., Hastings, A., Wilen, J.E. 2006. When are no-take zones an economically optimal fishery management strategy? Ecol. Appl. 16: 1643-1659.
   Google Scholar
• Schauber, E.M., Goodwin, B.J., Jones, C.G., Ostfeld, R.S. 2007. Spatial selection and inheritance: Applying evolutionary concepts to population dynamics in heterogeneous space. Ecology: 1112-1118.
   Google Scholar
• Schlaepfer, M.A., Runge, M.C., Sherman, P.W. 2002. Ecological and evolutionary traps. Trend Ecol. Evol. 17: 474-480.
   Google Scholar
• Shepherd, T.D., Litvak, M.K. 2004. Density-dependent habitat selection and the ideal free distribution in marine fish spatial dynamics: considerations and cautions. Fish Fisheries 5: 141-152.
   Google Scholar
• Stamps, J.A., Swaisgood, R.R. 2007. Someplace like home: experience, habitat selection and conservation biology. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 102: 392-409.
   Google Scholar
• Suárez-Seoane, S., Osborne, P.E., Alonso, J.C. 2002. Large-scale habitat selection by agricultural steppe birds in Spain: identifying species-habitat responses using generalized additive models. J. Appl. Ecol. 39: 755-771.
   Google Scholar
• Svärdsson, G. 1949. Competition and habitat selection in birds. Oikos 1: 157-174.
   Google Scholar
• Travis, J.M.J., French, D.R. 2000. Dispersal functions and spatial models: expanding our dispersal toolbox. Ecol. Lett. 3: 163-165.
   Google Scholar
• Travis, J.M.J., Murrell, D.J., Dytham, C. 1999. The evolution of density-dependent dispersal. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 266: 1837-1842.
   Google Scholar
• Tregenza, T., Parker, G.A., Thompson, D.J. 1996. Interference and the ideal free distribution: Models and tests. Behav. Ecol. 7: 379-386.
   Google Scholar
• Tuck, G.N., Possingham, H.P. 2000. Marine protected areas for spatially structured stock. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 192: 89-101.
   Google Scholar
• Tyler, J.A., Hargrove, W.W. 1997. Predicting spatial distribution of foragers over large resource landscapes: a modelling analysis of the Ideal Free Distribution. Oikos 79: 376-386.
   Google Scholar
• Watkinson, A.R., Sutherland, W.J. 1995. Sources, sinks and pseudosinks. J. Anim. Ecol. 64: 126-130.
   Google Scholar
• Wiens, J.A. 1989. Spatial scaling in ecology. Funct. Ecol. 3: 385-397.
   Google Scholar