Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 33, Issue 7, pp 1147–1157 | Cite as

The influence of matrix quality on species richness in remnant forest

  • Ian J. Reider
  • Maureen A. Donnelly
  • James I. Watling
Research Article
  • 84 Downloads

Abstract

Context

Habitat destruction is the leading threat to terrestrial biodiversity, isolating remnant habitat in a matrix of modified vegetation.

Objectives

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

Keywords

Connectivity Dispersal Habitat loss Habitat modification Isolation Patch 

Notes

Acknowledgements

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.

Supplementary material

10980_2018_664_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.9 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1986 kb)

References

  1. Åberg J, Jansson G, Swenson JE, Angelstam P (1995) The effect of matrix on the occurrence of hazel grouse (Bonasa bonasia) in isolated habitat fragments. Oecologia 103:265–269CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Allouche O, Tsoar A, Kadmon R (2006) Assessing the accuracy of species distribution models: prevalence, kappa and the true skill statistic (TSS). J Appl Ecol 43:1223–1232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson J, Rowcliffe JM, Cowlishaw G (2007) Does the matrix matter? A forest primate in a complex agricultural landscape. Biol Conserv 135:212–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andrén H (1996) Population responses to habitat fragmentation: statistical power and the random sample hypothesis. Oikos 76:235–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aranda SC, Gabriel R, Borges PAV, Santos AMC, Hortal J, Baselga A, Lobo JM (2013) How do different dispersal models shape the species-area relationship? Evidence for between-group coherence in the Macaronesian flora. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 22:483–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Baum KA, Haynes KJ, Dillemuth FP, Cronin JT (2004) The matrix enhances the effectiveness of corridors and stepping stones. Ecology 85:2671–2676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Biswas SR, Wagner HH (2012) Landscape contrast: a solution to hidden assumptions in the metacommunity concept? Landscape Ecol 27:621–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Biz M, Cornelius C, Paul J, Metzger W (2017) Matrix type affects movement behavior of a Neotropical understory forest bird. Perspect Ecol Conserv 15:10–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brancalion PHS, Schweizer D, Gaudare U, Mangueira JR, Lamonato F, Farah FT, Nave AG, Rodrigues RR (2016) Balancing economic costs and ecological outcomes of passive and active restoration in agricultural landscapes: the case of Brazil. Biotropica 48:856–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Breiman L (2001) Random forests. Mach Learn 45:5–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brook BW, Buettel JC (2016) Emigration is costly, but immigration has benefits in human-altered landscapes. Funct Ecol 30:1478–1479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brown JH, Kodric-Brown A (1977) Turnover rates in insular biogeography: effect of immigration on immigration on extinction. Ecology 58:445–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bullock JM, Aronson J, Newton AC, Pywell RF, Rey-benayas JM (2011) Restoration of ecosystem services and biodiversity: conflicts and opportunities. Trends Ecol Evol 26:541–549CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Castellón TD, Sieving KE (2006) An experimental test of matrix permeability and corridor use by an endemic understory bird. Conserv Biol 20:135–145CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Churches CE, Wampler PJ, Sun W, Smith AJ (2014) Evaluation of forest cover estimates for Haiti using supervised classification of Landsat data. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 30:203–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Clobert J, Le Galliard JF, Cote J, Meylan S, Massot M (2009) Informed dispersal, heterogeneity in animal dispersal syndromes and the dynamics of spatially structured populations. Ecol Lett 12:197–209CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Collinge SK, Palmer TM (2002) The influences of patch shape and boundary contrast on insect response to fragmentation in California grasslands. Landscape Ecol 17:647–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cook WM, Lane KT, Foster BL, Holt RD (2002) Island theory, matrix effects and species richness patterns in habitat fragments. Ecol Lett 5:619–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. de Rezende CL, Uezu A, Scarano FR, Araujo DSD (2015) Atlantic Forest spontaneous regeneration at landscape scale. Biodivers Conserv 24:2255–2272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Delibes-Mateos M, Redpath SM, Angulo E, Ferreras P, Villafuerte R (2007) Rabbits as a keystone species in southern Europe. Biol Conserv 137:149–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Desrochers A, Hannon SJ (1997) Gap crossing decisions by forest songbirds during the post-fledging period. Conserv Biol 11:1204–1210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Environmental Systems Research Institute (2012) ArcGIS Release 10.3. Redlands, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  26. ESA (2017) Land Cover CCI Product User Guide Version 2.0. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4808e.pdf. Accessed 14 Feb 2017
  27. 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
  28. Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fahrig L (2013) Rethinking patch size and isolation effects: the habitat amount hypothesis. J Biogeogr 40:1649–1663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fattorini S, Borges PAV, Dapporto L, Strona G (2017) What can the parameters of the species-area relationship (SAR) tell us? Insights from Mediterranean islands. J Biogeogr 44:1018–1028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Flockhart DTT, Brower LP, Ramirez MI, Hobson KA, Wassenaar LI, Altizer S, Norris DR (2017) Regional climate on the breeding grounds predicts variation in the natal origin of monarch butterflies overwintering in Mexico over 38 years. Glob Change Biol 23:2565–2576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Forman RTT (2000) Estimate of the area affected ecologically by the road system in the United States. Conserv Biol 14:31–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Friedman JH (2001) Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine. Ann Stat 29:1189–1232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gao D, Perry G (2016) Species-area relationships and additive partitioning of diversity of native and nonnative herpetofauna of the West Indies. Ecol Evol 6:7742–7762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Garibaldi LA, Gemmill-Herren B, D’Annolfo R, Graeub BE, Cunningham SA, Breeze TD (2017) Farming approaches for greater biodiversity, livelihoods, and food security. Trends Ecol Evol 32:68–80CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Gilbert-Norton L, Wilson R, Stevens JR, Beard KH (2010) A meta-analytic review of corridor effectiveness. Conserv Biol 24:660–668CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Gonzalez A, Chaneton EJ (2002) Heterotroph species extinction, abundance and biomass dynamics in an experimentally fragmented microecosystem. J Anim Ecol 71:594–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Grismer JL, Schulte JA II, Alexander A, Wagner P, Travers SL, Buehler MD, Welton LJ, Brown RM (2016) The Eurasion invasion: phylogenomic data reveal multiple Southeast Asian origins for Indian Dragon Lizards. BMC Evol Biol 16:43CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 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
  40. Haddad NM, Gonzalez A, Brudvig LA, Burt MA, Levey DJ, Damschen EI (2017) Experimental evidence does not support the habitat amount hypothesis. Ecography 40:48–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Haila Y (2002) A conceptual genealogy of fragmentation research: from island biogeography to landscape ecology. Ecol Appl 12:321–334Google Scholar
  42. Harris RJ, Reed JM (2002) Behavioral barriers to non-migratory movements of birds. Ann Zool Fenn 39:275–290Google Scholar
  43. Haynes KJ, Cronin JT (2006) Interpatch movement and edge effects: the role of behavioral responses to the landscape matrix. Oikos 113:43–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Holderegger R, Wagner HH (2008) Landsc Genet. Bioscience 58:199–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hovestadt T, Poethke HJ (2005) Dispersal and establishment: spatial patterns and species-area relationships. Divers Distrib 11:333–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Huete A, Didan K, Miura T, Rodriguez EP, Gao X, Ferreira LG (2002) Overview of the radiometric and biophysical performance of the MODIS vegetation indices. Remote Sens Environ 83:195–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Huete AR, Justice C (1999) MODIS vegetation index (MOD13) algorithm theoretical basis documentGoogle Scholar
  48. 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
  49. Jones NT, Germain RM, Grainger TN, Hall AM, Baldwin L, Gilbert B (2015) Dispersal mode mediates the effect of patch size and patch connectivity on metacommunity diversity. J Ecol 103:935–994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kierepka E, Anderson SJ, Swihart RK, Rhodes OE Jr (2016) Evaluating the influence of life-history characteristics on genetic structure: a comparison of small mammals inhabiting complex agricultural landscapes. Ecol Evol 6:6376–6396CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. 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
  52. Kupfer JA, Malanson GP, Franklin SB (2006) Not seeing the ocean for the islands: the mediating influence of matrix-based processes on forest fragmentation effects. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 15:8–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lambeck RJ (1997) Focal species: a multi-species umbrella for nature conservation. Conserv Biol 11:849–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lees AC, Gilroy JJ (2014) Vagrancy fails to predict colonization of oceanic islands. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 23:405–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lees AC, Peres CA (2009) Gap-crossing movements predict species occupancy in Amazonian forest fragments. Oikos 118:280–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lomolino MV (2000) Ecology’s most general, yet protean pattern: the species-area relationship. J Biogeogr 27:17–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Losos BJ, Schluter D (2000) Analysis of an evolutionary species-area relationship. Nature 408:847–850CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. MacArthur RH, Wilson EO (1967) The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton University Press, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  59. Martin AE, Fahrig L (2012) Measuring and selecting scales of effect for landscape predictors in species-habitat models. Ecol Appl 22:2277–2292CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Martin TG, Possingham HP (2005) Predicting the impact of livestock grazing on birds using foraging height data. J Appl Ecol 42:400–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Marzluff JM, Ewing K (2001) Restoration of fragmented landscapes for the conservation of birds: a general framework and specific recommendations for urbanizing landscapes. Restor Ecol 9:280–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Matthews TJ, Guilhaumon F, Triantis KA, Borregaard MK, Whittaker RJ (2016) On the form of species-area relationships in habitat islands and true islands. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 25:847–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 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
  64. Nowakowski AJ, Hyslop N, Watling JI, Donnelly MA (2013a) Matrix type alters structure of aquatic vertebrate assemblages in cypress domes. Biodivers Conserv 22:497–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Nowakowski AJ, Otero Jiménez B, Allen M, Diaz-Escobar M, Donnelly MA (2013b) Landscape resistance to movement of the poison frog, Oophaga pumilio, in the lowlands of northeastern Costa Rica. Anim Conserv 16:188–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Öckinger E, Schweiger O, Crist TO, Debinski DM, Krauss J, Kuussaari M, Peterson JD, Pöyry J, Settele J, Summerville KS, Bommarco R (2010) Life-history traits predict species responses to habitat area and isolation: a cross-continental synthesis. Ecol Lett 13:969–979PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Pagiola S (2008) Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica. Ecol Econ 65:712–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Paz Durán A, Inger R, Cantú-Salazar L, Gaston KJ (2016) Species richness representation with protected areas is associated with multiple interacting spatial features. Divers Distrib 22:300–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Perfecto I, Vandermeer J (2002) Quality of agroecological matrix in a tropical montane landscape: ants in coffee plantations in Southern Mexico. Conserv Biol 16:174–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Pettit L, Greenlees M, Shine R (2017) The impact of transportation and translocation on dispersal behaviour in the invasive cane toad. Oecologia 184:411–422CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Pinto SR, Melo F, Tabarelli M, Padovesi A, Carrascosa H, Calmon M, Rodrigues R, Gomes César R, Brancalion PHS (2014) Governing and delivering a biome-wide restoration initiative: the case of Atlantic Forest Restoration Pact in Brazil. Forests 5:2212–2229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Preston FW (1962) The canonical distribution of commonness and rarity: part I. Ecology 43:187–215Google Scholar
  73. Prevedello JA, Vieira MV (2010) Does the type of matrix matter? A quantitative review of the evidence. Biodivers Conserv 19:1205–1223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Prugh LR, Hodges KE, Sinclair ARE, Brashares JS (2008) Effect of habitat area and isolation on fragmented animal populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:20770–20775CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. R Core Team (2016) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/
  76. Resasco J, Bruna EM, Haddad NM, Banks-Leite C, Margules CR (2017) The contribution of theory and experiments to conservation in fragmented landscapes. Ecography 40:109–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Ricketts TH (2001) The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. Am Nat 158:87–99CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Ries L, Debinski DM (2001) Butterfly responses to habitat edges in the highly fragmented prairies of central Iowa. J Anim Ecol 70:840–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Rivard DH, Poitevin J, Plasse D, Carleton M, Currie DJ (2000) Changing species richness and composition in Canadian national parks. Conserv Biol 14:1099–1109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Ruffell J, Clout MN, Didham RK (2017) The matrix matters, but how should we manage it? Estimating the amount of high-quality matrix required to maintain biodiversity in fragmented landscapes. Ecography 40:171–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Russell RE, Swihart RK, Craig BA (2007) The effects of matrix structure on movement decisions of meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus). J Mammal 88:573–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Rybicki J, Hanski I (2013) Species-area relationships and extinctions caused by habitat loss and fragmentation. Ecol Lett 16:27–38CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Saura S (2014) Stepping stones are crucial for species’ long-distance dispersal and range expansion through habitat networks. Appl Ecol 51:171–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Şekercioḡlu CH, Ehrlich PR, Daily GC, Aygen D, Goehring D, Sandi R (2002) Disappearance of insectivorous birds from tropical forest fragments. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:263–267CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Smallbone LT, Matthews A, Lunt ID (2014) Landscape and Urban Planning regrowth provides complementary habitat for woodland birds of conservation concern in a regenerating agricultural landscape. Landsc Urban Plan 124:43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Smith JNM, Hellmann JJ (2002) Population persistence in fragmented landscapes. Trends Ecol Evol 17:397–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Steinmann K, Eggenberg S, Wohlgemuth T, Linder HP, Zimmermann NE (2011) Niches and noise-disentangling habitat diversity and area effect on species diversity. Ecol Complex 8:313–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2000) On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos 90:7–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Vasudev D Jr, Fletcher Jr RJ, Goswami VR, Krishnadas M (2015) From dispersal constraints to landscape connectivity: lessons from species distribution modeling. Ecography 38:967–978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Verbeylen G, De Bruyn L, Adriaensen F, Matthysen E (2003) Does matrix resistance influence Red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris L. 1758) distribution in an urban landscape? Landscape Ecol 18:791–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Watling JI, Donnelly MA (2006) Fragments as islands: a synthesis of faunal responses to habitat patchiness. Conserv Biol 20:1016–1025CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. Watling JI, Nowakowski AJ, Donnelly MA, Orrock JL (2011) Meta-analysis reveals the importance of matrix composition for animals in fragmented habitat. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 20:209–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Watson JEM, Dudley N, Segan DB, Hockings M (2014) The performance and potential of protected areas. Nature 515:67–73CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ian J. Reider
    • 1
  • Maureen A. Donnelly
    • 2
  • James I. Watling
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyJohn Carroll UniversityUniversity HeightsUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesFlorida International UniversityMiamiUSA

Personalised recommendations