Advertisement

Niche breadth and vertebrate sensitivity to habitat modification: signals from multiple taxa across replicated landscapes

  • Kenneth F. KellnerEmail author
  • Joseph E. Duchamp
  • Robert K. Swihart
Original Paper
  • 34 Downloads

Abstract

Wildlife species differ in their resistance to landscape modifications including habitat loss and fragmentation. We hypothesized that niche breadth is positively related to both (1) overall species occurrence and (2) species response to landscape modification, because species with a wide range of diet and/or habitat preferences should be able to colonize and survive in more patches than specialized species. We tested the hypothesis using occurrence data from 65 species spanning multiple taxonomic groups (birds, small mammals, bats, and aquatic turtles) collected in thirty-five 23 km2 landscapes in the Midwestern United States that varied in degree of modification. Niche breadth for each species was obtained from a combination of sources on habitat and diet requirements. We fit models for occurrence and response to modification as a function of niche breadth while accounting for imperfect detection and phylogenetic relatedness among species. As predicted, niche breadth was positively related to occurrence for all taxonomic groups. Response to landscape modification was positively related to niche breadth for birds, but there was no effect for the other taxonomic groups. Neither imperfect detection nor phylogeny affected relationships qualitatively. The lack of an effect of niche breadth on response to modification may be due to a long history of human land-use in the study region, resulting in assemblages in which all extant species have at least some resistance to agricultural disturbance.

Keywords

Agriculture Habitat fragmentation Habitat loss Imperfect detection Niche breadth 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank hundreds of private landowners who permitted us to conduct our research on their lands. Jeff Moore organized and led sampling efforts for birds and small mammals. Julie Crick, Tim Preuss, Linda Connolly, and Nate Engbrecht coordinated field sampling and digitizing, and over three dozen field technicians collected data. The Upper Wabash Ecosystem Project was funded by the John S. Wright Fund, Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue University. Financial support also was received from the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, US Department of Agriculture, under Agreement No. 2000-04649, the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture Hatch Project 1014271, and the James S. McDonnell Foundation.

Supplementary material

10531_2019_1785_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (218 kb)
Appendix S1. Species included in the analysis, phylogenetic trees for each taxonomic group, habitat effects on detection probabilities, and JAGS model code for the analysis (PDF 218 kb)
10531_2019_1785_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (155 kb)
Appendix S2. Complete model output (posterior summaries) for the level 1 (plot-scale) and level 2 (landscape-scale) analyses (PDF 156 kb)

References

  1. Allouche O, Kalyuzhny M, Moreno-Rueda G, Pizarro M, Kadmon R (2012) Area-heterogeneity tradeoff and the diversity of ecological communities. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109:17495–17500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Atauri JA, de Lucio JV (2001) The role of landscape structure in species richness distribution of birds amphibians reptiles and lepidopterans in Mediterranean landscapes. Landscape Ecol 16:47–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bélisle MA, Desrochers A, Fortin MJ (2001) Influence of forest cover on the movements of forest birds: a homing experiment. Ecology 82:1893–1904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett AF, Radford JQ, Haslem A (2006) Properties of land mosaics: implications for nature conservation in agricultural environments. Biol Cons 133:250–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Betts MG, Fahrig L, Hadley AS, Halstead KE, Bowman J, Robinson WD, Wiens JA, Lindenmayer DB (2014) A species-centered approach for uncovering generalities in organism responses to habitat loss and fragmentation. Ecography 37:517–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bininda-Emonds OR, Cardillo M, Jones KE, MacPhee RD, Beck RM, Grenyer R, Price SA, Vos RA, Gittleman JL, Purvis A (2007) The delayed rise of present-day mammals. Nature 446:507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bommarco R, Biesmeijer JC, Meyer B, Potts SG, Pöyry J, Roberts SPM, Steffan-Dewenter I, Öckinger E (2010) Dispersal capacity and diet breadth modify the response of wild bees to habitat loss. Proc R Soc Lond B.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.2221 Google Scholar
  9. Britzke ER, Murray KL (2000) A quantitative method for selection of identifiable search-phase calls using the Anabat system. Bat Res News 41:33–36Google Scholar
  10. Britzke ER, Duchamp JE, Murray KL, Swihart RK, Robbins LW (2011) Acoustic identification of bats in the eastern United States: a comparison of parametric and nonparametric methods. J Wildl Manag 75:660–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brooks SP, Gelman A (1998) General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations. J Comput Graph Stat 7:434–455Google Scholar
  12. Brown JH (1995) Macroecology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  13. Cadotte MW (2007) Competition-colonization trade-offs and disturbance effects at multiple scales. Ecology 88:823–829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carrara E, Arroyo-Rodríguez V, Vega-Rivera JH, Schondube JE, de Freitas SM, Fahrig L (2015) Impact of landscape composition and configuration on forest specialist and generalist bird species in the fragmented Lacandona rainforest Mexico. Biol Cons 184:117–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Castillo JA, Epps CW, Jeffress MR, Ray C, Rodhouse TJ, Schwalm D (2016) Replicated landscape genetic and network analyses reveal wide variation in functional connectivity for American pikas. Ecol Appl 26:1660–1676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clavel J, Julliard R, Devictor V (2011) Worldwide decline of specialist species: toward a global functional homogenization? Front Ecol Environ 9:222–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Corben C (2001) Analook. Version 4.8 p. Computer software. IBM, ArmonkGoogle Scholar
  18. Deguines N, Julliard R, Flores M, Fontaine C (2016) Functional homogenization of flower visitor communities with urbanization. Ecol Evol 6:1967–1976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Devictor V, Julliard R, Jiguet F (2008) Distribution of specialist and generalist species along spatial gradients of habitat disturbance and fragmentation. Oikos 117:507–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Didham RK, Kapos V, Ewers RM (2012) Rethinking the conceptual foundations of habitat fragmentation research. Oikos 121:161–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Duchamp JE, Swihart RK (2008) Shifts in bat community structure related to evolved traits and features of human-altered landscapes. Landscape Ecol 23:849–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Duchamp JE, Sparks DW, Whitaker JO (2004) Foraging-habitat selection by bats at an urban–rural interface: comparison between a successful and a less successful species. Can J Zool 82:1157–1164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ewers RM, Didham RK (2006) Confounding factors in the detection of species responses to habitat fragmentation. Biol Rev 81:117–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 34:487–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fahrig L (2007) Non-optimal animal movement in human-altered landscapes. Funct Ecol 21:1003–1015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Farnsworth GL, Pollock KH, Nichols JD, Simons TR, Hines JE, Sauer JR (2002) A removal model for estimating detection probabilities from point-count surveys. Auk 119:414–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Federhen S (2012) The NCBI Taxonomy database. Nucleic Acids Res 40:136–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2007) Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: a synthesis. Global Ecol Biogeogr 16:265–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fleishman E, Blockstein DE, Hall JA, Mascia MB, Rudd MA, Scott JM, Clement JP (2011) Top 40 priorities for science to inform US conservation and management policy. Bioscience 61:290–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G, Carpenter SR, Snyder PK (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science 309:570–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Frishkoff LO, de Valpine P, M’Gonigle LK (2017) Phylogenetic occupancy models integrate imperfect detection and phylogenetic signal to analyze community structure. Ecology 98:198–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gobeil JF, Villard MA (2002) Permeability of three boreal forest landscape types to bird movements as determined from experimental translocations. Oikos 98:447–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hanski I (2015) Habitat fragmentation and species richness. J Biogeogr 42:989–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hartman MR (1994) Avian use of restored and natural wetlands in north-central Indiana. MS thesis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, INGoogle Scholar
  35. Henle K, Davies KF, Kleyer M, Margules C, Settele J (2004) Predictors of species sensitivity to fragmentation. Biodivers Conserv 13:207–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Herrera JM, Salgueiro PA, Medinas D, Coasta P, Encarnação C, Mira A (2016) Generalities of vertebrate responses to landscape composition and configuration gradients in a highly heterogeneous Mediterranean region. J Biogeogr 43:1203–1214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kellner KF (2015) jagsUI: a wrapper around rjags to streamline JAGS analyses. R package version 1(4):1Google Scholar
  38. Kellner KF, Swihart RK (2014) Accounting for imperfect detection in ecology: a quantitative review. PLoS ONE 9:e111436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kerbiriou C, Azam C, Touroult J, Marmet J, Julien JF, Pellissier V (2018) Common bats are more abundant within Natura 2000 areas. Biol Conserv 217:66–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lees AC, Peres CA (2008) Avian life-history determinants of local extinction risk in a hyper-fragmented neotropical forest landscape. Anim Conserv 11:128–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Livingston G, Matias M, Calcagno V, Barbera C, Combe M, Leibold MA, Mouquet N (2012) Competition–colonization dynamics in experimental bacterial metacommunities. Nature Commun 3:1234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Martin BA, Shao G, Swihart RK, Parker GR, Tang L (2008) Implications of shared edge length between land cover types for landscape quality: the case of Midwestern US 1940-1998. Landscape Ecol 23:391–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Ene E (2012) FRAGSTATS v4: spatial pattern analysis program for categorical and continuous maps. Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html
  44. Meyer CFJ, Fründ J, Lizano WP, Kalko EKV (2008) Ecological correlates of vulnerability to fragmentation in Neotropical bats. J Appl Ecol 45:381–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Moore JE, Swihart RK (2005) Modeling patch occupancy by forest rodents: incorporating detectability and spatial autocorrelation with hierarchically structured data. J Wild Manag 69:933–949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nagelkerke CJ, Menken SBJ (2013) Coexistence of habitat specialists and generalists in metapopulation models of multiple-habitat landscapes. Acta Biotheor 61:467–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Öckinger E, Schweiger O, Crist TO, Debinski DM, Krauss J, Kuussaari M, Bommarco R (2010) Life-history traits predict species responses to habitat area and isolation: a cross-continental synthesis. Ecol Lett 13:969–979Google Scholar
  48. Orme D, Freckleton R, Thomas G, Petzoldt T, Fritz S, Isaac N, Pearse W (2015) caper: Comparative analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R. R package version 0.5.2Google Scholar
  49. Paradis E, Claude J, Strimmer K (2004) APE: analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. Bioinformatics 20:289–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pardini R, de Arruda Bueno A, Gardner TA, Prado PI, Metzger JP (2010) Beyond the fragmentation threshold hypothesis: regime shifts in biodiversity across fragmented landscapes. PLoS ONE 5(10):e13666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Penone C, Kerbiriou C, Julien J, Julliard R, Machon N, Viol I (2013) Urbanisation effect on Orthoptera: which scale matters? Insect Conserv Divers 6:319–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pfeifer M, Lefebvre V, Peres CA, Banks-Leite C, Wearn OR, Marsh CJ, Butchart SHM, Arroyo-Rodriguez V, Barlow J, Cerezo A, Cisneros L, C’Cruze N, Faria D, Hadley A, Harris SM, Klingbeil BT, Kormann U, Lens L, Medina-Rangel GF, Morante-Filho JC, Olivier P, Peters SL, Pidgeon A, Ribeiro DB, Scherber C, Schneider-Maunoury L, Struebig M, Urbina-Cardona N, Watling JI, Willig MR, Wood EM, Ewers RM (2017) Creation of forest edges has a global impact on forest vertebrates. Nature 551:187–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Plummer M (2003) JAGS: a program for analysis of Bayesian graphical models using Gibbs sampling. In Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on distributed statistical computing. Technische Universit at Wien, Wien, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  54. Prugh LR, Hodges KE, Sinclair AR, Brashares JS (2008) Effect of habitat area and isolation on fragmented animal populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105:20770–20775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. R Development Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  56. Revell LJ (2010) Phylogenetic signal and linear regression on species data. Methods Ecol Evol 1:319–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rodewald P (2015) The birds of North America. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, NYGoogle Scholar
  58. Rodríguez A, Jansson G, Andrén H (2007) Composition of an avian guild in spatially structured habitats supports a competition–colonization trade-off. Proc R Soc B 274:1403–1411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Safi K, Kerth G (2004) A comparative analysis of specialization and extinction risk in temperate-zone bats. Conserv Biol 18:1293–1303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Skalak SL, Sherwin RE, Brigham RM (2012) Sampling period size and duration influence measures of bat species richness from acoustic surveys. Methods Ecol Evol 3:490–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Slatyer RA, Hirst M, Sexton JP (2013) Niche breadth predicts geographical range size: a general ecological pattern. Ecol Lett 16:1104–1114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Smith WB, Faulkner JL, Powell DS (1994) Forest statistics of the United States 1992. General technical report NC-168. USDA Forest Service, St. Paul, MNGoogle Scholar
  63. Swihart RK, Slade NA (2004) Modeling interactions of private ownership and biological diversity: an architecture for landscapes with sharp edges. In: Swihart RK, Moore JE (eds) Conserving biodiversity in agricultural landscapes: model-based planning tools. Purdue University Press, West Lafayette, INGoogle Scholar
  64. Swihart RK, Verboom J (2004) Using ecologically scaled landscape indices to assess biodiversity consequences of land-use decisions. In: Swihart RK, Moore JE (eds) Conserving biodiversity in agricultural landscapes: model-based planning tools. Purdue University Press, West Lafayette, INGoogle Scholar
  65. Swihart RK, Gehring TM, Kolozsvary MB (2003) Responses of ‘resistant’ vertebrates to habitat loss and fragmentation: the importance of niche breadth and range boundaries. Divers Distrib 9:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Swihart RK, Lusk JJ, Duchamp JE, Rizkalla CE, Moore JE (2006) The roles of landscape context niche breadth and range boundaries in predicting species responses to habitat alteration. Divers Distrib 12:277–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tilman D (1994) Competition and biodiversity in spatially structured habitats. Ecology 75:2–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Torrenta R, Lacoste F, Villard M-A (2018) Loss and fragmentation of mature woodland reduce the habitat niche breadth of forest birds. Landscape Ecol 33:1865–1879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Urban NA, Swihart RK (2009) Multiscale perspectives on occupancy of meadow jumping mice in landscapes dominated by agriculture. J Mammal 90:1431–1439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Van Houtan KS, Pimm SL, Halley JM, Bierregaard RO, Lovejoy TE (2007) Dispersal of Amazonian birds in continuous and fragmented forest. Ecol Lett 10:219–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. van Langeveld F (2015) Modeling the negative effects of landscape fragmentation on habitat selection. Ecol Inform 30:271–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wang X, Blanchet FG, Koper N (2014) Measuring habitat fragmentation: an evaluation of landscape pattern metrics. Methods Ecol Evol 5:634–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wang Y, Thornton DH, Ge D, Wang S, Ding P (2015) Ecological correlates of vulnerability to fragmentation in forest birds on inundated subtropical land-bridge islands. Biol Conserv 191:251–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Yu DW, Wilson HB, Frederickson ME, Palomino W, De La Colina R, Edwards DP, Balareso AA (2004) Experimental demonstration of species coexistence enabled by dispersal limitation. J Anim Ecol 73:1102–1114CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kenneth F. Kellner
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Joseph E. Duchamp
    • 1
    • 3
  • Robert K. Swihart
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Forestry and Natural ResourcesPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  2. 2.Camp Fire Program in Wildlife ConservationState University of New York ESFSyracuseUSA
  3. 3.Department of BiologyIndiana University of PennsylvaniaIndianaUSA

Personalised recommendations