Marine Biology

, Volume 154, Issue 1, pp 117–125 | Cite as

Complexity in the relationship between matrix composition and inter-patch distance in fragmented habitats

  • P. J. GoodsellEmail author
  • S. D. Connell
Research Article


The connectivity of fragmented landscapes is a function of the physical distance between suitable habitats and the characteristics of the habitat through which the animal is moving, i.e. the matrix. Experimental manipulations done to explain how spatial arrangement and composition of habitats affects biota remain scarce, particularly in marine systems. Holdfasts of the common kelp, Ecklonia radiata, are discrete units of habitat for small invertebrates (e.g. amphipods, isopods, molluscs, annelids) that can be isolated from other holdfasts by habitat, which may be less suitable (e.g. other species of algae or relatively bare space). We compared assemblages, which colonised defaunated holdfasts in experimentally created small-scale landscapes where patches of habitat (holdfasts) were distant versus close together and which had Sargassum spp. versus relatively bare space in the matrix. We also compared colonisation across matrices of crushed fucoid algae to assess whether the structural or chemical nature of algae in the matrix had the most influence on the colonisation. Assemblages in defaunted holdfasts differed between those that were close to and those that were distant from undisturbed holdfasts, where the matrix was devoid of vegetation. Where Sargassum spp. was present in the matrix, however, this difference disappeared and was possibly due to the chemical, rather than structural, characteristics of the fucoid matrix. The extent to which matrix habitat is a barrier to movement of invertebrates among holdfasts thus depends on not only how extensive it is but what type of habitat it contains. As within terrestrial systems, the nature of the matrix is also likely to be a fundamental component of the connectivity within marine systems.


Fragmented Landscape Bare Space Central Individual Fragmented Habitat Primary Habitat 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



We are very grateful to E. Vytopil, P. Anderson and K. Rouse for help with the painstaking fieldwork. Thanks to M. Thiel and anonymous reviewers for helpful comments that improved the manuscript. This research was supported by postgraduate awards to PJG and an Australian Research Council grant to SDC. The research complies with the current laws of Australia.


  1. Anderson MJ (2001) A new method for non-parametric analysis of variance in ecology. Aust Ecol 26:32–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson MJ (2005) PERMANOVA: a FORTRAN computer program for permutational multivariate analysis of variance., Department of Statistics, University of Auckland, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrén H (1994) Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71:355–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ås S (1999) Invasion of matrix species in small habitat patches. Conserv Ecol 3:1 (online) URL: Google Scholar
  5. Bell SS, Brooks RA, Robbins BD, Fonseca MS, Hall MO (2001) Faunal response to fragmentation in seagrass habitats: implications for seagrass conservation. Biol Conserv 100:115–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bender DJ, Fahrig L (2005) Matrix structure obscures the relationship between interpatch movement and patch size and isolation. Ecology 86:1023–1033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown JH, Kodric-Brown A (1977) Turnover rates in insular biogeography: effect of immigration on extinction. Ecology 58:445–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown GP, Phillips BL, Webb JK, Shine R (2006) Toad on the road: use of roads as dispersal corridors by cane toads (Bufo marinus) at an invasion front in tropical Australia. Biol Conserv 133:88–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chapman MG (1998) Relationships between spatial patterns of benthic assemblages in a mangrove forest using different levels of taxonomic resolution. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 162:71–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clarke KR (1993) Non-parametric multivariate anlayses of changes in community structure. Aust J Ecol 18:117–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Collinge SK, Forman RTT (1998) A conceptual model of land conversion process: predictions and evidence from a microlandscape experiment with grassland insects. Oikos 82:66–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Connell SD (2007) Water quality and the loss of coral reefs and kelp forests: alternative states and the influence of fishing. In: Connell SD, Gillanders BM (eds) Marine ecology, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, pp 556–568Google Scholar
  13. Edgar GJ (1991) Artificial algae as habitats for mobile epifaunal factors affecting colonization in a Japanese Sargassum bed. Hydrobiologia 226:111–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Edgar GJ (1992) Patterns of colonization of mobile epifauna in a Western Australian seagrass bed. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 157:225–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eggleston DB, Elis WE, Etherington LL, Dahlgren CP, Posey MH (1999) Organism response to habitat fragmentation and diversity: habitat colonization by estuarine macrofauna. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 236:107–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fahrig L (2002) Effect of habitat fragmentation on the extinction threshold: a synthesis. Ecol Appl 12:346–353Google Scholar
  17. Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 34:487–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Franz DR, Mohamed Y (1989) Short-distance dispersal in a fouling community amphipod crustacean, Jassa marmorata Holmes. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 133:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Freemark KE, Merriam G (1986) Importance of area and habitat heterogeneity to bird assemblages in temperate forest fragments. Biol Conserv 36:115–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gascon C, Lovejoy TE, Bierregaard RO Jr, Malcom JR, Stouffer PC, Vasconcelos HL, Laurance WF, Zimmerman B, Tocher M, Borges S (1999) Matrix habitat and species richness in tropical forest remnants. Biol Conserv 91:223–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gray JS, Aschan M, Carr MR, Clarke KR, Pearson TH, Rosenburg R, Warwick RM (1998) Analysis of community attributes of the benthic macrofauna of the Frierfjord/Langesundfjord and in a mesocosm experiment. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 46:285–299Google Scholar
  22. Goodsell PJ, Connell SD (2002) Can habitat loss be treated independently of habitat configuration? Implications for rare and common taxa in fragmented landscapes. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 239:37–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goodsell PJ, Connell SD (2005) Historical configuration of habitat influences the effects of disturbance on mobile invertebrates. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 299:79–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goodsell PJ, Fowler-Walker MJ, Gillanders BM, Connell SD (2004) Variations in the configuration of algae in subtidal forests: implications for invertebrate assemblages. Aust Ecol 29:350–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goodsell PJ, Chapman MG, Underwood AJ (2008) Differences between biota in anthropogenically fragmented and in naturally patchy habitats. Mar Ecol Prog Ser (in press)Google Scholar
  26. Gower JC (1971) A general coefficient of similarity and some of its properties. Biometrics 27:857–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gunnill FC (1982a) Macroalgae as habitat patch islands for Scutellidium lamellipes (Copepoda: Harpacticoida) and Ampithoe tea (Amphipoda: Gammaridae). Mar Biol 69:103–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gunnill FC (1982b) Effects of plant size and distribution on the numbers of invertebrate species and individuals inhabiting the brown alga Pelvetia fastigiata. Mar Biol 69:263–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hanski I (1994) Patch-occupancy dynamics in fragmented landscapes. Trends Ecol Evol 9:131–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hanski I, Alho J, Moilanen A (2000) Estimating the parameters of survival and migration of individuals in metapopulations. Ecology 81:239–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Henle K, Lindenmayer DB, Margules CR, Saunders DA, Wissel C (2004) Species survival in fragmented landscapes: where are we now? Biodivers Conserv 13:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Howard RK (1985) Measurements of short-term turnover of epifauna within seagrass beds using an in situ staining method. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 22:163–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Holmquist JG (1998) Permeabililty of patch boundaries to benthic invertebrates: influences of boundary constrast, light levels and faunal density and mobility. Oikos 81:558–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Johnson AR, Wiens JA, Milne BT, Crist TO (1992) Animal movements and population dynamics in heterogenous landscapes. Landsc Ecol 7:63–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lawton JH (1994) What do species do in ecosystems? Oikos 71:367–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lee M, Fahrig L, Freemark KE, Currie DJ (2002) Importance of patch scale vs landscape scale on selected forest birds. Oikos 96:110–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. MacArthur RH, Wilson E (1967) The equilibrium theory of island biogeography. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  38. McGarigal K, Cushman S (2002) Comparative evaluation of experimental approaches to the study of habitat fragmentation effects. Ecol Appl 12:335–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Murphy HT, Lovett-Doust J (2004) Context and connectivity in plant metapopulations and landscape mosaics: does the matrix matter? Oikos 105:3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Norderhaug KM, Christie H, Rinde E (2002) Colonisation of kelp imitations by epiphyte and holdfast fauna; a study of mobility patterns. Mar Biol 141:965–973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Parker JD, Duffy E, Orth RJ (2001) Plant species diversity and composition: experimental effects on marine epifaunal assemblages. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 224:55–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Poore AGB (2004) Spatial associations among algae affect host use in a herbivorous marine amphipod. Oecologia 140:104–112PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Poore AB, Steinberg PD (1999) Preference-performance relationships and effects of host plant choice in an herbivorous marine amphipod. Ecol Monogr 69:443–464Google Scholar
  44. Ricketts TH (2001) The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. Am Nat 158:87–99CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Roberts DA, Poore AGB (2006) Habitat configuration affects colonisation of epifauna in a marine algal bed. Biol Conserv 127:18–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Smith SDA, Simpson RD, Cairns SC (1996) The macrofaunal community of Ecklonia radiata holdfasts: description of the faunal assemblage and variation associated with differences in holdfast volume. Aust J Ecol 21:81–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tanner JE (2006) Landscape ecology of interactions between seagrass and mobile epifauna: the matrix matters. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 68:404–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Taylor RB (1998) Short-term dynamics of a seaweed epifaunal assemblage. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 227:67–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Taylor RB, Cole RG (1994) Mobile epifauna on subtidal brown seaweeds in northeastern New Zealand. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 115:271–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Taylor PD, Fahrig L, Henein K, Merriam G (1993) Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68:571–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tischendorf L, Grez A, Zaviezo T, Fahrig L (2005) Mechanisms affecting population density in fragmented habitat. Ecol Soc 10:7 (online) URL: Google Scholar
  52. Vandermeer J, Carvajal R (2001) Metapopulation dynamics and the quality of the matrix. Am Nat 158:211–220CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Virnstein RW, Curran MC (1986) Colonization of artificial seagrass versus time and distance from source. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 29:279–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wiens JA (1992) Ecological flows across landscape boundaries: a conceptual overveiw. In: Hansen AJ, di Castro F (eds) Landscape boundaries: consequences for biotic dievrsity and ecological flows. Springer, New York, pp 217–235Google Scholar
  55. Wiens JA (2002) Riverine landscapes: taking landscape ecology into the water. Freshw Biol 47:501–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wiens JA, Milne BT (1989) Scaling of “landscapes” in landscape ecology or landscape ecology from a beetles perspective. Landsc Ecol 3:87–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Witman JD, Dayton PK (2001) Rocky subtidal communities. In: Bertness MD, Gaines SD, Hay ME (eds) Marine community ecology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, pp 339–366Google Scholar
  58. Yassini I, Jones BG, King RJ, Ayress M, Dewi KT (1995) Ostracod fauna associated with sublittoral kelp forest vegetation at Windang Island, NSW, Australia. Mar Freshw Res 46:1181–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Southern Seas Ecology Laboratories, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences DP 418University of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia
  2. 2.Centre for Research on Ecological Impacts of Coastal Cities, Marine Ecology Laboratories A11The University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations