A meta-analysis on the impact of different matrix structures on species movement rates
Many biodiversity conservation strategies aim to increase species movement by changing the landscape between suitable areas of habitat. We applied systematic review and meta-analytical methods to robustly assess evidence on the impact of matrix structure on movement rates, with the hypothesis that movement will be greater through matrix of a more similar structure (vegetation height and cover) to the home habitat. Twenty studies of movement through two or more different matrix types provided 107 effect sizes, expressing the difference between the relative movement rates in different matrix types. The studies were all on animals, including relatively mobile taxa such as birds and butterflies but also rodents and amphibians. We were able to detect that on average, movement was greater through matrix of a more similar structure to the species’ habitat despite the variation in studies in terms of matrix types, species and methods. The effect size was larger when there was a greater difference in the structure of the two matrix types being compared (e.g. comparing grassland to forest rather than short grass to long grass). However, there was a high degree of covariation between matrix contrast and studies and other significant subgroupings such as taxonomic group and matrix openness. The biological significance of the increase in movement is not clear; however, ecological theory predicts dispersing individuals are important for population dynamics. Changes to the structure of landscapes intended to improve permeability to movement are supported by the findings of this study, particularly for relatively mobile species. However, research over longer timescales, greater distances and range of taxonomic groups is necessary.
KeywordsConnectivity Emigration Dispersal Permeability Resistance Risk ratio
We thank all those who responded to our requests for data, offprints and information needed to complete our review. This work was initially funded by a group of UK statutory agencies and NGOs coordinated by Defra, and from thereon by the Forestry Commission GB. ASP and GBS were supported by the Centre for Integrated Research in the Rural Environment.
- Alderman J, McCollin D, Hinsley S, Bellamy P, Picton P, Crockett R (2005) Perceptual range and connectivity: exploring the effects of habitat changes on inter-patch dispersal paths. In: McCollin D, Jackson JI (eds) Planning, people and practice. The landscape ecology of sustainable landscapes, ialeUK, Northampton, UK, pp 107–113Google Scholar
- Commission of the European Communities (2009) Adapting to climate change: towards a European framework for action. White Paper April 1 2009, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
- Crooks KR, Sanjayan M (eds) (2006) Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- EEC (1992) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21st May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna (the ‘Habitats Directive’). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31992L0043:EN:HTML. Accessed 15 February 2011
- Eycott AE, Watts K, Brandt G, Buyung-Ali LM, Bowler D, Stewart GB, Pullin AS (2010) Which matrix features affect species movement? Systematic review no. 43. Collaboration for Environmental Evidence. http://www.environmentalevidence.org/SR43.html. Accessed 15 February 2011
- Grez AA (1997) Effect of habitat subdivision on the population dynamics of herbivorous and predatory insects in central Chile. Rev Chil Hist Nat 70:481–490Google Scholar
- Higgins JPT, Green S (eds) (2008) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0.0 [updated February 2008]. The Cochrane CollaborationGoogle Scholar
- Lipsey MW, Wilson DB (2001) Practical meta-analysis. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
- Malmgren JC (2002) How does a newt find its way from a pond? Migration patterns after breeding and metamorphosis in great crested newts (Triturus cristatus) and smooth newts (T-vulgaris). Herpetol J 12:29–35Google Scholar
- Sharp S (1998) Meta-analysis regression: statistics, biostatistics, and epidemiology. Stata Tech Bull 42:16–22Google Scholar
- Watts K, Quine C, Eycott AE, Moseley DG, Humphrey JW, Ray D (2008) Conserving forest biodiversity: recent approaches in UK forest planning and management. In: Lafortezza R, Chen J, Sanesi G, Crow TR (eds) Patterns and processes in forest landscapes—multiple use and sustainable management. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 373–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar