Abstract
Context
Wildlife corridors have been proposed to strategically conserve wildlife habitat such that it facilitates connectivity between populations to allow dispersal, geneflow, and species migrations as the climate changes. However, few empirical examples have demonstrated the effectiveness of landscape-scale wildlife corridors. The Florida Wildlife Corridor (FLWC) includes 7.3 million hectares of connected undeveloped lands in Florida, USA, offering a real-world opportunity to assess the effectiveness of a landscape-scale corridor amid rapid development.
Objectives
Our objective was to evaluate how land cover and human population density influence wild turkey predicted occupancy and relative abundance. We then applied those relationships to predict how turkey populations differ inside and outside the Florida Wildlife Corridor (FLWC). Specifically, we compared the spatial differences in predicted occupancy and relative abundance to infer the potential role of the FLWC in supporting turkey populations under current landscape conditions.
Methods
We first estimated the effects of land cover variables, climate, and human population density on wild turkey occupancy and relative abundance by integrating presence, count, and detection/non-detection data from citizen science and agency sources using hierarchical occupancy and spatially explicit integrated models. We used these modeled relationships to predict turkey distribution (i.e., occupancy and relative abundance) statewide and compared these variables inside and outside the FLWC. Additionally, we compared observed productivity inside and outside the FLWC.
Results
Overall, the predicted occupancy and relative abundance were higher inside the FLWC compared to outside. Both predicted occupancy and relative abundance tended to decrease with urbanization and human population. Importantly, natural landcovers, including forests, shrublands, and grasslands, were predominantly located inside the FLWC, whereas open water, agricultural, and higher human population densities were concentrated outside the corridor. Observed productivity was similar inside and outside the FLWC.
Conclusions
Given that measures of turkey population productivity did not vary within and outside the FLWC, we speculate that the observed patterns may reflect indirect benefits of connectivity rather than direct effects on reproduction. For example, improved habitat availability or quality, movement opportunities, or other effects that moderate survival (e.g., predator differences) may be underlying mechanisms behind the difference between inside and outside the FLWC. Nevertheless, given the observed differences in relative abundance and occupancy, our findings support the growing recognition of the importance of maintaining habitat connectivity for conservation of wildlife in the face of global change.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, Fort Lauderdale Research and Education Center, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Davie, FL, USA (ROR: https://ror.org/02y3ad647) (GRID: grid.15276.37) (ISNI: 0000 0004 1936 8091)
2 Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, North Florida Research and Education Center, University of Florida, Quincy, FL, USA (ROR: https://ror.org/02y3ad647) (GRID: grid.15276.37) (ISNI: 0000 0004 1936 8091)
3 Biodiversity Monitoring & Analysis, UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Wallingford, UK (ROR: https://ror.org/00pggkr55) (GRID: grid.494924.6)
4 Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA (ROR: https://ror.org/02y3ad647) (GRID: grid.15276.37) (ISNI: 0000 0004 1936 8091)





