Advertisement

Community Ecology

, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 189–195 | Cite as

Should fragment area reduction be considered a stress for forest bird assemblages? Evidence from diversity/dominance diagrams

  • C. BattistiEmail author
  • L. Luiselli
  • B. Frank
  • E. Lorenzetti
Article

Abstract

Breeding bird assemblages and species present in two ‘archipelagos’ of wood fragments, included in fragmented landscape of Central Italy, were studied in springs 2002 and 2003 with line transect method (1: Cornicolan hills study area: 20 fragments; 2: Anzio-Nettuno study area: 13 fragments). An area effect was shown in diversity/dominance analyses carried out by species rank/frequency diagrams obtained for the wood fragment assemblages of two ‘archipelagos’. Smaller fragments showed a lower species richness, a higher relative frequencies of first dominant species and a higher value of angular coefficient of assemblage lines. When fragment area decreases, the assemblage tendency lines in diversity/dominance diagrams show a higher slope (i.e., higher angular coefficient). Simpson dominance index was inversely correlated to fragment area: smaller fragments concentrate dominance in less species compared to larger ones. This approach suggests that the reduction in area of wood fragments could be comparable to a stress on breeding bird assemblages induced by anthropogenic habitat conversion and fragmentation, here considered as a disturbance at landscape level.

Keywords

Area effect Forest fragments Habitat fragmentation Landscape disturbance Rank/frequency diagrams 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

42974_2009_1002189_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (69 kb)
Supplementary material, approximately 71 KB.

References

  1. Battisti, C., Luiselli, L., Pantano,D. and Teofili, C. 2008a. On threats analysis approach applied to a Mediterranean remnant wetland: Is the assessment of human-induced threats related into different level of expertise of respondents? Biodivers. Conserv. 16: 1529–1542.Google Scholar
  2. Battisti, C., Ukmar, E., Luiselli, L. and Bologna, M.A. 2008b. Diversity/dominance diagrams show that fire disrupts the evenness in Mediterranean pinewood forest bird assemblages. Community Ecol. 9: 107–113.Google Scholar
  3. Bellamy, P.E., Hinsley, S.A. and Newton, I. 1996a. Local extinctions and recolonisations of passerine bird populations in small woods. Oecologia 108: 64–71.Google Scholar
  4. Bellamy, P.E., Hinsley, S.A. and Newton, I. 1996b. Factors influencing bird species numbers in small woods in south-east England. J. Appl. Ecol. 33: 249–262.Google Scholar
  5. Bennett, A.F. 1999. Linkages in the Landscapes. The Role of Corridors and Connectivity in Wildlife Conservation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, 254 p.Google Scholar
  6. Bibby, C.J., Burgess, N.D., Hill, D.A. and Mustoe, S.H. 2000. Bird Census Techniques. II ed. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  7. Ceschin, S., Caneva, G. and Lucchese, F. 2003. Il paesaggio forestale. In: Caneva, G. and Travaglini, C.M. (eds.). Atlante storicoambientale – Anzio e Nettuno. Provincia di Roma, Università di Roma Tre, CROMA, De Luca Editori d’Arte, Roma: 58–64.Google Scholar
  8. Cieslak, M. 1985. Influence of woodsize and other factors on breeding bird species number. Ekologia Polska 33: 103–121.Google Scholar
  9. Clements, J. F. 2000. Birds of the World, a Checklist. Fifth edition, Ibis, Vista, Ca.Google Scholar
  10. Crooks, K.R. and Sanjayan, M. 2006. Connectivity Conservation. Conservation Biology Series 14, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  11. Davies, K.F., Gascon, C. and Margules, C.R. 2001. Habitat fragmentation: consequences, management, and future research priorities. In: Soulé, M.E. and G.H. Orians (eds.). Conservation Biology. Research Priorities for the Next Decade. Society for Conservation Biology, Island Press. pp. 81–97.Google Scholar
  12. Diamond, J.M. 1975. The island dilemma: lessons of modern biogeographic studies for the design of natural reserves. Biol. Conserv. 7: 129–145.Google Scholar
  13. Fahrig, L. 2003. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 34: 487–515.Google Scholar
  14. Fahrig, L. and Merriam, G. 1994. Conservation of fragmented populations. Conserv. Biol. 8: 50–59.Google Scholar
  15. Feer, F. and Hingrat, Y. 2005. Effects of forest fragmentation on a dung beetle community in French Guiana. Conserv. Biol. 19: 1103–1112.Google Scholar
  16. Frank, B. and Battisti, C. 2005. Area effect on bird communities, guilds and species in a highly fragmented forest landscape of Central Italy. Ital. J. Zool. 72: 297–304.Google Scholar
  17. Ganis, P. 1991. La diversità specifica nelle comunità ecologiche – Concetti, metodi e programmi di calcolo. Quaderni del Gruppo Elaborazione Automatica Dati Ecologia Quantitativa, Dipartimento di Biologia, Università di Trieste, C.E.T.A. (International Center of Theoretical and Applied Ecology), GEAD-EQ, n. 10.Google Scholar
  18. Ghazoul, J. 2002. Impact of logging on the richness and diversity of forest butterflies in a tropical dry forest in Thailand. Biodivers. Conserv. 11: 521–541.Google Scholar
  19. Guirado, M., Pino, J. and Rodà, F. 2006. Understorey plant species richness and composition in metropolitan forest archipelagos: effects of forest size, adjacent land use and distance to the edge. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 15: 50–62.Google Scholar
  20. Harrel, R.C., Davies, B.J. and Dorris, T.C. 1967. Stream order and species diversity of fishes in an intermittent Oklahoma stream. Amer. Midland Nat. 78: 428–436.Google Scholar
  21. Hill, J. L. and Curran, P. J. 2005. Fragment shape and tree species composition in tropical forests: a landscape level investigation. African J. Ecol. 43: 35–43.Google Scholar
  22. Hinsley, S.A., Bellamy, P.E. and Newton, I. 1995. Birds species turnover and stochastic extinction in woodland fragments. Ecography 18: 41–50.Google Scholar
  23. Hobbs, E.R. 1988. Species richness of urban patches and implications for urban landscape diversity. Landscape Ecol. 1: 141–152.Google Scholar
  24. Huhta, E., Aho, T., Jäntti, A., Suorsa, P., Kuitunen, M., Nikula, A. and Hakkarainen, H. 2004. Forest fragmentation increases nest predation in the Eurasian Treecreeper. Conserv. Biol. 18: 148–155.Google Scholar
  25. Keyser, A.J., Hill, G.E. and Soehren, E.C. 1998. Effects of forest fragment size, nest density, and proximity to edge on the risk of predation to ground-nesting passerine birds. Conserv. Biol. 12: 986–994.Google Scholar
  26. Jàrvinen, O. and Vàisànnen N.A. 1973. Finnish line transect census. Ornis Fennica, 53: 115–118.Google Scholar
  27. Lindenmayer, D.B. and Fisher, J. 2006. Habitat Fragmentation and Landscape Change. An Ecological and Conservation Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  28. Lindenmayer, D.B. and Fisher, J. 2007. Tackling the habitat fragmentation panchreston. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22: 127–132.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Lorenzetti, E. and Battisti, C. 2006. Area as component of habitat fragmentation: corroborating its role in breeding bird communities and guilds of oak wood fragments in Central Italy. Revue d’Ecologie (Terre Vie) 61: 53–68.Google Scholar
  30. MacArthur, R.H. and Wilson, E.O. 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  31. Magurran, A. 2004. Measuring Biological Diversity. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.Google Scholar
  32. Massa, R., Bani, L., Bottoni, L. and Fornasari, L. 1998. An evaluation of lowland reserve effectiveness for forest birds conservation. Biologia e Conservazione della Fauna 102: 270–277.Google Scholar
  33. Matthysen, E., Lens, L., Van Dongen, S., Verheyen, G.R., Wauters, L.A., Adriaensen, F. and Dhondt, A.A. 1995. Diverse effects of forest fragmentation on a number of animal species. Belgian J. Zool. 125: 175–183.Google Scholar
  34. Merikallio, E. 1946. Uber regionale Verbreitung und Anzahl der Landvogel in Sud und Mittel Finland, besonders in deren ostlichen Teilen, in Lichte von quantitativen Untersuchungen. Allgemeiner Teil. Annales Zoologici, Societas Vanamo 12 (1): 1–143, 12 (2): 1–120.Google Scholar
  35. Pignatti, S. 1982. Flora d’Italia. Edagricole, Bologna.Google Scholar
  36. Ricketts, T.H. 2001. The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. Amer. Nat. 157: 87–99.Google Scholar
  37. Ricklefs, R.E. and Miller, G.L. 1999. Ecology. 4th ed. Freeman, New York.Google Scholar
  38. Salafsky, N., Salzer, D., Ervin, J., Boucher, T. and Ostlie, W. 2003. Conventions for defining, naming, measuring, combining, and mapping threats in conservation. www.fosonline.org/im-ages/Documents/Conventions_for_Threats_in_Conservation.pdf.Google Scholar
  39. Simpson, E.H. 1949. Measurement of diversity. Nature 163: 688.Google Scholar
  40. Soulé, M.E. and Orians, G.H. 2001. Conservation biology research: Its challenges and contexts. In: Soulé, M.E. and G.H. Orians (eds.). Conservation Biology. Research Priorities for the Next Decade. Society for Conservation Biology, Island Press. pp. 271–285.Google Scholar
  41. Spellerberg, I.F. and Sawyer, J.W.D. 1999. An Introduction to Applied Biogeography. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  42. Stratford, J.A. and Stouffer, P.C. 1999. Local extinctions of terrestrial insectivorous birds in a fragmented landscape near Manaus, Brazil. Conserv. Biol. 13: 1416–1423.Google Scholar
  43. Sutherland W.J. 2006. Ecological Census Techniques. A handbook. 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  44. Tokeshi, M. 1993. Species abundance patterns and community structure. Adv. Ecol. Res. 24: 112–186.Google Scholar
  45. Turcek, F.J. 1956. Zur Fraghe der Dominanze in Vogelpopulationen. Waldhygiene 8: 249–257.Google Scholar
  46. Tutin, T.G., Heywood, V.H., Burges, N.A., Valentine, D.H., Walters, S.M. and Webb, D.A. (eds.), 1964–1980. Flora Europaea. 5 vols., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  47. Villard, M.-A. 1998. On forest-interior species, edge avoidance, area sensitivity, and dogma in avian conservation. Auk 115: 801–805.Google Scholar
  48. Villard, M.-A., Merriam, G. and Maurer, B.A. 1995. Dynamics in subdivided populations of neotropical migratory birds in a fragmented temperate forest. Ecology 76: 27–40.Google Scholar
  49. Virgós, E., Tellerìa, J.L. and Santos, T. 2002. A comparison on the response to forest fragmentation by medium-sized Iberian carnivores in central Spain. Biodivers. Conserv. 11: 1063–1079.Google Scholar
  50. Watling, J.I. and Donnelly, M.A. 2006. Fragments ad islands: a synthesis of faunal responses to habitat patchiness. Conserv. Biol. 20: 1016–1025.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. White, P.S. and Pickett, S.T.A. 1985. Natural disturbance and patch dynamics: an introduction. In: Pickett S.T.A. and White P.S. (eds.), The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and Patch Dynamics. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida. pp. 3–13.Google Scholar
  52. Whittaker, R.H. 1960. Vegetation of the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon and California. Ecol. Monogr. 30: 279–338.Google Scholar
  53. Wiens, J.A. 1989. The Ecology of Bird Communities. Vol. 2. Processes and variations. Cambridge studies in ecology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  54. Wiens, J.A. 1994. Habitat fragmentation: island v lanscape perspectives on bird conservation. Ibis 137: S97–S104.Google Scholar
  55. Wilcove, D.S., McLellan, C.H. and Dobson, A.P. 1986. Habitat fragmentation in the temperate zones. In: Soulé M.E. (ed.). Conservation Biology. Sinauer Associates Inc.. Sunderland, Massachussets. pp. 237–256.Google Scholar
  56. Wilcox, B.A. and Murphy, D.D. 1985. Conservation strategy: the effects of fragmentation on extinction. Amer. Nat. 125: 879–887.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2009

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Battisti
    • 1
    Email author
  • L. Luiselli
    • 2
  • B. Frank
    • 1
  • E. Lorenzetti
    • 3
  1. 1.Nature Conservation OfficeEnvironment Service, Department of RomeRomeItaly
  2. 2.Centre of Environmental Studies ‘Demetra s.r.l.’RomeItaly
  3. 3.RomeItaly

Personalised recommendations