, Volume 103, Issue 3, pp 265–269 | Cite as

The effect of matrix on the occurrence of hazel grouse (Bonasa bonasia) in isolated habitat fragments

  • J. Åberg
  • G. Jansson
  • J. E. Swenson
  • P. Angelstam
Original Paper


The aim of this study was to determine the effect of matrix on the occurrence of hazel grouse (Bonasa bonasia) in habitat fragments. The study was conducted in two kinds of landscape: (1) an agricultural landscape, where the censused forest habitat fragments were surrounded by farmland, and (2) in an intensively managed forested landscape, where the censused habitat fragments were surrounded by nonhabitat coniferous forest. Occupied and unoccupied habitat fragments in the agricultural landscape differed significantly in distance to the nearest suitable continuous habitat, with hazel grouse occurring only in habitat fragments closer than 100 m from continuous forest. In the intensively managed forest landscape, the effect of isolation was less evident, but there might be a threshold around 2 km. Effects of isolation occurred over much shorter distances when the surrounding habitats consisted of farmland than when it was forested habitats. The size of the habitat fragments was important in both landscapes, with larger habitat fragments more often containing hazel grouse.

Key words

Hazel grouse Landscape ecology Habitat fragmentation Matrix Sweden 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ahti T, Hämet-Ahti L, Jalas J (1968) Vegetation zones and their sections in northwestern Europe. Ann Bot Fenn 5: 169–175Google Scholar
  2. Andrén H (1989) Predation processes in fragmented boreal forest landscapes. PhD thesis, Uppsala University, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  3. Angelstam P (1983) Population dynamics of tetraonids, especially the blackgrouse, Tetrao tetrix L., in the boreal forests. PhD thesis, Uppsala University, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  4. Donaurov SS (1947) The hazel grouse in the Pechoro-Ilych Strict reserve (in Russian). Trudy Pechoro-Ilychckogo Goesudarstvennogo Zapovednika 4: 77–122Google Scholar
  5. Eiberle K, Kock N, (1975) Die Bedeutung der Waldstruktur für die Erhaltung des Haselhuhns. Schwiez Z Forstw 126: 876–888Google Scholar
  6. Forman RTT, Godron M (1986) Landscape ecology. Wiley, New York, pp 157–187; 357–381Google Scholar
  7. Fransson S (1965) The borderland. In: The plantcover of Sweden. Acta Phytogeogr Suecica 50: 167–175Google Scholar
  8. Haila Y (1983) Colonization of islands in a north-boreal Finnish lake by land birds. Ann Zool Fenn 20: 179–197Google Scholar
  9. Haila Y, Hanski IK (1984) Methodology for studying the effect of habitat fragmentation on land birds. Ann Zool Fenn 21: 393–397Google Scholar
  10. Hanski I, Gilpin M (1991) Metapopulation dynamics: brief history and conceptual domain. Biol J Linn Soc 42: 3–16Google Scholar
  11. Hansson L (1987) Dispersal routes of small mammals at an abandoned field in central Sweden. Holarct Ecol 10: 154–159Google Scholar
  12. Harris LD (1984) The fragmented forest. Island biogeography theory and the preservation of biotic diversity. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  13. Henderson MT, Merriam G, Wegner J (1985) Patchy environments and species survival: chipmunks in an agricultural mosaic. Biol Conserv 31: 95–105Google Scholar
  14. Ivanter EV (1962) On the biology of hazel grouse in Karelia (in Russia). Ornitologiya 4: 87–98Google Scholar
  15. Lovejoy TE, Rankin JM, Bierregaard RO Jr, Brown KS Jr, Emmons LH, Van der Vort ME (1984) Ecosystem decay of Amazon forest fragments. In: Niteki MH (ed) Extinctions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 295–325Google Scholar
  16. Löfgren T, Ihse M (1991) Desiduous forest in the coniferous landscape — landscape ecological studies on structure and dynamics. (in Swedish) Inst. of Phys geography, Stockholm UniversityGoogle Scholar
  17. Lovejoy TE, Bierregaard RO, Rylands AB, Malkolm JR, Quintela CE, Harper LH, Brown KS, Powell AH, Powell GVN, Shubart HOR, Hays MB (1986) Edge and other effects of isolation on Amazonas forest fràgments. In: Soulé ME (ed) Conservation biology. The science of scarcity and diversity. Sinauer, Sunderland, Mass, pp 257–285Google Scholar
  18. MacArtur RH, Wilson EO (1967) The theory of island biogeography. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  19. Marcström V, Brittas R, Engren E (1982) Habitat use by tetraonids during summer — a pilot study. Proc Int Symp Grouse 2: 148–153Google Scholar
  20. Müller F (1987) Habitat linking — a means of saving remnant grouse population in Central Europe. Proc Int Symp Grouse 4: 218–234Google Scholar
  21. Pynnönen A (1954) Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Lebenweise der Haselhuhns, Tetrastes bonasia L. Pap Game Res 12: 1–90Google Scholar
  22. Rolstad J, Wegge P (1987) Distribution and size of capercaille leks in relation to old forest fragmentation. Oecologia 72: 389–394Google Scholar
  23. Saunders DA, Hobbs RJ, Margules CR (1991) Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conserv Biol 5: 18–32Google Scholar
  24. Scherzinger W (1979) Zum Feindverhalten des Haselhuhnes (Bonasa bonasia). Vogelwelt 100: 205–217Google Scholar
  25. Skogsstyrelsen (1988)-should be: The Swedish National Board of Forestry (1988) The basis of forestry. (in Swedish) Jönköping, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  26. Stamps JA, Buechner M, Krishnan VV (1987) The effect of edge permeability and habitat geometry on emigration from patches of habitat. Am Nat 129: 532–552Google Scholar
  27. Svesson SA (1980) The national forest survey 1973–77. Report 30. (in Swedish) Dept. of forest survey, The Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  28. Swenson JE (1991a) Is the hazel grouse a poor disperser? Trans Int Union Game Biol 20: 347–352Google Scholar
  29. Swenson JE (1991b) Social organization of hazel grouse and ecological factors influencing it. PhD thesis, University of Alberta, EdmontonGoogle Scholar
  30. Swenson JE (1991c) Evaluation of a density index for territorial male Hazel Grouse Bonasa bonasia in spring and autumn. Ornis Fenn 68: 57–65Google Scholar
  31. Swenson JE (1993a) The importance of alder to hazel grouse in Fennoscandian boreal forest: evidence from four levels of scale. Ecography 16: 37–46Google Scholar
  32. Swenson JE (1993b) Hazel grouse (Bonasa bonasia) pairs during the nonbreeding season: mutual benefits of a cooperative alliance. Behav Ecol 4: 14–21Google Scholar
  33. Swenson JE (1995) The habitat requirements of hazel grouse. Proc Int Symp Grouse 6 (in press)Google Scholar
  34. Swenson JE, Angelstam P (1993) Habitat separation by sympatric forest grouse in Fennoscandia in relation to boreal forest succession. Can J Zool 71: 1303–1310Google Scholar
  35. Swenson JE, Danielsen J (1991) Status and conservation of the hazel grouse in Europe. Ornis Scand 22: 297–298Google Scholar
  36. Swenson JE, Danielsen J (1995) Seasonal movements by hazel grouse in southcentral Sweden. Proc Int Symp on Grouse 6 (in press)Google Scholar
  37. Tomialojc' L (1990) The birds of Poland, their distribution and abundance (in Polish with English summary). Pentwowe Wydawnictwo Naucowe, WarzawaGoogle Scholar
  38. Urban DL, Shugart HH Jr (1986) Avian demography in mosaic landscapes: modeling paradigm and preliminary results. Wildlife 2000: 273–279Google Scholar
  39. Van Dorp D, Opdam PFM (1987) Effects of patch size, isolation and regional abundance on forest bird communities. Landscape Ecol 1: 59–73Google Scholar
  40. Weisner J, Bergman H-H, Klaus S, Müller F (1977) Siedlungsdichte und Habitatstruktur des Haselhuhns (Bonasa bonasia) in Waldgebieten von Bialowieza (Polen). J Ornitol 118: 1–20Google Scholar
  41. Verboom J, Schotman A, Opdam P, Metz JAJ (1991) European nuthatch metapopulations in a fragmented agricultural landscape. Oikos 61: 149–156Google Scholar
  42. Wilcove DS, McLellan CH, Dobson AP (1986) Habitat fragmentation in the temperate zone. In: Soulé ME (ed) Conservation biology. The science of scarcity and diversity. Sinauer. Sunderland, Mass, pp 256–273Google Scholar
  43. Zachrisson O (1977) Influence of forest fires on the north Swedish boreal forest. Oikos 29: 22–32Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Åberg
    • 1
  • G. Jansson
    • 1
  • J. E. Swenson
    • 2
  • P. Angelstam
    • 1
  1. 1.Grimsö Wildlife Research Station, Department of Wildlife EcologySwedish University of Agricultural SciencesRiddarhyttanSweden
  2. 2.Norwegian Institute for Nature RescarchTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations