1. Lots of Ways to Measure Landscape Pattern (Hargis et al. 1997) Fig 9.1 here Amount of each class –Critical probability at point of percolation 50-65% of landscape depending on pattern Aggregation of classes into patches –Patch size, shape, P/A, edge, density Frequency distribution of patch aggregation metrics –Gives landscape its texture Spatial distribution of patches –Distances between patches, exact placement on landscape, distance to important features.

2. Relating Wildlife Populations to Landscape Variables We selected 4 variables that were minimally correlated –Number of Patches –Contrast-weighted Edge Density –Juxtaposition –Mean Shape Index High Low (Marzluff et al. 2003)

4. Multiple Regression Produces a Resource Utilization Function Relative Use = 1.32 - 0.14 (Mature Forest) - 0.29 (Clear cut) + 0.09 (Number of Patches) + 0.005 (Contrast-weighted Edge) - 0.002 (Patch Juxtaposition) + 0.14 (Patch Shape) Use is a CONTINUOUS MEASURE Use:Availability Can Be Incorporated to Any Degree Desired

5. Relative Importance of Resources at the Population Level (n = 25) Resource AttributeMean Standardize d  95% Confidenc e Interval P (  # of jays with use significantly associated with attribute + - Number of Patches +0.11* -0.57 – 0.28 0.1914*9 Contrast-weighted Edge +0.06* -0.13 – 0.26 0.5010*9 Mature Forest -0.05 -0.18 – 0.08 0.45128 Clear cut -0.04 -0.17 – 0.09 0.5169 Interspersion – Juxtaposition -0.01* -0.14 – 0.16 0.87118* Patch Shape Index +0.01* -0.11 – 0.14 0.849*12 * Use in direction predicted if jays select for edgy, fragmented areas within their home range Decreasing Importance

6. Relative Importance of Resources at the Population Level (n = 25) Resource AttributeMean Standardize d  95% Confidenc e Interval P (  # of jays with use significantly associated with attribute + - Number of Patches +0.11* -0.57 – 0.28 0.1914*9 Contrast-weighted Edge +0.06* -0.13 – 0.26 0.5010*9 Mature Forest -0.05 -0.18 – 0.08 0.45128 Clear cut -0.04 -0.17 – 0.09 0.5169 Interspersion – Juxtaposition -0.01* -0.14 – 0.16 0.87118* Patch Shape Index +0.01* -0.11 – 0.14 0.849*12 * Use in direction predicted if jays select for edgy, fragmented areas within their home range Decreasing Importance Greater use of areas with many patches and edge as expected Pattern more important than type of vegetation

7. Relative Importance of Resources at the Population Level (n = 25) Resource AttributeMean Standardize d  95% Confidenc e Interval P (  # of jays with use significantly associated with attribute + - Number of Patches +0.11* -0.57 – 0.28 0.1914*9 Contrast-weighted Edge +0.06* -0.13 – 0.26 0.5010*9 Mature Forest -0.05 -0.18 – 0.08 0.45128 Clear cut -0.04 -0.17 – 0.09 0.5169 Interspersion – Juxtaposition -0.01* -0.14 – 0.16 0.87118* Patch Shape Index +0.01* -0.11 – 0.14 0.849*12 * Use in direction predicted if jays select for edgy, fragmented areas within their home range Decreasing Importance Population Not Consistent in Use of Resources

8. Another way to Relate Use to Habitat Map the similarity between habitat at point Z and habitat used Vector of habitat attributes measured at used sites and all points in landscape Calculate the similarity between point in landscape and average vector of used habitat –Mahalanobis distance

9. Mahalanobis Distance Measure of dissimilarity between sample habitat characters (x) and ideal habitat represented by u.

10. Example of Mahalanobis Distance Probabilities Clark et al. 1993 Black Bears in Arkansas Yellow depicts areas where habitat characters approach the ideal mean habitat vector

11. Another Example Black-tailed Jackrabbits in Southwestern Idaho Managers Know where to focus restoration efforts and where to reduce chance of wildfire Knick and Dyer 1997