Landscape Ecology

, Volume 33, Issue 11, pp 1837–1849 | Cite as

Habitat amount and quality, not patch size, determine persistence of a woodland-dependent mammal in an agricultural landscape

  • Riana GardinerEmail author
  • Glen Bain
  • Rowena Hamer
  • Menna E. Jones
  • Christopher N. Johnson
Research Article



The classical theory of island biogeography explains loss of species in fragmented landscapes as an effect of remnant patch size and isolation. Recently this has been challenged by the habitat amount and habitat continuum hypotheses, according to which persistence in modified landscapes is related to total habitat amount rather than habitat configuration or the ability of species to use all habitats to varying degrees. Distinguishing between these theories is essential for effective conservation planning in modified landscapes.


Identify which factors of habitat type, amount and configuration predict the persistence of a keystone woodland specialist, the eastern bettong Bettongia gaimardi, in a fragmented landscape.


In the Midlands region of Tasmania we carried out camera surveys at 62 sites in summer and winter. We included habitat and landscape features to model whether habitat amount or patch size and isolation influenced the presence of the eastern bettong, and to measure effects of habitat quality.


Habitat amount within a 1 km buffer was a better predictor of occupancy than patch size and isolation. Occupancy was also affected by habitat quality, indicated by density of regenerating stems.


Our results support the habitat amount hypothesis as a better predictor of presence. For a species that is able to cross the matrix between remnant patches and utilise multiple patches, the island biogeography concept does not explain habitat use in fragmented landscapes. Our results emphasize the value of small remnant patches for conservation of the eastern bettong, provided those patches are in good condition.


Fragmentation Habitat amount hypothesis Occupancy Eastern bettong 



We thank Greening Austral Tasmania Inc. (GA), Bush Heritage Australia (BHA), Tasmania Land Conservancy (TLC) and the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industry, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE) for helping with appropriate contacts and guidance in selecting sampling sites. In particular, we would like to thank Neil Davidson and Sebastian Burgess (GA) for working closely with us on the ecological restoration project in the Midlands, Matt Appleby (BHA) for his extensive help and knowledge of the Midlands, and Oberon Carter (DPIPWE) for running the GIS-based site selection algorithm. The project was funded by an Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage Scheme grant (LP130100949). Christopher Johnson was supported on an ARC Australian Professorial Fellowship and Menna Jones on an ARC Future Fellowship (FT100100031). Thanks to the Holsworth Research Endowment for providing crucial funding for covering fieldwork costs. Greatest acknowledgements to PhD students: Rowena Hamer, Glen Bain, and Mauel Ruiz for aiding in fieldwork. Finally. Dr. Peter Gardiner for an outsider’s perspective and to the reviewers and editor for comments contributing to the completion of the manuscript.

Author contributions

RG, MJ, CJ, and RH conceived the ideas and designed methodology. RG and RH collected and analysed the data. RG, CJ and MJ wrote the manuscript. All authors contributed to the final approval for publication.

Supplementary material

10980_2018_722_MOESM1_ESM.docx (12 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 12 kb)


  1. Algar D, Angus G, Williams M, Mellican A (2007) Influence of bait type, weather and prey abundance on bait uptake by feral cats (Felis catus) on Peron Peninsula, Western Australia. Conserv Sci West Aust 6(1):109Google Scholar
  2. Almeida-Gomes M, Vieira MV, Rocha CFD, Metzger JP, De Coster G (2016) Patch size matters for amphibians in tropical fragmented landscapes. Biol Conserv 195:89–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersen GE, Johnson CN, Barmuta LA, Jones ME (2017) Dietary partitioning of Australia’s two marsupial hypercarnivores, the Tasmanian devil and the spotted-tailed quoll, across their shared distributional range. PLoS ONE 12(11):e0188529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson J, Rowcliffe JM, Cowlishaw G (2007) Does the matrix matter? A forest primate in a complex agricultural landscape. Biol Conserv 135(2):212–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ascensão F, Lucas PS, Costa A, Bager A (2017) The effect of roads on edge permeability and movement patterns for small mammals: a case study with Montane Akodont. Landscape Ecol 32(4):781–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bailey TG (2012) Eucalypt regeneration and ecological restoration of remnant woodlands in Tasmania. University of Tasmania, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  7. Battin J (2004) When good animals love bad habitats: ecological traps and the conservation of animal populations. Conserv Biol 18(6):1482–1491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Belcher CA, Nelson JL, Darrant JP (2007) Diet of the tiger quoll (Dasyurus maculatus) in south-eastern Australia. Aust J Zool 55(2):117–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bennett AF (1990) Habitat corridors and the conservation of small mammals in a fragmented forest environment. Landscape Ecol 4(2):109–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bullock JM, Moy I, Pywell RF, Coulson SJ, Nolan AM, Caswell H (2002) Plant dispersal and colonization processes at local and landscape scales. In: Bullock JM, Kenward R, Hails R (eds) Dispersal ecology. Blackwell Scientific, Malden, pp 279–302Google Scholar
  11. Chandler R, King D (2011) Habitat quality and habitat selection of golden-winged warblers in Costa Rica: an application of hierarchical models for open populations. J Appl Ecol 48(4):1038–1047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. D’Amico M, Román J, De los Reyes L, Revilla E (2015) Vertebrate road-kill patterns in Mediterranean habitats: who, when and where. Biol Conserv 191:234–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ditmer MA, Garshelis DL, Noyce KV, Laske TG, Iaizzo PA, Burk TE, Fieberg JR (2015) Behavioral and physiological responses of American black bears to landscape features within an agricultural region. Ecosphere 6(3):1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Doherty TS, Dickman CR, Johnson CN, Legge SM, Ritchie EG, Woinarski JCZ (2017) Impacts and management of feral cats Felis catus in Australia. Mamm Rev 47(2):83–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Doherty TS, Driscoll DA (2018) Coupling movement and landscape ecology for animal conservation in production landscapes. Proc R Soc B 285:20172272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eldridge DJ, Woodhouse JN, Curlevski NJA, Hayward M, Brown MV, Neilan BA (2015) Soil-foraging animals alter the composition and co-occurrence of microbial communities in a desert shrubland. ISME J 9:2671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Evju M, Sverdrup-Thygeson A (2016) Spatial configuration matters: a test of the habitat amount hypothesis for plants in calcareous grasslands. Landscape Ecol 31(9):1891–1902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fahrig L (2002) Effect of habitat fragmentation on the extinction threshold: a synthesis. Ecol Appl 12(2):346–353Google Scholar
  19. Fahrig L (2007) Non-optimal animal movement in human-altered landscapes. Funct Ecol 21(6):1003–1015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fahrig L (2013) Rethinking patch size and isolation effects: the habitat amount hypothesis. J Biogeogr 40(9):1649–1663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fahrig L (2017) Ecological responses to habitat fragmentation per se. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 48(1):1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fattebert J, Baubet E, Slotow R, Fischer C (2017) Landscape effects on wild boar home range size under contrasting harvest regimes in a human-dominated agro-ecosystem. Eur J Wildl Res 63(2):32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fischer Lindenmayer (2007) Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: a synthesis. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 16(3):265–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB, Barry S, Flowers E (2005) Lizard distribution patterns in the Tumut fragmentation “Natural Experiment” in south-eastern Australia. Biol Conserv 123(3):301–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB, Kaitala V (2006) Beyond fragmentation: the continuum model for fauna research and conservation in human-modified landscapes. Oikos 112(2):473–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fiske I, Chandler R (2011) Unmarked: an R package for fitting hierarchical models of wildlife occurrence and abundance. J Stat Softw 43(10):1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fleming PA, Anderson H, Prendergast AS, Bretz MR, Valentine LE, Hardy GES (2014) Is the loss of australian digging mammals contributing to a deterioration in ecosystem function? Mamm Rev 44(2):94–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gastón A, Blázquez-Cabrera S, Garrote G, Mateo-Sánchez MC, Beier P, Simón MA, Saura S (2016) Response to agriculture by a woodland species depends on cover type and behavioural state: insights from resident and dispersing Iberian lynx. J Appl Ecol 53(3):814–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ghazoul J (2005) Pollen and seed dispersal among dispersed plants. Biol Rev 80(3):413–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Haddad NM, Brudvig LA, Clobert J, Davies KF, Gonzalez A, Holt RD, Cook WM (2015) Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems. Sci Adv 1(2):e1500052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Haddad NM, Gonzalez A, Brudvig LA, Burt MA, Levey DJ, Damschen EI (2017) Experimental evidence does not support the habitat amount hypothesis. Ecography 40(1):48–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Haila Y (2002) A conceptual genealogy of fragmentation research: from island biogeography to landscape ecology. Ecol Appl 12(2):321–334Google Scholar
  33. Hanski I (2015) Habitat fragmentation and species richness. J Biogeogr 42(5):989–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Johnson C (1994a) Distribution of feeding activity of the Tasmanian bettong (Bettongia gaimardi) in relation to vegetation patterns. Wildl Res 21(3):249–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Johnson CN (1994b) Nutritional ecology of a mycophagous marsupial in relation to production of hypogeous fungi. Ecology 75(7):2015–2021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Johnson C (2006) Australia’s mammal extinctions: a 50000 year history. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  37. Johnston CA (2013) Wetland losses due to row crop expansion in the Dakota Prairie Pothole Region. Wetlands 33(1):175–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jones ME, Barmuta LA (1998) Diet overlap and relative abundance of sympatric dasyurid carnivores: a hypothesis of competition. J Anim Ecol 67(3):410–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jones ME, Davidson N (2016) Applying an animal-centric approach to improve ecological restoration. Restor Ecol 24(6):836–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kehoe L, Romero-Muñoz A, Polaina E, Estes L, Kreft H, Kuemmerle T (2017) Biodiversity at risk under future cropland expansion and intensification. Nat Ecol Evol 1(8):1129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Krauss J, Klein A-M, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2004) Effects of habitat area, isolation, and landscape diversity on plant species richness of calcareous grasslands. Biodivers Conserv 13(8):1427–1439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Laurance WF (2008) Theory meets reality: how habitat fragmentation research has transcended island biogeographic theory. Biol Conserv 141(7):1731–1744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Laurance WF, Sayer J, Cassman KG (2014) Agricultural expansion and its impacts on tropical nature. Trends Ecol Evol 29(2):107–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lazenby BT, Tobler MW, Brown WE, Hawkins CE, Hocking GJ, Hume F, Thalmann S (2018) Density trends and demographic signals uncover the long-term impact of transmissible cancer in Tasmanian devils. J Appl Ecol 55(3):1368–1379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lindenmayer DB, Fischer J (2013) Habitat fragmentation and landscape change: an ecological and conservation synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  46. Lindgren JP, Cousins SAO (2017) Island biogeography theory outweighs habitat amount hypothesis in predicting plant species richness in small grassland remnants. Landsc Ecol 32:1895–1906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, Hines JE, Knutson MG, Franklin AB (2003) Estimating site occupancy, colonization, and local extinction when a species is detected imperfectly. Ecology 84:2200–2207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Magioli M, Ribeiro MC, Ferraz KMPMB, Rodrigues MG (2015) Thresholds in the relationship between functional diversity and patch size for mammals in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Anim Conserv 18(6):499–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Martinson HM, Fagan WF (2014) Trophic disruption: a meta-analysis of how habitat fragmentation affects resource consumption in terrestrial arthropod systems. Ecol Lett 17(9):1178–1189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Maxwell SL, Fuller RA, Brooks TM, Watson JE (2016) Biodiversity: the ravages of guns, nets and bulldozers. Nature 536(7615):143–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mazerolle MJ, Mazerolle MMJ (2017) Package ‘AICcmodavg’Google Scholar
  52. Melo GL, Sponchiado J, Cáceres NC, Fahrig L (2017) Testing the habitat amount hypothesis for South American small mammals. Biol Conserv 209:304–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mönkkönen M, Rajasärkkä A, Lampila P (2014) Isolation, patch size and matrix effects on bird assemblages in forest reserves. Biodivers Conserv 23(13):3287–3300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mortelliti A, Amori G, Boitani L (2010) The role of habitat quality in fragmented landscapes: a conceptual overview and prospectus for future research. Oecologia 163(2):535–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Munguía-Rosas MA, Montiel S (2014) Patch size and isolation predict plant species density in a naturally fragmented forest. PLoS ONE 9(10):e111742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Newbold T, Hudson LN, Hill SL, Contu S, Lysenko I, Senior RA, Day J (2015) Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 520(7545):45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pemberton D, Gales S, Bauer B, Gales R, Lazenby B, Medlock K (2008) The diet of the Tasmanian devil, Sarcophilus harrisii, as determined from analysis of scat and stomach contents. In: Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania, vol 142, pp. 13–22Google Scholar
  58. Püttker T, Bueno AA, De Barros CD, Sommer S, De Pardini R (2011) Immigration rates in fragmented landscapes—empirical evidence for the importance of habitat amount for species persistence. PLoS ONE 6(11):e27963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ripperger SP, Kalko EK, Rodríguez-Herrera B, Mayer F, Tschapka M (2015) Frugivorous bats maintain functional habitat connectivity in agricultural landscapes but rely strongly on natural forest fragments. PLoS ONE 10(4):e0120535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Ruiz-Capillas P, Mata C, Malo JE (2015) How many rodents die on the road? Biological and methodological implications from a small mammals’ roadkill assessment on a Spanish motorway. Ecol Res 30(3):417–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sahlin E, Schroeder LM (2010) Importance of habitat patch size for occupancy and density of aspen-associated saproxylic beetles. Biodivers Conserv 19(5):1325–1339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sarre SD, MacDonald AJ, Barclay C, Saunders GR, Ramsey DSL (2013) Foxes are now widespread in Tasmania: DNA detection defines the distribution of this rare but invasive carnivore. J Appl Ecol 50(2):459–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Seahra SE, Yurkonis KA, Newman JA (2016) Species patch size at seeding affects diversity and productivity responses in establishing grasslands. J Ecol 104(2):479–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Seibold S, Bässler C, Brandl R, Fahrig L, Förster B, Heurich M, Müller J (2017) An experimental test of the habitat-amount hypothesis for saproxylic beetles in a forested region. Ecology 98(6):1613–1622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sodhi NS, Ehrlich PR (2010) Conservation biology for all. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Spencer PBS, Yurchenko AA, David VA, Scott R, Koepfli KP, Driscoll C, O’brien SJ, Menotti-Raymond M (2016) The population origins and expansion of feral cats in Australia. J Hered 107(2):104–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Taylor RJ (1992) Distribution and abundance of fungal sporocarps and diggings of the Tasmanian bettong, Bettongia gaimardi. Aust J Ecol 17(2):155–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Taylor RJ (1993a) Habitat requirements of the Tasmanian bettong (Bettongia gaimardi), a mycophagous marsupial. Wildl Res 20(5):699–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Taylor RJ (1993b) Home range, nest use and activity of the Tasmanian bettong, Bettongia gaimardi. Wildl Res 20(1):87–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tittensor DP, Walpole M, Hill SL, Boyce DG, Britten GL, Burgess ND, Baumung R (2014) A mid-term analysis of progress toward international biodiversity targets. Science 346(6206):241–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Torrenta R, Villard MA (2017) A test of the habitat amount hypothesis as an explanation for the species richness of forest bird assemblages. J Biogeogr 44:1791–1801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Venter O, Sanderson EW, Magrach A, Allan JR, Beher J, Jones KR, Levy MA (2016) Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation. Nat Commun 7:12558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Woinarski JCZ, Risler J, Kean L (2004) Response of vegetation and vertebrate fauna to 23 years of fire exclusion in a tropical Eucalyptus open forest, Northern Territory, Australia. Aust Ecol 29(2):156–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Riana Gardiner
    • 1
    Email author
  • Glen Bain
    • 1
  • Rowena Hamer
    • 1
    • 2
  • Menna E. Jones
    • 1
  • Christopher N. Johnson
    • 1
  1. 1.School of ZoologyUniversity of TasmaniaHobartAustralia
  2. 2.Tasmanian Land ConservancyHobartAustralia

Personalised recommendations