The influence of matrix quality on species richness in remnant forest
- 84 Downloads
Habitat destruction is the leading threat to terrestrial biodiversity, isolating remnant habitat in a matrix of modified vegetation.
Our goal was to determine how species richness in several broad taxonomic groups from remnant forest was influenced by matrix quality, which we characterized by comparing plant biomass in forest and the surrounding matrix.
We coupled data on species-area relationships (SARs) in forest remnants from 45 previously published studies with an index of matrix quality calculated using new estimates of plant biomass derived from satellite imagery.
The effect size of SARs was greatest in landscapes with low matrix quality and little forest cover. SARs were generally stronger for volant than for non-volant species. For the terrestrial taxa included in our analysis, matrix quality decreased as the proportion of water, ice, or urbanization in a landscape increased.
We clearly demonstrate that matrix quality plays a major role in determining patterns of species richness in remnant forest. A key implication of our work is that activities that increase matrix quality, such as active and passive habitat restoration, may be important conservation measure for maintaining and restoring biodiversity in modified landscapes.
KeywordsConnectivity Dispersal Habitat loss Habitat modification Isolation Patch
We thank R Drenovsky, C Anthony, and D Hickman for constructive feedback on the manuscript, and the Department of Biology at John Carroll University for supporting IJR during data collection and writing of this paper.
- Barnosky AD, Hadly EA, Bascompte J, Berlow EL, Brown JH, Fortelius M, Getz WM, Harte J, Hastings A, Marquet PA, Martinez ND, Mooers A, Roopnarine P, Vermeij G, Williams JW, Gillespie R, Kitzes J, Marshall C, Matzke N, Mindell DP, Revilla E, Smith AB (2012) Approaching a state shift in Earth’s biosphere. Nature 486:52–58CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Chandler G, Markham BL, Helder DL (2009) Summary of current radiometric calibration coefficients for Landsat MSS, TM, ETM+, and EO-1 ALI sensors. Remote Sens EnvironGoogle Scholar
- Edgar GJ, Stuart-Smith RD, Willis T, Kininmonth S, Baker SC, Banks S, Barrett NS, Becerro MA, Bernard ATF, Berkhout J, Buxton CD, Campbell SJ, Cooper AT, Davey M, Edgar SC, Försterra G, Galván DE, Irigoyen AJ, Kushner DJ, Moura R, Ed Parnell P, Shears NT, Soler G, Strain SMA, Thomson RJ (2014) Global conservation outcomes depend on marine protected areas with five key features. Nature 506:216–220Google Scholar
- Environmental Systems Research Institute (2012) ArcGIS Release 10.3. Redlands, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
- ESA (2017) Land Cover CCI Product User Guide Version 2.0. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4808e.pdf. Accessed 14 Feb 2017
- Eycott A, Watts K, Brandt G, Buyung-Ali L, Bowler D, Stewart G, Pullin AS (2010) Do landscape matrix features affect species movement? Collaboration for Environmental Evidence review 08-006 (SR 43)Google Scholar
- Haddad NM, Brudvig LA, Clobert J, Davies KF, Conzales A, Holt RD, Lovejoy TE, Sexton JO, Austin MP, Collins CD, Cook WM, Damschen EI, Ewers RM, Foster BL, Jenkins CN, King AJ, Laurance WF, Levey DJ, Margules CR, Melbourne BA, Nicholls AO, Orrock JL, Song d-X, Townsend JR (2015) Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems. Sci Adv 1:e1500052CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Haila Y (2002) A conceptual genealogy of fragmentation research: from island biogeography to landscape ecology. Ecol Appl 12:321–334Google Scholar
- Harris RJ, Reed JM (2002) Behavioral barriers to non-migratory movements of birds. Ann Zool Fenn 39:275–290Google Scholar
- Huete AR, Justice C (1999) MODIS vegetation index (MOD13) algorithm theoretical basis documentGoogle Scholar
- Jenkins DG, Brescacin CR, Duxbury CV, Elliott JA, Evans JA, Grablow KR, Hillegass M, Lyon BN, Metzger GA, Olandese ML, Pepe D, Silvers GA, Suresch HN, Thompson TN, Trexler CM, Williams GE, Williams NC, Williams SE (2007) Does size matter for dispersal distance? Glob Ecol Biogeogr 16:415–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Konstantopoulos S, Hedges LV (2009) Analyzing effect sizes: fixed-effects models. In: Cooper H, Hedges LV, Valentine JC (eds) The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. Russell Sage Foundation, New York, pp 279–293Google Scholar
- MacArthur RH, Wilson EO (1967) The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton University Press, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
- Newbold T, Hudson LN, Arnell AP, Contu S, De Palma A, Ferrier S, Hill SLL, Hoskins AJ, Lysenko I, Phillips HRP, Burton VJ, Chng CWT, Emerson S, Gao D, Pask-Hale G, Hutton J, Jung M, Sanchez-Ortiz K, Simmons BI, Whitmee S, Zhang H, Scharlemann JPW, Purvis A (2016) Has land use pushed terrestrial biodiversity beyond the planetary boundary? A global assessment. Science 353:288–291CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Preston FW (1962) The canonical distribution of commonness and rarity: part I. Ecology 43:187–215Google Scholar
- R Core Team (2016) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/