Landscape Ecology

, 26:1085 | Cite as

Matrix-dependent corridor effectiveness and the abundance of forest birds in fragmented landscapes

Research Article

Abstract

Corridor function for wildlife movement constitutes an important and desirable ecological characteristic of linear landscape structures. Changes in the matrix conditions, however, may result in substantial changes in the mechanisms responsible for the use of corridors by animals. I developed a model that describes the influence of matrix quality on the effectiveness of corridors for wildlife movement and the abundance of animals in the corridors. The model predicts that corridor effectiveness is maximized at intermediate matrix quality levels, while the abundance in the corridor increases asymptotically with matrix quality. I tested predictions of this model by comparing the expected and observed relative abundance of forest bird species in two landscape types of southern Chile. In nine out of 12 cases the model correctly predicted the relative abundance of forest birds. Riparian forest strips were expected to be effective functioning as corridors for five out of six studied species, although corridor effectiveness for each species varied between landscape types. A reasonable strategy to improve connectivity is to maintain (or to increase, if necessary) the matrix quality at a level such that corridors can function efficiently as both drift fences and movement conduits.

Keywords

Riparian strips Conduits for movement Drift fence Forest birds 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by FONDECYT under project 11080085. I thank Ignacio Orellana for his valuable help in data collection, and Forestal Mininco for granting us access to forest fragments. I thank two anonymous reviewers for their valuable and constructive comments.

Supplementary material

10980_2011_9641_MOESM1_ESM.doc (176 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 176 kb)

References

  1. Baum KA, Haynes KJ, Dillemuth FP, Cronin JT (2004) The matrix enhances the effectiveness of corridors and stepping stones. Ecology 85:2671–2676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beier P, Noss RF (1998) Do habitat corridors provide connectivity? Conserv Biol 12:1241–1252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett AF (1998) Movements of animals through linkages. In: Bennett AF (ed) Linkages in the landscape: the role of corridors and connectivity in wildlife conservation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, pp 67–91Google Scholar
  4. Berggren A, Birath B, Kindvall O (2002) Effect of corridors and habitat edges on dispersal behavior, movement rates, and movement angles in Roesel’s Bush-Cricket (Metrioptera roeseli). Conserv Biol 16:1562–1569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buckland ST, Anderson DR, Burnham KP, Laake JL, Borchers DL, Thomas L (2001) Introduction to distance sampling: estimating abundance of biological populations. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Chetkiewicz C-LB, St. Clair CC, Boyce MS (2006) Corridors for conservation: integrating pattern and process. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 37:317–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cronin JT, Haynes KJ, Dillemuth FP (2004) Spider effects on planthopper mortality, dispersal, and spatial population dynamics. Ecology 85:2134–2143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davies ZG, Pullin AS (2007) Are hedgerows effective corridors between fragments of woodland habitat? An evidence-based approach. Landscape Ecol 22:333–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Desrochers A, Hannon SJ, Nordin KE (1988) Winter survival and territory acquisition in a northern population of Black-capped Chickadees. Auk 105:727–736Google Scholar
  10. Diefenbach DR, Brauning DW, Mattice JA (2003) Variability in grassland bird counts related to observer differences and species detection rates. Auk 120:1168–1179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Donoso C (1993) Bosques templados de Chile y Argentina: variación, estructura y dinámica. Editorial Universitaria Santiago, ChileGoogle Scholar
  12. Dunning JB, Danielson BJ, Pulliam HR (1992) Ecological processes that affect populations in complex landscapes. Oikos 65:169–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Estades CF (1997) Bird-habitat relationships in a vegetational gradient in the Andes of central Chile. Condor 99:719–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Estades CF (2001) The effect of breeding-habitat patch size on bird population density. Landscape Ecol 16:161–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fahrig L (2001) How much habitat is enough? Biol Conserv 100:65–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 34:487–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fahrig L (2007) Landscape heterogeneity and metapopulation dynamics. In: Wu J, Hobbs RJ (eds) Key topics and perspectives in landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 78–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Forman RTT (1995) Land mosaics: the ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. Fried JH, Levey DJ, Hogsette JA (2005) Habitat corridors function as both drift fences and movement conduits for dispersing flies. Oecologia 143(4):645–651PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gelling M, Macdonald DW, Mathews F (2007) Are hedgerows the route to increased farmland small mammal density? Use of hedgerows in British pastoral habitats. Landscape Ecol 22:1019–1032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Haddad NM, Baum K (1999) An experimental test of corridor effects on butterfly densities. Ecol Appl 9:623–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Haddad NM, Tewksbury JJ (2005) Low quality habitat corridors as movement conduits for two butterfly species. Ecol Appl 15:250–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Haddad NM, Bowne DR, Cunningham A, Danielson B, Levey D, Sargent S, Spira T (2003) Corridor use by diverse taxa. Ecology 84:609–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harrison RL (1992) Toward a theory of inter-refuge corridor design. Conserv Biol 6:293–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Horskins K, Mather PB, Wilson JC (2006) Corridors and connectivity: when use and function do not equate. Landscape Ecol 21:641–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hudgens BR, Haddad NM (2003) Predicting which species will benefit from corridors in fragmented landscapes from population growth models. Am Nat 161:808–820PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Link WA, Sauer JR (2002) A hierarchical analysis of population change with application to Cerulean Warblers. Ecology 83:2832–2840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mceuen A (1993) The wildlife corridor controversy: a review. Endanger Species Update 10:1–7Google Scholar
  29. Öckinger E, Smith H (2008) Do corridors promote dispersal in grassland butterflies and other insects? Landscape Ecol 23:27–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Perault DR, Lomolino MV (2000) Corridors and mammal community structure across a fragmented, old-growth forest landscape. Ecol Monogr 70:401–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ralph CJ (1985) Habitat association patterns of forest and steppe birds of northern Patagonia, Argentina. Condor 87:471–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Reino L, Beja P, Osborne PE, Morgado R, Fabião A, Rotenberry JT (2009) Distance to edges, edge contrast and landscape fragmentation: interactions affecting farmland birds around forest plantations. Biol Conserv 142:824–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ricketts TH (2001) The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. Am Nat 158:87–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rosenberg DK, Noon BR, Meslow EC (1997) Biological corridors: form, function, and efficacy. Bioscience 47:677–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Saunders DA, Hobbs RJ (1991) Nature conservation 2: the role of corridors. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping NortonGoogle Scholar
  36. Schippers P, Grashof-Bokdam CJ, Verboom J, Baveco JM, Jochem R, Meeuwsen HAM, Van Adrichem MHC (2009) Sacrificing patches for linear habitat elements enhances metapopulation performance of woodland birds in fragmented landscapes. Landscape Ecol 24:1123–1133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Simberloff D, Farr JA, Cox J, Mehlam DW (1992) Movement corridors: conservation bargains or poor investments? Conserv Biol 6:493–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stamps JA, Buechner M, Krishnan VV (1987) The effects of edge permeability and habitat geometry on emigration from patches of habitat. Am Nat 129:533–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sturtz S, Ligges U, Gelman A (2005) R2WinBUGS: a package for running WinBUGS from R. J Stat Softw 12:1–16Google Scholar
  40. Tewksbury JJ, Levey DJ, Haddad NM, Sargent S, Orrock JL, Weldon A (2002) Corridors affect plants, animals, and their interactions in fragmented landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:12923–12926PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Thomas L, Buckland ST, Burnham KP, Anderson DR, Laake JL, Borchers DL, Strindberg S (2002) Distance sampling. In: El-Shaarawi AH, Piegorsch WW (eds) Encyclopedia of environmetrics. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, pp 544–552Google Scholar
  42. Tubelis DP, Cowling A, Donnelly C (2004) Landscape supplementation in adjacent savannas and its implications for the design of corridors for forest birds in the central Cerrado, Brazil. Biol Conserv 118:353–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vergara PM, Armesto JJ (2009) Responses of Chilean forest birds to anthropogenic habitat fragmentation across spatial scales. Landscape Ecol 24:25–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vergara PM, Hahn I (2009) Linking edge effects and patch size effects: importance of matrix nest predators. Ecol Model 220:1189–1196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vergara PM, Marquet PA (2007) On the seasonal effect of landscape structure on a bird species: the thorn-tailed rayadito in a relict forest in northern Chile. Landscape Ecol 22:1059–1071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Vergara PM, Simonetti JA (2006) Abundance and movement of understory birds in maulino forest fragmented by pine plantations. Biodivers Conserv 15:39–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vergara PM, Smith C, Delpiano C, Orellana I, Gho D (2010a) Frugivory on Persea lingue in temperate Chilean forests: interactions between fruit availability and habitat fragmentation across multiple spatial scales. Oecología 164(4):981–991. doi:10.1007/s00442-010-1722-1 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vergara PM, Jimenez J, Schlatter RP (2010b) Effective point-count duration for Chilean forest birds. Zool Stud 49:381–391Google Scholar
  49. Vuilleumier F (1967) Mixed species flocks in Patagonian forest, with remarks on interspecies flock formation. Condor 64:400–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de Ingeniería GeográficaUniversidad de Santiago de ChileSantiagoChile
  2. 2.CEUS Llanquihue, USACHSantiagoChile

Personalised recommendations