Landscape Ecology

, Volume 26, Issue 5, pp 617–628 | Cite as

Matrix is important for mammals in landscapes with small amounts of native forest habitat

  • Megan J. Brady
  • Clive A. McAlpine
  • Hugh P. Possingham
  • Craig J. Miller
  • Greg S. Baxter
Research Article


Acknowledgment that the matrix matters in conserving wildlife in human-modified landscapes is increasing. However, the complex interactions of habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, habitat condition and land use have confounded attempts to disentangle the relative importance of properties of the landscape mosaic, including the matrix. To this end, we controlled for the amount of remnant forest habitat and the level of fragmentation to examine mammal species richness in human-modified landscapes of varying levels of matrix development intensity and patch attributes. We postulated seven alternative models of various patch habitat, landscape and matrix influences on mammal species richness and then tested these models using generalized linear mixed-effects models within an information theoretic framework. Matrix attributes were the most important determinants of terrestrial mammal species richness; matrix development intensity had a strong negative effect and vegetation structural complexity of the matrix had a strong positive effect. Distance to the nearest remnant forest habitat was relatively unimportant. Matrix habitat attributes are potentially a more important indicator of isolation of remnant forest patches than measures of distance to the nearest patch. We conclude that a structurally complex matrix within a human-modified landscape can provide supplementary habitat resources and increase the probability of movement across the landscape, thereby increasing mammal species richness in modified landscapes.


Terrestrial mammals Mixed effects models Landscape mosaic Australia 



We gratefully acknowledge funding from the University of Queensland and CSIRO, B. Triggs for analysing traces, the 60 landholders who allowed access to their properties for surveys and the manuscript reviewers and editor for helpful suggestions.


  1. Anderson DR, Burnham KR (2002) Avoiding pitfalls when using information-theoretic methods. J Wildl Manage 66:912–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson J, Rowcliffe JM, Cowlishaw G (2007) Does the matrix matter? A forest primate in a complex agricultural landscape. Biol Conserv 135:212–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Antongiovanni M, Metzger JP (2005) Influence of matrix habitats on the occurrence of insectivorous bird species in Amazonian forest fragments. Biol Conserv 122:441–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bakker VJ (2006) Microhabitat features influence the movements of red squirrels (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) on unfamiliar ground. J Mammal 87:124–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bender DJ, Fahrig L (2005) Matrix structure obscures the relationship between interpatch movement and patch size and isolation. Ecology 86:1023–1033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bennett AF, Radford JQ, Haslem A (2006) Properties of land mosaics: implications for nature conservation in agricultural environments. Biol Conserv 133:250–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bertolino S (2007) Microhabitat use by garden dormice during nocturnal activity. J Zool 272:176–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bjornstad ON (2008) The ncf Package: spatial nonparametric covariance functions. Version 1.1-1. April 14, 2008.
  9. Booth GD, Niccolucci MJ, Schuster EG (1994) Identifying proxy sets in multiple linear regression: an aid to better coefficient interpretation. Research Paper INT-470. United States Department of Agriculture FS, OgdenGoogle Scholar
  10. Brady MJ, McAlpine CA, Miller CJ, Possingham HP, Baxter GS (2009) Habitat attributes of landscape mosaics along a gradient of matrix development intensity: matrix management matters. Landscape Ecol 24:879–891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brady MJ, McAlpine CA, Possingham HP, Miller CJ, Baxter GS (2010) Mammal responses to matrix development intensity. Austral Ecol 36:35–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brostrom G (2008) The glmmML Package: generalised linear models with clustering. Version 0.81-3. October 7, 2008.
  13. Brown JH, Kodric-Brown A (1977) Turnover rates in insular biogeography: effect of immigration on extinction. Ecology 58:445–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burnham KR, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Campos CB, Esteves CF, Ferraz KMPMB, Crawshaw PG, Verdade LM (2007) Diet of free-ranging cats and dogs in a suburban and rural environment, south-eastern Brazil. J Zool 273:14–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ewers RM, Didham RK (2006) Confounding factors in the detection of species responses to habitat fragmentation. Biol Rev 81:117–142PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Faraway JJ (2006) Extending the linear model with R: generalized linear, mixed effects and nonparametric regression models. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  18. Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2002) The conservation value of paddock trees for birds in a variegated landscape in southern New South Wales. 1. Species composition and site occupancy patterns. Biodivers Conserv 11:807–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fox BJ, Fox MD (2000) Factors determining mammal species richness on habitat islands and isolates: habitat diversity, disturbance, species interactions and guild assembly rules. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 9:19–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Franklin JF, Lindenmayer DB (2009) Importance of matrix habitats in maintaining biological diversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:349–350PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Garden JG, McAlpine CA, Possingham HP, Jones DN (2007) Habitat structure is more important than vegetation composition for local-level management of native terrestrial reptile and small mammal species living in urban remnants: a case study from Brisbane, Australia. Austral Ecol 32:669–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. George SL, Crooks KR (2006) Recreation and large mammal activity in an urban nature reserve. Biol Conserv 133:107–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goosem M (2000) Effects of tropical rainforest roads on small mammals: edge changes in community composition. Wildl Res 27:151–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hanski I, Ovaskainen O (2000) The metapopulation capacity of a fragmented landscape. Nature 404:755–758PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harper KA, Macdonald SE, Burton PJ, Chen J, Brosofske KD, Saunders SC, Euskirchen ES, Roberts DAR, Jaiteh MS, Anders Esseen PER (2005) Edge influence on forest structure and composition in fragmented landscapes. Conserv Biol 19:768–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harper MJ, McCarthy MA, Van Der Ree R (2008) Resources at the landscape scale influence possum abundance. Austral Ecol 33:243–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Haslem A, Bennett AF (2008) Countryside elements and the conservation of birds in agricultural environments. Agric Ecosyst Environ 125:191–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Haynes KJ, Cronin JT (2006) Interpatch movement and edge effects: the role of behavioral responses to the landscape matrix. Oikos 113:43–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hein S, Gombert J, Hovestadt T, Poethke HJ (2003) Movement patterns of the bush cricket Platycleis albopunctata in different types of habitat: matrix is not always matrix. Ecol Entomol 28:432–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Henein K, Wegner J, Merriam G (1998) Population effects of landscape model manipulation on two behaviourally different woodland small mammals. Oikos 81:168–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hockings M (1981) Habitat distribution and species diversity of small mammals in south-east Queensland in relation to vegetation structure. Aust Wildl Res 8:97–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Huggett AJ (2005) The concept and utility of ‘ecological thresholds’ in biodiversity conservation. Biol Conserv 124:301–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hurvich CM, Tsai C-L (1989) Regression and time series model selection in small samples. Biometrika 76:297–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Knight EH, Fox BJ (2000) Does habitat structure mediate the effects of forest fragmentation and human-induced disturbance on the abundance of Antechinus stuartii? Aust J Zool 48:577–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Laurance WF (1991) Ecological correlates of extinction proneness in Australian Tropical Rain Forest Mammals. Conserv Biol 5:79–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lidicker WZ (1999) Responses of mammals to habitat edges: an overview. Landscape Ecol 14:333–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lindenmayer DB, Peakall R (2000) The tumut experiment—integrating demographic and genetic studies to unravel fragmentation effects: a case study of the native bush rat. In: Young AM, Clarke GM (eds) Genetics, demography and viability of fragmented populations. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  38. Manning AD, Lindenmayer DB, Barry SC, Nix HA (2006) Multi-scale site and landscape effects on the vulnerable superb parrot of south-eastern Australia during the breeding season. Landscape Ecol 21:1119–1133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Marchesan D, Carthew SM (2008) Use of space by the yellow-footed antechinus, Antechinus flavipes, in a fragmented landscape in South Australia. Landscape Ecol 23:741–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Maron M, Fitzsimons JA (2007) Agricultural intensification and loss of matrix habitat over 23 years in the West Wimmera, south-eastern Australia. Biol Conserv 135:587–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McAlpine CA, Rhodes JR, Callaghan JG, Bowen ME, Lunney D, Mitchell DL, Pullar DV, Possingham HP (2006) The importance of forest area and configuration relative to local habitat factors for conserving forest mammals: a case study of koalas in Queensland, Australia. Biol Conserv 132:153–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Michalski F, Peres CA (2005) Anthropogenic determinants of primate and carnivore local extinctions in a fragmented forest landscape of southern Amazonia. Biol Conserv 124:383–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Moffatt SF, McLachlan SM, Kenkel NC (2004) Impacts of land use on riparian forest along an urban–rural gradient in southern Manitoba. Plant Ecol 174:119–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mortelliti A, Boitani L (2008) Interaction of food resources and landscape structure in determining the probability of patch use by carnivores in fragmented landscapes. Landscape Ecol 23:285–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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 134:383–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Prevedello JA, Vieira MV (2010) Plantation rows as dispersal routes: a test with didelphid marsupials in the Atlantic Forest, Brazil. Biol Conserv 143:131–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. R Development Core Team (2008) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0.
  48. Radford JQ, Bennett AF (2007) The relative importance of landscape properties for woodland birds in agricultural environments. J Appl Ecol 44:737–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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:E130–E153PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rhodes JR, McAlpine CA, Zuur AF, Smith GM, Ieno EN (2009) Chapter 21 GLMM applied on the spatial distribution of koalas in a fragmented landscape. In: Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker NJ, Savaliev AA, Smith GM (eds) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  51. Ricketts TH (2001) The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. Am Nat 158:87–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Riley SPD, Busteed GT, Kats LB, Vandergon TL, Lee LFS, Dagit RG, Kerby JL, Fisher RN, Sauvajot RM (2005) Effects of urbanization on the distribution and abundance of amphibians and invasive species in Southern California streams. Conserv Biol 19:1894–1907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Spencer R-J, Cavanough VC, Baxter GS, Kennedy MS (2005) Adult free zones in small mammal populations: response of Australian native rodents to reduced cover. Austral Ecol 30:868–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sugiura N (1978) Further analysis of the data by Akaike’s information criterion and the finite corrections. Commun Stat Theory Meth A7:13–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Trombulak SC, Frissell CA (2000) Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conserv Biol 14:18–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tubelis DP, Lindenmayer DB, Cowling A (2004) Novel patch-matrix interactions: patch width influences matrix use by birds. Oikos 107:634–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tubelis DP, Lindenmayer D, Cowling A (2007) Bird populations in native forest patches in south-eastern Australia: the roles of patch width, matrix type (age) and matrix use. Landscape Ecol 22:1045–1058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Vernes K (2003) Fine-scale habitat preferences and habitat partitioning by three mycophagous mammals in tropical wet-sclerophyll forest, north-eastern Australia. Austral Ecol 28:471–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Vieira MV, Olifiers N, Delciellos AC, Antunes VZ, Bernardo LR, Grelle CEV, Cerqueira R (2009) Land use vs. fragment size and isolation as determinants of small mammal composition and richness in Atlantic Forest remnants. Biol Conserv 142:1191–1200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Viveiros de Castro EB, Fernandez FAS (2004) Determinants of differential extinction vulnerabilities of small mammals in Atlantic forest fragments in Brazil. Biol Conserv 119:73–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Westerberg L, Ostman O, Wennergren U (2005) Movement effects on equilibrium distributions of habitat generalists in heterogeneous landscapes. Ecol Model 188:432–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Her Majesty the Queen in Rights of Australia 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Megan J. Brady
    • 1
  • Clive A. McAlpine
    • 1
  • Hugh P. Possingham
    • 2
  • Craig J. Miller
    • 3
  • Greg S. Baxter
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Geography, Planning & Environmental ManagementThe University of QueenslandSt. LuciaAustralia
  2. 2.The Ecology Centre, School of Biological SciencesThe University of QueenslandSt. LuciaAustralia
  3. 3.CSIRO Sustainable EcosystemsSt. LuciaAustralia

Personalised recommendations