Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 19, Issue 5, pp 1205–1223 | Cite as

Does the type of matrix matter? A quantitative review of the evidence

  • Jayme Augusto Prevedello
  • Marcus Vinícius Vieira
Review Paper


It has been increasingly recognized that the type of matrix surrounding habitat patches can affect biodiversity in landscapes, but there were only qualitative reviews of the subject focused on particular taxonomic groups. We present a quantitative review of studies from 1985 to 2008 that compared effects of different matrix types on individuals, populations and communities. We compiled 104 studies, most on animals, covering a broad range of landscape types and spatial scales. Most studies were empirical, focused on individuals and communities, and evaluated abundance/richness in the patch as the dependent variable. The type of matrix surrounding habitat patches influenced the studied parameters in 95% of the studies, but such effects were overall smaller compared to patch size or isolation effects. Matrix type effects were strongly species-specific, with different species responding differently to matrix type in 96% of studies comparing species or group of species. In 88% of studies, matrix types more similar in structure to the patch had higher quality for the studied organisms from the point of view of functional connectivity. Overall, the type of matrix is important, but patch size and isolation are the main determinants of ecological parameters in landscapes. Matrix quality generally increases with increasing structural similarity with habitat patches, a pattern that could be used as a general guideline for management of the matrix in fragmented landscapes.


Edge contrast Landscape connectivity Landscape context Matrix quality Matrix permeability Matrix resistance 


  1. Aberg J, Jansson G, Swenson JE, Angelstam P (1995) The effect of matrix on the occurrence of hazel groU (Bonasa bonasia) in isolated habitat fragments. Oecologia 103:265–269Google Scholar
  2. Anderson J, Rowcliffle JM, Cowlishaw G (2007) Does the matrix matter? A forest primate in a complex agricultural landscape. Biol Conserv 135:212–222Google Scholar
  3. Andrén H, Delin A, Seiler A (1997) Population response to landscape changes depends on specialization to different landscape elements. Oikos 80:193–196Google Scholar
  4. Antogiovanni M, Metzger JP (2005) Influence of matrix habitats on the occurrence of insectivorous bird species in Amazonian forest fragments. Biol Conserv 122:441–451Google Scholar
  5. Bach CE (1988) Effects of host plant patch size on herbivore density: underlying mechanisms. Ecology 69:1103–1117Google Scholar
  6. Baum K, Haynes KJ, Dillemuth FP, Cronin J (2004) The matrix enhances the effectiveness of corridors and stepping stones. Ecology 85:2671–2676Google Scholar
  7. Bayne EM, Hobson KA (1997) Comparing the effects of landscape fragmentation by forestry and agriculture on predation of artificial nests. Conserv Biol 11:1418–1429Google Scholar
  8. Beier P, Noss RF (1998) Do habitat corridors provide connectivity? Conserv Biol 12:1241–1252Google Scholar
  9. Bender DJ, Fahrig L (2005) Matrix structure obscures the relationship between interpatch movement and patch size and isolation. Ecology 86(4):1023–1033Google Scholar
  10. Bender DJ, Contreras TA, Fahrig L (1998) Habitat loss and population decline: a meta-analysis of the patch size effect. Ecology 79:517–533Google Scholar
  11. Berry O, Tocher MD, Gleeson DM, Sarre SD (2005) Effect of vegetation matrix on animal dispersal: genetic evidence from a study of endangered skinks. Conserv Biol 19:855–864Google Scholar
  12. Brotons L, Mönkkönen M, Martin JL (2003) Are fragments islands? Landscape context and density-area relationships in Boreal Forest birds. Am Nat 162:343–357PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Castellon TD, Sieving KE (2006) An experimental test of matrix permeability and corridor use by an endemic understory bird. Conserv Biol 20:135–145PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Chardon JP, Adriansen F, Matthysen E (2003) Incorporating landscape elements into a connectivity measure: a case study for the Speckled wood butterfly (Pararge aegeria L.). Landsc Ecol 18:561–573Google Scholar
  15. Collinge SH, Palmer TM (2002) The influences of patch shape and boundary contrast on insect response to fragmentation in California grasslands. Landsc Ecol 17:647–656Google Scholar
  16. Cook WM, Lane KT, Foster BL, Holt RD (2002) Island theory, matrix effects and species richness patterns in habitat fragments. Ecol Lett 5:619–623Google Scholar
  17. Cozzi G, Müller CB, Krauss J (2008) How do local habitat management and landscape structure at different spatial scales affect fritillary butterfly distribution on fragmented wetlands? Landsc Ecol 23:269–283Google Scholar
  18. Cronin JT (2003) Matrix heterogeneity and host-parasitoid interactions in space. Ecology 84:1506–1516Google Scholar
  19. Cronin JT (2004) Host-parasitoid extinction and colonization in a fragmented prairie landscape. Oecologia 139:503–514PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Cronin JT (2007) From population sources to sieves: the matrix alters host-parasitoid source-sink structure. Ecology 88:2966–2976PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Davis JD, Debinski DM, Danielson BJ (2007) Local and landscape effects on the butterfly community in fragmented Midwest USA prairie habitats. Landsc Ecol 22:1341–1354Google Scholar
  22. Denoël M, Lehmann A (2006) Multi-scale effect of landscape processes and habitat quality on newt abundance: implications for conservation. Biol Conserv 130:495–504Google Scholar
  23. Diekötter T, Haynes KJ, Mazeffa D, Crist TO (2007) Direct and indirect effects of habitat area and matrix composition on species interactions among flower-visiting insects. Oikos 116:1588–1598Google Scholar
  24. Drakare S, Lennon JL, Hillebrand H (2006) The imprint of the geographical, evolutionary and ecological context on species–area relationships. Ecol Lett 9:215–227PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Dunford W, Freemark K (2004) Matrix matters: effects of surrounding land us on forest birds near Ottawa, Canada. Landsc Ecol 20:497–511Google Scholar
  26. Fagan WF, Calabrese JM (2006) Quantifying connectivity: balancing metric performance with data requirements. In: Crooks KR, Sanjayan M (eds) Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 297–317Google Scholar
  27. Ferreras P (2001) Landscape structure and asymmetrical inter-patch connectivity in a metapopulation of the endangered Iberian lynx. Biol Conserv 100:125–136Google Scholar
  28. Fischer J, Fazey I, Briese R, Lindenmayer DB (2005) Making the matrix matter: challenges in Australian grazing landscapes. Biodivers Conserv 14:561–578Google Scholar
  29. FitzGibbon SI, Putland DA, Goldizen AW (2007) The importance of functional connectivity in the conservation of a ground-dwelling mammal in an urban Australian landscape. Landsc Ecol 22:1513–1525Google Scholar
  30. Gascon C, Lovejoy TE, Bierregaard Jr. RO, Malcolm 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 91:223–229 Google Scholar
  31. Goheen JR, Swihart RK, Gehring TM, Miller MS (2003) Forces structuring tree squirrel communities in landscapes fragmented by agriculture: species differences in perceptions of forest connectivity and carrying capacity. Oikos 102:95–103Google Scholar
  32. Goodwin BJ (2003) Is landscape connectivity a dependent or independent variable? Landscape Ecol 18:687–699Google Scholar
  33. Goodwin BJ, Fahrig L (2002) How does landscape structure influence landscape connectivity? Oikos 99:552–570Google Scholar
  34. Grundel R, Pavlovic NB (2007) Resource availability, matrix quality, microclimate, and spatial pattern as predictors of patch U by the Karner blue butterfly. Biol Conserv 135:135–144Google Scholar
  35. Guadagnin DL, Maltchik L (2007) Habitat and landscape factors associated with neotropical waterbird occurrence and richness in wetland fragments. Biodivers Conserv 16:1231–1244Google Scholar
  36. Gustafson EJ, Gardner RH (1996) The effect of landscape heterogeneity on the probability of patch colonization. Ecology 77:94–107Google Scholar
  37. Haila Y (2002) A conceptual genealogy of fragmentation research: from island biogeography to landscape ecology. Ecol Appl 12:321–333Google Scholar
  38. Hamer TL, Flather CH, Noon BR (2006) Factors associated with grassland bird species richness: the relative roles of grassland area, landscape structure, and prey. Landsc Ecol 21:569–583Google Scholar
  39. Harvey CA, Medina A, Sánchez DM, Vílchez S, Hernández B, Saenz JC, Maes JM, Casanoves F, Sinclair FL (2006) Patterns of animal diversity in different forms of tree cover in agricultural landscapes. Ecol Appl 16:1986–1999PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Haynes KJ, Cronin JT (2003) Matrix composition affects the spatial ecology of a prairie planthopper. Ecology 84:2856–2866Google Scholar
  41. Haynes KJ, Cronin JT (2004) Confounding of patch quality and matrix effects in herbivore movement studies. Landsc Ecol 19:119–124Google Scholar
  42. Haynes KJ, Cronin JT (2006) Interpatch movement and edge effects: the role of behavioral responses to the landscape matrix. Oikos 113:43–54Google Scholar
  43. Haynes KJ, Dillemuth FP, Anderson BJ, Hakes AS, Jackson HB, Jackson SE, Cronin JT (2007a) Landscape context outweighs local habitat quality in its effects on herbivore dispersal and distribution. Oecologia 151:431–441PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Haynes KJ, Diekötter T, Crist TO (2007b) Resource complementation and the response of an insect herbivore to habitat area and fragmentation. Oecologia 153:511–520PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Hedges LV, Olkin I (1985) Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  46. Hein S, Gombert J, Hovestadt T, Poethke H (2003) Movement patterns of the bush cricket Platycleis albopunctata in different types of habitat: matrix is not always matrix. Ecol Entomol 28:432–438Google Scholar
  47. Hinsley SA, Bellamy PE, Newton I, Sparks TH (1995) Habitat and landscape factors influencing the presence of individual breeding bird species in woodland fragments. J Avian Biol 26:94–104Google Scholar
  48. Hodgson P, French K, Major RE (2007) Avian movement across abrupt ecological edges: differential responses to housing density in an urban matrix. Landsc Urban Plan 79:266–272Google Scholar
  49. Holmquist JG (1998) Permeability of patch boundaries to benthic invertebrates: influences of boundary contrast, light level, and faunal density and mobility. Oikos 81:558–566Google Scholar
  50. Hunter MK (2002) Landscape structure, habitat fragmentation and the ecology of insects. Agric For Entomol 4:159–166Google Scholar
  51. Joly P, Miaud C, Lehmann A, Grolet O (2001) Habitat matrix effects on pond occupancy in newts. Conserv Biol 15:239–248Google Scholar
  52. Jonsen ID, Bourchier RS, Roland J (2001) The influence of matrix habitat on Aphthona flea beetle immigration to leafy spurge patches. Oecologia 127:287–294Google Scholar
  53. Jonsen ID, Bourchier RS, Roland J (2007) Effect of matrix habitat on the spread of flea beetle introductions for biological control of leafy spurge. Landsc Ecol 22:883–896Google Scholar
  54. Jules ES, Shahani P (2003) A broader ecological context to habitat fragmentation: why matrix habitat is more important than we thought. J Veg Sci 14:459–464Google Scholar
  55. Kareiva P (1985) Finding and losing host plants by Phyllotreta: patch size and surrounding habitat. Ecology 66:1809–1816Google Scholar
  56. Keyser AJ (2002) Nest predation in fragmented forests: landscape matrix by distance from edge interactions. Wilson Bull 114:186–191Google Scholar
  57. Kindvall O (1999) Dispersal in a metapopulation of the Bush Cricket, Metrioptera bicolor (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae). J Anim Ecol 68:172–185Google Scholar
  58. Krauss J, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2003) How does landscape context contribute to effects of habitat fragmentation on diversity and population density of butterflies? J Biogeogr 30:889–900Google Scholar
  59. Kupfer JA, Malanson GP, Franklin SB (2006) Not seeing the ocean for the islands: the mediating influence of matrix-based processes on forest fragmentation effects. Global Ecol Biogeogr 15:8–20Google Scholar
  60. Kuussaari M, Nieminen M, Hanski I (1996) An experimental study of migration in the Glanville Fritillary Butterfly Melitaea cinxia. J Anim Ecol 65:791–801Google Scholar
  61. Laurance WF (1991) Ecological correlates of extinction proneness in Australian tropical rainforest mammals. Conserv Biol 5:79–89Google Scholar
  62. Laurance WF (2008) Theory meets reality: how habitat fragmentation research has transcended island biogeographic theory. Biol Conserv 141:1731–1744Google Scholar
  63. Lomolino MV, Smith GA (2003) Prairie dog towns as islands: applications of island biogeography and landscape ecology for conserving nonvolant terrestrial vertebrates. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 12:275–286Google Scholar
  64. López-Barrera F, Manson RH, González-Espinosa M, Newton AC (2007) Effects of varying forest edge permeability on seed dispersal in a neotropical montane forest. Landsc Ecol 22:189–203Google Scholar
  65. Lovett-Doust J, Kuntz K (2001) Land ownership and other landscape-level effects on biodiversity in southern Ontario’s Niagara Escarpment Biosphere Reserve, Canada. Landsc Ecol 16:743–755Google Scholar
  66. Lovett-Doust J, Biernacki M, Page R, Chan M, Natgunarajah R, Timis G (2003) Effects of land ownership and landscape-level factors on rare-species richness in natural areas of southern Ontario, Canada. Landsc Ecol 18:621–633Google Scholar
  67. Manning AD, Lindenmayer DB, Nix HA (2004) Continua and Umwelt: novel perspectives on viewing landscapes. Oikos 104:621–628Google Scholar
  68. Mazerolle MJ, Desrochers A (2005) Landscape resistance to frog movements. Can J Zool 83:455–464Google Scholar
  69. McIntyre S, Hobbs RJ (1999) A framework for conceptualizing human effects on landscapes and its relevance to management and research models. Conserv Biol 13:1282–1292Google Scholar
  70. Mesquita RCG, Delamônica P, Laurance WF (1999) Effect of surrounding vegetation on edge-related tree mortality in Amazonian forest fragments. Biol Conserv 91:129–134Google Scholar
  71. Metzger JP (2000) Tree functional group rochness and landscape structure in a Brazilian tropical fragmented landscape. Ecol Appl 10:1147–1161Google Scholar
  72. Moilanen A, Hanski I (1998) Metapopulation dynamics: effects of habitat quality and landscape structure. Ecology 79:2503–2515Google Scholar
  73. Murphy HT, Lovett-Doust J (2004) Context and connectivity in plant metapopulations and landscape mosaics: does the matrix matter? Oikos 105:3–14Google Scholar
  74. Nascimento HEM, Aandrade ACS, Camargo JLC, Laurance WF, Laurance SG, Ribeiro JEL (2006) Effects of the surrounding matrix on tree recruitment in Amazonian forest fragments. Conserv Biol 20(3):853–860PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Nunes MFC, Galetti M (2007) U of forest fragments by blue-winged macaws (Primolius maracana) within a fragmented landscape. Biodivers Conserv 16:953–967Google Scholar
  76. Pardini R (2004) Effects of forest fragmentation on small mammals in an Atlantic Forest landscape. Biodivers Conserv 13:2567–2586Google Scholar
  77. Perfecto I, Vandermeer J (2002) Quality of agroecological matrix in a tropical montane landscape: ants in coffee plantations in southern Mexico. Conserv Biol 16:174–182Google Scholar
  78. Pita R, Beja P, Mira A (2007) Spatial population structure of the Cabrera vole in Mediterranean farmland: the relative role of patch and matrix effects. Biol Conserv 134:383–392Google Scholar
  79. Pither J, Taylor PD (1998) An experimental assessment of landscape connectivity. Oikos 83:166–174Google Scholar
  80. Radford JQ, Bennett AF (2007) The relative importance of landscape properties for woodland birds in agricultural environments. J Appl Ecol 44:737–747Google Scholar
  81. Ranganathan J, Chanb KMA, Karanthc KU, Smith JLD (2008) Where can tigers persist in the future? A landscape-scale, density-based population model for the Indian subcontinent. Biol Conserv 141:67–77Google Scholar
  82. Ray N, Lehmann A, Joly P (2002) Modeling spatial distribution of amphibian populations: a GIS approach based on habitat matrix permeability. Biodivers Conserv 11:2143–2165Google Scholar
  83. Renjifo LM (2001) Effect of natural and anthropogenic landscape matrices on the abundance of subandean bird species. Ecol Appl 11:14–31Google Scholar
  84. Revilla E, Wiegand T (2008) Individual movement behavior, matrix heterogeneity, and the dynamics of spatially structured populations. PNAS 105(49):19120–19125PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Revilla E, Wiegand T, Palomares F, Ferreras P, Delibes M (2004) Effects of matrix heterogeneity on animal dispersal: from individual behavior to metapopulation-level parameters. Am Nat 164:130–153Google Scholar
  86. Richter-Boix A, Llorente GA, Montori A (2007) Structure and dynamics of an amphibian metacommunity in two regions. J Anim Ecol 76:607–618PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. Ricketts TH (2001) The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. Am Nat 158:87–99PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. Ries L, Debinski DM (2001) Butterfly responses to habitat edges in the highly fragmented prairies of Central Iowa. J Anim Ecol 70:840–852Google Scholar
  89. Rittenhouse TAG, Semlitsch RD (2006) Grasslands as movement barriers for a forest-associated salamander: migration behavior of adult and juvenile salamanders at a distinct habitat edge. Biol Conserv 131:14–22Google Scholar
  90. Rodewald AD (2002) Nest predation in forested regions: landscape and edge effects. J Wildl Manag 66:634–640Google Scholar
  91. Rodewald AD (2003) The importance of land uses within the landscape matrix. Wildl Soc Bull 31:586–592Google Scholar
  92. Rodewald AD, Yahner RH (2001a) Avian nesting success in forested landscapes: influence of landscape composition, stand and nest-patch microhabitat, and biotic interactions. Auk 118:1018–1028Google Scholar
  93. Rodewald AD, Yahner RH (2001b) Influence of landscape composition on avian community structure and associated mechanisms. Ecology 82:3493–3504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Rosenberg DK, Noon BR, Meslow EC (1997) Biological corridors: form, function, and efficacy. Bioscience 47:677–687Google Scholar
  95. Rothermel BB, Semlitsch RD (2002) An experimental investigation of landscape resistance of forest versus old-field habitats to emigrating juvenile amphibians. Conserv Biol 16:1324–1332Google Scholar
  96. Russel RE, Swihart RK, Craig BA (2007) The effects of matrix structure on movement decisions of meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus). J Mammal 88:573–579Google Scholar
  97. Schippers P, Verboom J, Knaapen JP, van Apeldoorn RC (1996) Dispersal and habitat connectivity in complex heterogeneous landscapes: an analysis with a GIS-based random walk model. Ecography 19:97–106Google Scholar
  98. Schmidt MH, Thies C, Nentwig W, Tscharntke T (2008) Contrasting responses of arable spiders to the landscape matrix at different spatial scales. J Biogeogr 35:157–166Google Scholar
  99. Schooley RL, Wiens JA (2004) Movements of cactus bugs: patch transfers, matrix resistance, and edge permeability. Landsc Ecol 19:801–810Google Scholar
  100. Schooley RL, Wiens JA (2005) Spatial ecology of cactus bugs: area constraints and patch connectivity. Ecology 86:1627–1639Google Scholar
  101. Schtickzelle N, Baguette M (2003) Behavioural responses to habitat patch boundaries restrict dispersal and generate emigration–patch area relationships in fragmented landscapes. J Anim Ecol 72:533–545Google Scholar
  102. Selonen V, Hanski IK (2004) Young flying squirrels (Pteromys volans) dispersing in fragmented forests. Behav Ecol 15:564–571Google Scholar
  103. Sieving KE, Willson M, de Santo TL (1996) Habitat barriers to movement of understory birds in fragmented south-temperate rainforest. Auk 113:944–949Google Scholar
  104. Sisk TD, Haddad NM, Ehrlich PR (1997) Bird assemblages in patchy woodlands: modeling the effects of edge and matrix habitats. Ecol Appl 7:1170–1180Google Scholar
  105. Stamps JA, Buechner M, Krishnan VV (1987) The effects of edge permeability and habitat geometry on emigration from patches of habitat. Am Nat 129:533–552Google Scholar
  106. Stasek DJ, Bean C, Crist TO (2008) Butterfly abundance and movements among prairie patches: the roles of habitat quality, edge, and forest matrix permeability. Environ Entomol 37(4):897–906PubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. Steffan-Dewenter I (2003) Importance of habitat area and landscape context for species richness of bees and wasps in fragmented orchard meadows. Conserv Biol 17:1036–1044Google Scholar
  108. Stevens VM, Polus E, Wesselingh RA, Schtickzelle N, Baguette M (2004) Quantifying functional connectivity: experimental evidence for patch-specific resistance in the natterjack toad (Bufo calamita). Landsc Ecol 19:829–842Google Scholar
  109. Stevens VM, Leboulengé E, Wesselingh RA, Baguette M (2006) Quantifying functional connectivity: experimental assessment of boundary permeability for the natterjack toad (Bufo calamita). Oecologia 150:161–171PubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. Stouffer PC, Bierregaard RA Jr (1995a) Effects of forest fragmentation on understory hummingbirds in Amazonian Brazil. Conserv Biol 9:1085–1094Google Scholar
  111. Stouffer PC, Bierregaard RA Jr (1995b) U of Amazonian forest fragments by understory insectivorous birds. Ecology 76:2429–2445Google Scholar
  112. Stouffer PC, Bierregaard RO Jr, Strong C, Lovejoy TE (2006) Long-term landscape change and bird abundance in Amazonian rainforest fragments. Conserv Biol 20:1212–1223PubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. Taylor PD, Fahrig L, With KA (2006) Landscape connectivity: a return to the basics. In: Crooks KR, Sanjayan M (eds) Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 29–43Google Scholar
  114. Tischendorf L, Bender DJ, Fahrig L (2003) Evaluation of patch isolation metrics in mosaic landscapes for specialist vs. generalist species. Landscape Ecol 18:41–50Google Scholar
  115. Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2000) On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos 90:7–19Google Scholar
  116. Tomasevic JA, Estades CF (2008) Effects of the structure of pine plantations on their ‘‘softness’’ as barriers for ground-dwelling forest birds in south-central Chile. For Ecol Manag 255:810–816Google Scholar
  117. Tubelis DP, Lindenmayer DB, Cowling A (2007) Bird populations in native forest patches in south-eastern Australia: the roles of patch width, matrix type (age) and matrix U. Landsc Ecol 22:1045–1058Google Scholar
  118. Tworek S (2004) Factors affecting temporal dynamics of avian assemblages in a heterogeneous landscape. Acta Ornithol 39:155–163Google Scholar
  119. Umetsu F, Pardini R (2006) Small mammals in a mosaic of forest remnants and anthropogenic habitats—evaluating matrix quality in an Atlantic forest landscape. Landsc Ecol 22:517–530Google Scholar
  120. Umetsu F, Metzger JP, Pardini R (2008) Importance of estimating matrix quality for modeling species distribution in complex tropical landscapes: a test with Atlantic forest small mammals. Ecography 31:359–370Google Scholar
  121. Vandermeer J, Carvajal R (2001) Metapopulation dynamics and the quality of the matrix. Am Nat 158:211–220PubMedGoogle Scholar
  122. Vandermeer J, Lin BB (2008) The importance of matrix quality in fragmented landscapes: understanding ecosystem collapse through a combination of deterministic and stochastic forces. Ecol Complex 5:222–227Google Scholar
  123. Verbeylen G, Bruyn LD, Adriaensen F, Matthysen E (2003) Does matrix resistance influence Red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris L.1758) distribution in an urban landscape? Landsc Ecol 18:791–805Google Scholar
  124. Viveiros de Castro EB, Fernandez FAZ (2004) Determinants of differential extinction vulnerabilities of small mammals in Atlantic Forest fragments in Brazil. Biol Conserv 119:73–80Google Scholar
  125. Vos CC, Goedhart PW, Lammertsma DR, Spitzen-Van der Sluijs AM (2007) Matrix permeability of agricultural landscapes: an analysis of movements of the common frog (Rana temporaria). Herpetol J 17:174–182Google Scholar
  126. Walters S (2007) Modeling scale-dependent landscape pattern, dispersal, and connectivity from the perspective of the organism. Landsc Ecol 22:867–881Google Scholar
  127. Watling JI, Donnelly MA (2006) Fragments as islands: a synthesis of faunal responses to habitat patchiness. Conserv Biol 20:1016–1025PubMedGoogle Scholar
  128. Watson JEM, Whittaker RJ, Freudenberger D (2005) Bird community responses to habitat fragmentation: how consistent are they across landscapes? J Biogeogr 32:1353–1370Google Scholar
  129. Wethered R, Lawes MJ (2003) Matrix effects on bird assemblages in fragmented Afromontane forests in South Africa. Biol Conserv 114:327–340Google Scholar
  130. Wethered R, Lawes MJ (2005) Nestedness of bird assemblages in fragmented Afromontane forest: the effect of plantation forestry in the matrix. Biol Conserv 123:125–137Google Scholar
  131. Wiegand T, Revilla L, Moloney KA (2005) Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on population dynamics. Conserv Biol 19(1):108–121Google Scholar
  132. Wiens JA (2006) Introduction: connectvity research-what are the issues? In: Crooks KR, Sanjayan M (eds) Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 24–27Google Scholar
  133. Williams NSG, Morgan JW, McCarthy MA, McDonnell MJ (2006) Local extinction of grassland plants: the landscape matrix is more important than patch attributes. Ecology 97:3000–3006Google Scholar
  134. Zollner PA (2000) Comparing the landscape level perceptual abilities of forest sciurids in fragmented agricultural landscapes. Landsc Ecol 15:523–533Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jayme Augusto Prevedello
    • 1
    • 2
  • Marcus Vinícius Vieira
    • 2
  1. 1.Programa de Pós-Graduação em EcologiaUniversidade Federal do Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil
  2. 2.Laboratório de Vertebrados, Departamento de EcologiaUniversidade Federal do Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations