Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The use of native vegetation as a proxy for habitat may overestimate habitat availability in fragmented landscapes

  • Short Communication
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Context

Native vegetation is often used as a proxy for habitat to estimate habitat availability in landscapes. This approach may lead to incorrect estimates of the impacts of habitat loss and fragmentation on species, which have not been thoroughly quantified so far.

Objectives

We quantified to what extent the loss of native vegetation reflect actual habitat loss by native species in landscapes. We tested the hypothesis that habitat availability declines at greater rates than native vegetation and thus is overestimated when it is quantified on the basis of native vegetation.

Methods

Using simulations, we quantified how the loss of native vegetation in artificial and real landscapes affects habitat availability for species with different habitat requirements. We contrasted a generalist species, which uses all native vegetation, with 10 habitat-specialist species classified into three categories (interior, patchy and riparian species).

Results

Habitat availability generally declined at greater rates than native vegetation for all specialist species. This pattern was apparent for different specialist species in a broad range of landscape types. Interior species always lost habitat availability more rapidly than the generalist species. Most riparian species lost habitat availability more rapidly than the generalist species. Responses of patchy species were more complex, depending on their dispersal abilities and landscape structure.

Conclusions

Habitat availability is likely to be overestimated when native vegetation is used as proxy for habitat, because habitat availability will generally decline at greater rates than native vegetation. Therefore, a species-centered approach should be adopted when estimating habitat availability in landscapes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  • Almeida-Gomes M, Lorini ML, Rocha CFD, Vieira MV (2014) Underestimation of extinction threat to stream-dwelling amphibians due to lack of consideration of narrow area of occupancy. Conserv Biol 28:616–619

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Andrén H (1994) Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71:355–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Awade M, Boscolo D, Metzger JP (2012) Using binary and probabilistic habitat availability indices derived from graph theory to model bird occurrence in fragmented forests. Landscape Ecol 27:185–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banks-Leite C, Ewers RM, Metzger JP (2010) Edge effects as the principal cause of area effects on birds in fragmented secondary forest. Oikos 119:918–926

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Betts MG, Fahrig L, Hadley AS, Halstead KE, Bowman J, Robinson WD, Wiens J, Lindenmayer DB (2014) A species-centered approach for uncovering generalities in organism responses to habitat loss and fragmentation. Ecography 37:517–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brückmann SV, Krauss J, Steffan-Dewenter I (2010) Butterfly and plant specialists suffer from reduced connectivity in fragmented landscapes. J Appl Ecol 47:799–809

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cabeza M, Araújo MB, Wilson RJ, Thomas CD, Cowley MJR, Moilanen A (2004) Combining probabilities of occurrence with spatial reserve design. J Appl Ecol 41:252–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connor EF, Courtney AC, Yoder JM (2000) Individuals–area relationships: the relationship between animal population density and area. Ecology 81:734–748

    Google Scholar 

  • Crouzeilles R, Prevedello JA, Figueiredo MSL, Lorini ML, Grelle CEV (2014) The effects of the number, size and isolation of patches along a gradient of native vegetation cover: how can we increment habitat availability? Landscape Ecol 29:479–489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crouzeilles R, Beyer HL, Mills M, Grelle CEV, Possingham H (2015) Incorporating habitat availability into systematic planning for restoration: a species-specific approach for Atlantic Forest mammals. Divers Distrib 21:1027–1037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devictor V, Julliard R, Jiguet F (2008) Distribution of specialist and generalist species along spatial gradients of habitat disturbance and fragmentation. Oikos 117:507–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ewers RM, Didham RK (2006) Confounding factors in the detection of species responses to habitat fragmentation. Biol Rev 81:117–142

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ewers RM, Didham RK (2008) Pervasive impact of large-scale edge effects on a beetle community. PNAS 105:5426–5429

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L (2007) Non-optimal animal movement in human-altered landscapes. Funct Ecol 21:1003–1015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2007) Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: a synthesis. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 16:265–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner TA, Barlow J, Peres CA (2007) Paradox, presumption and pitfalls in conservation biology: the importance of habitat change for amphibians and reptiles. Biol Conserv 138:166–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heard GW, Scroggie MP, Malone BS (2012) Classical metapopulation theory as a useful paradigm for the conservation of an endangered amphibian. Biol Conserv 148:156–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henle K, Davies KF, Kleyer M, Margules C, Settele J (2004) Predictors of species sensitivity to fragmentation. Biodivers Conserv 13:207–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keith DA, Akçakaya HR, Thuiller W, Midgley GF, Pearson RG, Phillips SJ, Regan HM, Araújo MB, Rebelo TJ (2008) Predicting extinction risks under climate change: coupling stochastic population models with dynamic bioclimatic habitat models. Biol Lett 4:560–563

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Krämer B, Poniatowski D, Fartmann T (2012) Effects of landscape and habitat quality on butterfly communities in pre-alpine calcareous grasslands. Biol Conserv 152:253–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mari L, Casagrandi R, Bertuzzo E, Rinaldo A, Gatto M (2014) Metapopulation persistence and species spread in river networks. Ecol Lett 17:426–434

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Metzger JP, Lewinsohn TM, Joly CA, Verdade LM, Martinelli LA, Rodrigues RR (2010) Brazilian Law: full speed in reverse? Science 329:276–277

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Monks A, Burrows L (2014) Are threatened plant species specialists, or just more vulnerable to disturbance? J Appl Ecol 51:1228–1235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Öckinger E, Schweiger O, Crist TO, Debinski DM, Krauss J, Kuussaari M, Petersen JD, Pöyry J, Settele J, Summerville KS, Bommarco R (2010) Life-history traits predict species responses to habitat area and isolation: a cross-continental synthesis. Ecol Lett 13:969–979

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Peyras M, Vespa NI, Bellocq MI, Zurita GA (2013) Quantifying edge effects: the role of habitat contrast and species specialization. J Insect Conserv 17:807–820

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Development Core Team (2011) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available from http://www.R-project.org. Accessed Jan 2012)

  • Rybicki J, Hanski I (2013) Species–area relationships and extinctions caused by habitat loss and fragmentation. Ecol Lett 16:27–38

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Saccheri I, Kuussaari M, Kankare M, Vikman P, Fortelius W, Hanski I (1998) Inbreeding and extinction in a butterfly metapopulation. Nature 392:491–494

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Saura S, Martínez-Millán J (2000) Landscape patterns simulation with a modified random clusters method. Landsc Ecol 15:661–678

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saura S, Pascual-Hortal L (2007) A new habitat availability index to integrate connectivity in landscape conservation planning: comparison with existing indices and application to a case study. Landsc Urban Plan 83:91–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saura S, Rubio L (2010) A common currency for the different ways in which patches and links can contribute to habitat availability and connectivity in the landscape. Ecography 33:523–537

    Google Scholar 

  • Semlitsch RD, Bodie R (2003) Biological criteria for buffer zones around wetlands and riparian habitats for amphibians and reptiles. Conserv Biol 17:1219–1228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SOS Mata Atlântica, INPE (2012) Atlas dos remanescentes florestais da Mata Atlântica. Fundacão SOS Mata Atlântica, São Paulo

    Google Scholar 

  • Suhonen J, Korkeamäki E, Salmela J, Kuitunen M (2014) Risk of local extinction of Odonata freshwater habitat generalists and specialists. Conserv Biol 28:783–789

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Villard MA (1998) On forest-interior species, edge avoidance, area sensitivity, and dogmas in avian conservation. Auk 115:801–805

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villaseñor NR, Driscoll DA, Escobar MAH, Gibbons P, Lindenmayer DB (2014) Urbanization impacts on mammals across urban-forest edges and a predictive model of edge effects. PLoS ONE 9:e97036

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Greet De Coster, Hawthorne L. Beyer and Mariana M. Vale for comments on the manuscript. Financial support was provided by PNPD-CAPES (scholarship to M. A. Gomes.), FAPESP (scholarship to J. A. Prevedello, Project 2013/03457-1), and CAPES/FAPERJ/PAPD (scholarships to R. Crouzeilles).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Jayme Augusto Prevedello

    Present address: Laboratory of Landscape Ecology, State University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, 20550-900, Brazil

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratory of Vertebrates, Department of Ecology, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Avenida Carlos Chagas Filho 373, Cidade Universitária, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, 21941-902, Brazil

    Mauricio Almeida-Gomes & Renato Crouzeilles

  2. Laboratory of Landscape Ecology and Conservation, Department of Ecology, State University of São Paulo, Rua do Matão, São Paulo, SP, 05508-900, Brazil

    Jayme Augusto Prevedello

  3. International Institute for Sustainability, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, 22460-320, Brazil

    Renato Crouzeilles

Authors
  1. Mauricio Almeida-Gomes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jayme Augusto Prevedello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Renato Crouzeilles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mauricio Almeida-Gomes.

Additional information

Mauricio Almeida-Gomes, Jayme Augusto Prevedello and Renato Crouzeilles have contributed equally to this manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Almeida-Gomes, M., Prevedello, J.A. & Crouzeilles, R. The use of native vegetation as a proxy for habitat may overestimate habitat availability in fragmented landscapes. Landscape Ecol 31, 711–719 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0320-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0320-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation