Landscape Ecology

, 11:157

Plant-species richness in corridor intersections: is intersection shape influential?

  • Samuel K. Riffell
  • Kevin J. Gutzwiller
Article

Abstract

Corridor intersections constitute nodes that can be more mesic than the intersecting corridors themselves. Such microclimatic conditions may lead to an “intersection effect,” in which plant richness is higher in the intersection than in the corridors. We hypothesized that an additional factor contributing to intersection effects is the movement of plants along corridors into intersections by way of bird- and mammal-dispersed seeds. If this hypothesis is correct, one would expect intersection-shape effects, defined herein as differences in intersection section richness associated with the number of possible avenues for plant influx into the intersection. Specifically, richness in intersections should be lowest for L-shape intersections (two avenues), higher for T-shape intersections (three avenues), and highest for X-shape intersections (four avenues). We used data from fencerow networks to test this hypothesis about corridor intersections. During October 1992 and March 1993, we determined woody- and herbaceous-plant richness for 25 intersections and their associated fencerows in central Texas, USA. We compared two measures of intersection richness among the three intersection shapes: richness of plants dispersed primarily by birds and mammals (vertebrate-dispersed plant richness), and richness of plants dispersed primarily by wind, ants or other means (non-vertebrate dispersed plant richness). Vertebrate-dispersed plant richness differed significantly among intersection shapes, but no differences in nonvertebrate dispersed plant richness were evident, which is what one would expect if the number of avenues for vertebrate vectors into an intersection was an important factor influencing intersection richness. The intersection-shape effects we found were not attributable to fencerow features (amount of woody cover, width, pressence of breaks) or intersection characteristics (amount of woody cover, size, distance to nearest connected intersection or patch). Our results from fencerow networks support the hypothesis that intersection effects on plant richness are influenced by intersection shape via the number of intersecting corridors. Understanding patterns and processes that occur in networks is important for conservation biologists because intersections in networks have the potential to function as refugia for plant species that require conditions more mesic than those of the surrounding matrix. Networks also may be valuable asin situ sources of seed for managers attempting to restore plant communities in the matrix.

Keywords

agricultural landscapes conservation biology corridors fencerows intersection shape networks nodes plant dispersal plant-species richness restoration ecology 

References

  1. Bennett, A.F., Henein, K. and Merriam, G. 1994. Corridor use and the elements of corridor quality: chipmunks and fencerows in a farmland mosaic Biol. Conserv. 68: 155–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benninger-Truax, M., Vankat, J.L. and Schaefer, R.L. 1992. Trail corridors as habitat and conduits for movement of plant species in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado, USA. Landsc. Ecol. 6: 269–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Best, L.B. 1983. Bird use of fencerows: implications of contemporary fencerow management practices. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 11: 343–347.Google Scholar
  4. Chambers, J.C. and MacMahon, J.A. 1994. A day in the life of a seed: movements and fates of seeds and their implications for natural and managed systems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 25: 263–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Constant, P.M., Eybert, C. and Mahed, R. 1976. Avifaune reproductrice du bocage de l'Ouest.In Les bocages: histoire, ecologie, economie. pp. 327–332. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Université de Rennes, Rennes, France.Google Scholar
  6. Dixon, W.J. (Chief Ed.). 1992. BMDP statistical software manual, Vol. 1. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.Google Scholar
  7. Forman, R.T.T. and Baudry, J. 1984. Hedgerows and hedgerow networks in landscape ecology. Environ. Manage. 8: 495–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Forman, R.T.T. and Godron, M. 1986. Landscape ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York.Google Scholar
  9. Fritz, R. and Merriam, G. 1993. Fencerow habitats for plants moving between farmland forests. Biol. Conserv. 64: 141–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fritz, R. and Merriam, G. 1994. Fencerow and forest edge vegetation structure in eastern Ontario farmland. Ecoscience 1: 160–172.Google Scholar
  11. Gutwiller, K.J. and Anderson, S.H. 1987. Multiscale associations between cavity-nesting birds and features of Wyoming streamside woodlands. Condor 89: 534–548.Google Scholar
  12. Hatch, S.L., Gandhi, K.N. and Brown, L.E. 1990. Checklist of the vascular plants of Texas. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, College Station, Texas.Google Scholar
  13. Helliwell, D.R. 1975. The distribution of woodland plant species in some Shropshire hedgerows. Biol. Conserv. 7: 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Henderson, M.T., Merriam, G. and Wegner, J. 1985. Patchy environments and species survival: chipmunks in an agricultural mosaic. Biol. Conserv. 31: 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Holm, S. 1979. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand. J. Statistics 6: 65–70.Google Scholar
  16. Johnson, W.C. and Adkisson, C.S. 1985. Dispersal of beech nuts by blue jays in fragmented landscapes. Amer. Midl. Nat. 113: 319–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lack, P.C. 1988. Hedge intersections and breeding bird distribution in farmland. Bird Study 35: 133–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lowe, J.C. and Moryadas, S. 1975. The geography of movement. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  19. Mahler, W.F. 1988. Shinner's manual of the north central Texas flora. Botanical Research Institute of Texas, Inc., Fort Worth, Texas.Google Scholar
  20. McClanahan, T.R. 1986. The effect of a seed source on primary succession in a forest ecosystem. Vegetatio 65: 175–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McClanahan, T.R. and Wolfe, R.W. 1993. Accelerating forest succession in a fragmented landscape: the role of birds and perches. Conserv. Biol. 7: 279–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McDonnell, M.J. 1986. Old field vegetation height and the dispersal pattern of bird-disseminated woody plants. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 113: 6–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McDonnell, M.J. and Stiles, E.W. 1983. The structural complexity of old field vegetation and the recruitment of birddispersed plant species. Oecologia 56: 109–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Merriam, G. and Lanoue, A. 1990. Corridor use by small mammals: field measurement for three experimental types ofPeromyscus leucopus. Landsc. Ecol. 4: 123–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Merriam, G. and Saunders, D.A. 1993. Corridors in restoration of fragmented landscapes.In Nature conservation 3: the reconstruction of fragmented ecosystems. pp. 71–88. Edited by D.A. Saunders, R.J. Hobbs and P.R. Ehrlich. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Chipping Norton, New South Wales.Google Scholar
  26. Miller, R.G., Jr. 1981. Simultaneous statistical inference, 2nd ed. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York.Google Scholar
  27. Mueller-Dombois, D. and Ellenberg, H. 1974. Aims and methods of vegetation ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York.Google Scholar
  28. Neter, J. and Wasserman, W. 1974. Applied linear statistical models. Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Homewood, Illinois.Google Scholar
  29. Noss, R.F. 1987. Corridors in real landscapes: a reply to Simberloff and Cox. Conserv. Biol. 1: 159–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Noss, R.F. and Harris, L.D. 1986. Nodes, networks, and MUMs: preserving diversity at all scales. Environ. Manage. 10: 299–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ott, R.L. 1993. An introduction to statistical methods and data analysis, 4th ed. Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, California.Google Scholar
  32. Rice, W.R. 1989. Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43: 223–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Robinson, G.R. and Handel, S.N. 1993. Forest restoration on a closed landfill: rapid addition of new species by bird dispersal. Conserv. Biol. 7: 271–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Robinson, G.R., Handel, S.N. and Schmalhofer, V.R. 1992. Survival, reproduction, and recruitment of woody plants after 14 years on a reforested landfill. Environ. Manage. 16: 265–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rosenberg, N.J., Blad, B.L. and Verma, S.B. 1983. Microclimate: the biological environment, 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York.Google Scholar
  36. SAS Institute, Inc. 1989. SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 6, 4th ed., Volume 2. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, North Carolina.Google Scholar
  37. Schroeder, R.L., Cable, T.T. and Haire, S.L. 1992. Wildlife species richness in shelterbelts: test of a habitat model. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 20: 264–273.Google Scholar
  38. Shalaway, S.D. 1985. Fencerow management for nesting birds in Michigan. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 13: 302–306.Google Scholar
  39. Simberloff, D. and Cox, J. 1987. Consequences and costs of conservation corridors. Conserv. Biol. 1: 63–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Simberloff, D., Farr, J.A., Cox, J. and Mehlman, D.W. 1992. Movement corridors: conservation bargains or poor investment? Conserv. Biol. 6: 493–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Verts, B.J. 1967. The biology of the striped skunk. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois.Google Scholar
  42. Wegner, J.F. and Merriam, G. 1979. Movements by birds and small mammals between a wood and adjoining farmland habitats. J. Applied Ecol. 16: 349–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Willmot, A. 1980. The woody species of hedges with special reference to age in Church Broughton Parish, Derbyshire. J. Ecol. 68: 269–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Willson, M.F. 1986. Avian frugivory and seed dispersal in eastern North America. Current Ornithology 3: 223–279.Google Scholar
  45. Willson, M.F. 1993. Mammals as seed-dispersal mutualists in North America. Oikos 67: 159–176.Google Scholar
  46. Yahner, R.H. 1983. Small mammals in farmstead shelterbelts: habitat correlates of seasonal abundance and community structure. J. Wildl. Manage. 47: 74–84.Google Scholar
  47. Zar, J.H. 1984. Biostatistical analysis, 2nd ed. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© SPB Academic Publishing bv 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Samuel K. Riffell
    • 1
  • Kevin J. Gutzwiller
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Environmental StudiesBaylor UniversityWacoUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyBaylor UniversityWacoUSA
  3. 3.Department of ZoologyMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations