Landscape Ecology

, Volume 33, Issue 7, pp 1061–1068 | Cite as

Effect of connectivity and habitat availability on the occurrence of the Chestnut-throated Huet-Huet (Pteroptochos castaneus, Rhinocryptidae) in fragmented landscapes of central Chile

  • Matías G. CastilloEmail author
  • H. Jaime Hernández
  • Cristián F. Estades
Original paper



Although small isolated habitat patches may not be able to maintain a minimum viable population, small patches that are structurally isolated may be functionally connected if individuals can cross the gaps between them, in which case, their areas could be added to form a larger habitat patch, eventually surpassing the size threshold for holding a viable population.


We studied whether models based on the size and isolation of habitat patches could be used to predict the distribution of the Chestnut-throated Huet-Huet (Pteroptochos castaneus) in fragmented landscapes of the coastal range of the Maule region, central Chile.


We selected seven 10,000-ha landscapes (8.4–70.7% forest cover). For each habitat patch we made 18 predictions of the presence of the species based on the combination of two thresholds: three critical patch sizes for maintaining a viable population (62.5, 125 and 250 ha) and six critical isolation distances between patches (0, 10, 50, 100, 150 and 200 m). We used playbacks in 59 sampling points to estimate the species’ presence/absence. We used logistic regressions to test whether the output of the patch-matrix models could explain part of the variation in the presence of Pteroptochos castaneus.


The best predictions for the presence of P. castaneus were obtained with the most conservative scenarios (125–250 ha to 0–10 m), including a positive effect of the understory cover and a lack of effect of the forest type (native or exotic).


Our findings suggest that the long term persistence of P. castaneus may depend on the existence of large and/or very connected forest tracts.


Habitat fragmentation Functional connectivity Ground-dwelling forest birds Pteroptochos castaneus Central Chile 



This study was partially funded by a Fondecyt (1120314) grant to C.F. Estades. The School of Forest Science and Nature Conservation of the University of Chile provided important logistical support during the field work. Three anonymous reviewers made important observations on the first version of this work that helped us improve the quality of our study.

Supplementary material

10980_2018_649_MOESM1_ESM.doc (20 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 20 kb)


  1. Alderman J, McCollin D, Hinsley SA, Bellamy PE, Picton P, Crockett R (2005) Modelling the effects of dispersal and landscape configuration on population distribution and viability in fragmented habitat. Landscape Ecol 20:857–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Awade M, Boscolo D, Metzger JP (2012) Using binary and probabilistic habitat availability indices derived from graph theory to model bird occurrence in fragmented forests. Landscape Ecol 27:185–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ball SJ, Lindenmayer DB, Possingham HP (2003) The predictive accuracy of population viability analysis: a test using data from two small mammal species in a fragmented landscape. Biodivers Conserv 12:2393–2413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belisle M, Desrochers A (2002) Gap-crossing decisions by forest birds: an empirical basis for parameterizing spatially-explicit, individual-based models. Landscape Ecol 17:219–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Betts MG, Forbes GJ, Diamond AW (2007) Thresholds in songbird occurrence in relation to landscape structure. Conserv Biol 21:1046–1058CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Boscolo D, Metzger JP, Vielliard JME (2006) Efficiency of playback for assessing the occurrence of five bird species in Brazilian Atlantic Forest fragments. An Acad Bras Cienc 78:629–644CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Buckland ST, Burnham KP, Augustin NH (1997) Model selection: an integral part of inference. Biometrics 53:603–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. CONAF (2017) Situación diaria de incendios forestales. Accessed Jan 2017
  9. CONAF, CONAMA, BIRF, Universidad Austral de Chile, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile and Universidad Católica de Temuco (1999) Catastro y evaluación de los recursos vegetacionales nativos de Chile. Informe nacional con variables ambientales, SantiagoGoogle Scholar
  10. Crooks KR, Sanjayan M (eds) (2006) Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Díaz IA, Armesto JJ, Reid S, Sieving KE, Willson MF (2005) Linking forest structure and composition: avian diversity in successional forests of Chiloe Island, Chile. Biol Conserv 123:91–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Echeverría C, Coomes D, Salas J, Rey-Benayas JM, Lara A, Newton A (2006) Rapid deforestation and fragmentation of Chilean Temperate Forests. Biol Conserv 130:481–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Estades CF (1997) Bird-habitat relationships in a vegetational gradient in the Andes of central Chile. Condor 99:719–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Estades CF, Temple S (1999) Deciduous-forest bird communities in a fragmented landscape dominated by exotic pine plantations. Ecol Appl 9:573–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fahrig L (2002) Effect of habitat fragmentation on the extinction threshold: a synthesis. Ecol Appl 12:346–353Google Scholar
  16. Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fahrig L (2013) Rethinking patch size and isolation effects: the habitat amount hypothesis. J Biogeogr 40:1649–1663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Forman RTT (1995) Land mosaics: the ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Franklin IA (1980) Evolutionary change in small populations. In: Soulé ME, Wilcox BA (eds) Conservation biology: an evolutionary-ecological perspective. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, pp 135–149Google Scholar
  20. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S (2000) Applied logistic regression, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kadoya T (2009) Assessing functional connectivity using empirical data. Popul Ecol 51:5–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kindlmann P, Burel F (2008) Connectivity measures: a review. Landscape Ecol 23:879–890Google Scholar
  23. Lens L, Van Dongen S, Norris K, Githiru M, Matthysen E (2002) Avian persistence in fragmented rainforest. Science 298:1236–1238CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Nanin M, Palomares F, Brito D (2015) The jaguar’s patches: viability of jaguar populations in fragmented landscapes. J Nat Conserv 23:90–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Powell LL, Cordeiro NJ, Stratford JA (2015) Ecology and conservation of avian insectivores of the rainforest understory: a pantropical perspective. Biol Conserv 188:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Prugh LR, Hodges KE, Sinclair AR, Brashares JS (2008) Effect of habitat area and isolation on fragmented animal populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105(52):20770–20775CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. R Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna.
  28. Radford JQ, Bennett AF, Cheers GJ (2005) Landscape-level thresholds of habitat cover for woodland-dependent birds. Biol Conserv 124:317–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ramírez-Collio K, Vergara PM, Simonetti JA (2017) Converting clear cutting into a less hostile habitat: the importance of understory for the abundance and movement of the Chestnut-throated Huet-Huet (Pteroptochos castaneus: rhinocryptidae). Forest Ecol Manag 384:279–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Reid S, Cornelius C, Barbosa O, Meynard C, Silva-García C, Marquet P (2002) Conservation of temperate forest birds in Chile: implications from the study of an isolated forest relict. Biodivers Conserv 11:1975–1990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Saunders DA, Hobbs RJ, Margules CR (1991) Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conserv Biol 5:18–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Saura S, Rubio L (2010) A common currency for the different ways in which patches and links can contribute to habitat availability and connectivity in the landscape. Ecography 33:523–537Google Scholar
  33. Saura S, Torné J (2009) Conefor Sensinode 2.2: a software package for quantifying the importance of habitat patches for landscape connectivity. Environ Model Softw 24:135–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sieving K, Willson M, de Santo T (2000) Defining corridor functions for endemic birds in fragmented south-temperate rainforest. Conserv Biol 14:1120–1132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stevens VN, Baguette M (2008) Importance of habitat quality and landscape connectivity for the persistence of endangered Natterjack Toads. Conserv Biol 22:1194–1204CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Thorton DH, Branch LC, Sunquist ME (2012) Response of large galliforms and tinamous (Cracidae, Phasianidae, Tinamidae) to habitat loss and fragmentation in northern Guatemala. Oryx 46:567–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tilman D, May RM, Lehman CL, Nowak MA (1994) Habitat destruction and the extinction debt. Nature 371:65–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tomasevic J, Estades CF (2006) Stand attributes and the abundance of secondary cavity-nesting birds in southern beech (Nothofagus) forests in south-central Chile. Ornitol Neotrop 17:1–14Google Scholar
  39. Tomasevic J, Estades CF (2008) Effects of the structure of pine plantations on their ‘‘softness’’ as barriers for ground-dwelling forest birds in south-central Chile. Forest Ecol Manag 255:810–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Vergara P, Simonetti J (2003) Forest fragmentation and rhinocryptid nest predation in central Chile. Acta Oecol 24:285–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wang X, Blanche FG, Koper N (2014) Measuring habitat fragmentation: an evaluation of landscape pattern metrics. Methods Ecol Evol 5(7):634–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. With KA, King AW (1999) Extinction thresholds for species in fractal landscapes. Conserv Biol 13:314–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Witter AK, Berggren (2007) Natal dispersal in the North Island Robin (Petroica longipes): the importance of connectivity in fragmented habitats. Avian Conserv Ecol 2:2.
  44. Zaiden T, Marques FC, Medeiros HR, dos Anjos L (2015) Decadal persistence of frugivorous birds in tropical forest fragments of northern Parana. Biota Neotrop. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zarri AA, Rahmani AR, Singh A, Kushwaha SPS (2008) Habitat suitability assessment for the endangered Nilgiri Laughingthrush: a multiple logistic regression approach. Curr Sci 94(11):1487–1494Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matías G. Castillo
    • 1
    Email author
  • H. Jaime Hernández
    • 2
  • Cristián F. Estades
    • 1
  1. 1.Wildlife Ecology Laboratory, School of Forest Sciences and Nature ConservationUniversity of ChileSantiagoChile
  2. 2.Geomatics and Landscape Ecology Laboratory, School of Forest Sciences and Nature ConservationUniversity of ChileSantiagoChile

Personalised recommendations