Landscape Ecology

, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 373–388 | Cite as

Forest fragmentation affects step choices, but not homing paths of fragmentation-sensitive birds in multiple behavioral states

  • Jonathon J. ValenteEmail author
  • Richard A. Fischer
  • T. Brandt Ryder
  • Matthew G. Betts
Research Article



Theory predicts that movement limitation due to landscape fragmentation can reduce population viability. Understanding how landscape heterogeneity influences movement is thus critical for testing theory and developing conservation strategies. Consequently, studies are needed that link movement data with landscape features influencing dispersal.


We used experimental translocations to test whether forest fragmentation constrains movements of two fragmentation-sensitive bird species. We also tested for evidence of multiple behavioral movement phases (i.e., exploring, homing) and evaluated whether fragmentation effects varied between them.


Over two breeding seasons we translocated territorial Wood Thrushes (Hylocichla mustelina; n = 36) and Ovenbirds (Seiurus aurocapilla; n = 19) 1–1.2 km across landscapes spanning a fragmentation gradient and recorded spatial (movement path) and temporal (return time) homing data using VHF transmitters and receivers.


Ninety-one percent of individuals returned home, taking up to 72.2 h. Movements of 98% of returning birds indicated distinct exploring (i.e., short, undirected movements and course reversals) and homing (i.e., large, fast steps towards home) movement phases. Both species chose steps minimizing gap exposure in both phases. However, landscape fragmentation had no negative effect on homing times or path straightness.


Our results suggest movement limitation does not drive fragmentation sensitivity in these species. Discrepancy between step- and path-level analyses either indicate that fine-scale movement data do not reflect landscape connectivity, or that artificially motivated animals respond unnaturally to behavioral barriers. Given evidence for dichotomous movement behavior, future studies linking these behaviors to life stages will elucidate when and how landscape features influence movement.


Functional connectivity Avian translocation Forest fragmentation Movement behavior Dispersal Gap-avoidance 



This research was funded by the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center Environmental Quality and Installations 6270/896/04 (PE/Project/Task). We thank the Department of Defense Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (grant RC-2121) for helping to facilitate this work. We also thank M. Bélisle and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback which greatly improved the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10980_2019_777_MOESM1_ESM.docx (15 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 16 kb)
10980_2019_777_MOESM2_ESM.docx (896 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 896 kb)
10980_2019_777_MOESM3_ESM.docx (17 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 17 kb)
10980_2019_777_MOESM4_ESM.csv (1.2 mb)
Supplementary material 4 (CSV 1228 kb)
10980_2019_777_MOESM5_ESM.csv (5.7 mb)
Supplementary material 5 (CSV 5802 kb)
10980_2019_777_MOESM6_ESM.csv (26 kb)
Supplementary material 6 (CSV 26 kb)


  1. Anders AD, Faaborg J, Thompson FR (1998) Postfledging dispersal, habitat use, and home-range size of juvenile Wood Thrushes. Auk 115:349–358CrossRefGoogle 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. Baguette M, Van Dyck H (2007) Landscape connectivity and animal behavior: functional grain as a key determinant for dispersal. Landscape Ecol 22:1117–1129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bayne EM, Hobson KA (2001) Movement patterns of adult male ovenbirds during the post-fledging period in fragmented and forested boreal landscapes. Condor 103:343–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beier P, Noss RF (1998) Do habitat corridors provide connectivity? Conserv Biol 12:1241–1252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bélisle M (2005) Measuring landscape connectivity: the challenge of behavioral landscape ecology. Ecology 86:1988–1995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bélisle M, Desrochers A (2002) Gap-crossing decisions by forest birds: an empirical basis for parameterizing spatially-explicit, individual-based models. Landscape Ecol 17:219–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bélisle M, Desrochers A, Fortin M-J (2001) Influence of forest cover on the movements of forest birds: a homing experiment. Ecology 82:1893–1904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bélisle M, St. Clair CC (2001) Cumulative effects of barriers on movements of forest birds. Conserv Ecol 5:9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Betts MG, Gutzwiller KJ, Smith MJ, Robinson WD, Hadley AS (2015) Improving inferences about functional connectivity from animal translocation experiments. Landscape Ecol 30:585–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Betts MG, Hadley AS, Rodenhouse N, Nocera JJ (2008) Social information trumps vegetation structure in breeding-site selection by a migrant songbird. Proc R Soc B 275:2257–2263CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Biz M, Cornelius C, Metzger JPW (2017) Matrix type affects movement behavior of a Neotropical understory bird. Perspect Ecol Conserv 15:10–17Google Scholar
  13. Butler H, Malone B, Clemann N (2005) The effects of translocation on the spatial ecology of tiger snakes (Notechis scutatus) in a suburban Landscape. Wildl Res 32:165–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Castellón TD, Sieving KE (2006) An experimental test of matrix permeability and corridor use by an endemic understory bird. Conserv Biol 20:135–145CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Desrochers A, Bélisle M, Morand-Ferron J, Bourque J (2011) Integrating GIS and homing experiments to study avian movement costs. Landscape Ecol 26:47–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Desrochers A, Hannon SJ (1997) Gap crossing decisions by forest songbirds during the post-fledging period. Conserv Biol 11:1204–1210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Desrochers A, Hannon SJ, Bélisle M, St. Clair CC (1999) Movement of songbirds in fragmented forests: can we ‘scale up’ from behavior to explain occupancy patterns in the landscape? In: Adams NJ, Slotow RH (eds) Proceedings of the 22nd International Ornithological Congress, Durban, pp 2447–2464Google Scholar
  18. Duchesne T, Fortin D, Courbin N (2010) Mixed conditional logistic regression for habitat selection studies. J Anim Ecol 79:548–555CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fahrig L (2013) Rething patch size and isolation effects: the habitat amount hypothesis. J Biogeogr 40:1649–1663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fahrig L, Merriam G (1985) Habitat patch connectivity and population survival. Ecology 66:1762–1768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fletcher RJ, Maxwell CW, Andrews JE, Helmey-Hartman WL (2013) Signal detection theory clarifies the concept of perceptual range and its relevance to landscape connectivity. Landscape Ecol 28:57–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fletcher RJ, Ries L, Battin J, Chalfoun AD (2007) The role of habitat area and edge in fragmented landscapes: definitievely distinct or inevitably intertwined? Can J Zool 85:1017–1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fortin D, Beyer HL, Boyce MS, Smith DW, Duchesne T, Mao JS (2005) Wolves influence elk movements: behavior shapes a trophic cascade in Yellowstone National Park. Ecology 86:1320–1330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Getz WM, Saltz D (2008) A framework for generating and analyzing movement paths on ecological landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105:19066–19071CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Gillies CS, Beyer HL, St. Clair CC (2011) Fine-scale movement decisions of tropical forest birds in a fragmented landscape. Ecol Appl 21:944–954CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Gillies CS, St. Clair CC (2008) Riparian corridors enhance movement of a forest specialist bird in fragmented tropical forest. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105:19774–19779CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Gobeil J-F, Villard M-A (2002) Permeability of three boreal forest landscape types to bird movements as determined from experimental translocations. Oikos 98:447–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Groom JD, Grubb TC (2006) Patch colonization dynamics in Carolina Chickadees (Poecile carolinensis) in a fragmented landscape: a manipulative study. Auk 123:1149–1160Google Scholar
  30. Gurarie E (2014) bcpa: Behavioral change point analysis of animal movement. R package version 1.1.
  31. Gurarie E, Andrews RD, Laidre KL (2009) A novel method for identifying behavioural changes in animal movement data. Ecol Lett 12:395–408CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Haddad NM, Brudvig LA, Clobert J, Davies KF, Gonzalez A, Holt RD, Lovejoy TE, Sexton JO, Austin MP, Collins CD, Cook WM, Damschen EI, Ewers RM, Foster BL, Jenkins CN, King AJ, Laurance WF, Levey DJ, Margueles CR, Melbourne BA, Nicholls AO, Orrock JL, Song D-X, Townshend JR (2015) Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems. Sci Adv 1:e1500052CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Hadley AS, Betts MG (2009) Tropical deforestation alters hummingbird movement patterns. Biol Lett 5:207–210CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Hanski I (1998) Metapopulation dynamics. Nature 396:41–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Harris RJ, Reed JM (2002) Behavioral barriers to non-migratory movements of birds. Annu Zool Fenn 39:275–290Google Scholar
  36. Heidinger IMM, Poethke H-J, Bonte D, Hein S (2009) The effect of translocation on movement behavior—a test of the assumptions of behavioural studies. Behav Process 82:12–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hobson KA, Wassenaar LI, Bayne E (2004) Using isotopic variance to detect long-distance dispersal and philopatry in birds: an example with Ovenbirds and American Redstarts. Condor 106:732–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kennedy CM, Marra PP (2010) Matrix mediates avian movements in tropical forested landscapes: Inference from experimental translocations. Biol Conserv 143:2136–2145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kesler DC, Cox AS, Albar G, Gouni A, Mejeur J, Plassé C (2012) Translocation of Tuamotu Kingfishers, postrelease exploratory behavior, and harvest effects on the donor population. Pac Sci 66:467–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lima SL, Zollner PA (1996) Towards a behavioral ecology of ecological landscapes. Trends Ecol Evol 11:131–135CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Lynch JF, Whigham DF (1984) Effects of forest fragmentation on breeding bird communities in Maryland, USA. Biol Conserv 28:287–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. MacIntosh T, Stutchbury BJM, Evans ML (2011) Gap-crossing by Wood Thrushes (Hylocichla mustelina) in a fragmented landscape. Can J Zool 89:1091–1097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Moilanen A, Hanski I (2001) On the use of connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Oikos 95:147–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Morales JM, Ellner SP (2002) Scaling up animal movements in heterogeneous landscapes: the importance of behavior. Ecology 83:2240–2247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nathan R, Getz WM, Revilla E, Holyoak M, Kadmon R, Saltz D, Smouse PE (2008) A movement ecology paradigm for unifying organismal Movement. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105:19052–19059CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Nocera JJ, Forbes GJ, Giraldeau L-A (2006) Inadvertent social information in breeding site selection of natal dispersing birds. Proc R Soc B 273:349–355CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Pardini R, Bueno ADA, Gardner TA, Prado PI, Metzger JP (2010) Beyond the fragmentation threshold hypothesis: regime shifts in biodiversity across fragmented landscapes. PLoS ONE 5:e13666CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, R Core Team (2017) nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Models. R package version 3.1-131.
  49. Rands MRW, Adams WM, Bennun L, Butchart SHM, Clements A, Coomes D, Entwistle A, Hodge I, Kapos V, Scharlemann JPW, Sutherland WJ, Vira B (2010) Biodiversity conservation: challenges beyond 2010. Science 329:1298–1303CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Rappole JH, Tipton AR (1991) New harness design for attachment of radio transmitters to small passerines. J Field Ornithol 62:335–337Google Scholar
  51. Reinert HK, Rupert RR (1999) Impacts of translocation on behavior and survival of Timber Rattlesnakes, Crotalus horridus. J Herpetol 33:45–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ricketts TH (2001) The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. Am Nat 158:87–99CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Ries L, Fletcher RJ, Battin J, Sisk TD (2004) Ecological responses to habitat edges: mechanisms, models, and variability explained. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:491–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Robbins CS, Dawson DK, Dowell BA (1989) Habitat area requirements of breeding forest birds of the Middle Atlantic states. Wildl Monogr 103:3–34Google Scholar
  55. Sarrias M, Daziano RA (2017) Multinomial logit models with continuous and discrete individual heterogeneity in R: the gmnl package. J Stat Softw. Google Scholar
  56. Selonen V, Hanski IK, Desrochers A (2010) Measuring habitat availability for dispersing animals. Landscape Ecol 25:331–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Smith MJ, Betts MG, Forbes GJ, Kehler DG, Bourgeois MC, Flemming SP (2011) Independent effects of connectivity predict homing success by northern flying squirrel in a forest mosaic. Landscape Ecol 26:709–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. St. Clair CC (2003) Comparative permeability of roads, rivers, and meadows to songbirds in Banff National Park. Conserv Biol 17:1151–1160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. St. Clair CC, Bélisle M, Desrochers A, Hannon S (1998) Winter responses of forest birds to habitat corridors and gaps. Conserv Ecol 2:13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Taylor PD, Fahrig L, Henein K, Merriam G (1993) Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68:571–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2000) On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos 90:7–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2001) On the use of connectivity measures in spatial ecology. A reply. Oikos 95:152–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tittler R, Fahrig L, Villard M-A (2006) Evidence of large-scale source-sink dynamics and long-distance dispersal among Wood Thrush populations. Ecology 87:3029–3036CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Tremblay MA, St. Clair CC (2011) Permeability of a heterogeneous urban landscape to the movements of forest songbirds. J Appl Ecol 48:679–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tsoar A, Nathan R, Bartan Y, Vyssotski A, Dell’Omo G, Ulanovsky N (2011) Large-scale navigational map in a mammal. Proc Natl Acad Sci 10:E718–E724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Turgeon K, Robillard A, Gregoire J, Duclos V, Kramer DL (2010) Functional connectivity from a reef fish perspective: behavioral tactics for moving in a fragmented landscape. Ecol 91:3332–3342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Valente JJ, Betts MG (2019) Response to fragmentation by avian communities is mediated by species traits. Divers Distrib 25:48–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Vasudev D, Fletcher RJ (2015) Incorporating movement behavior into conservation prioritization in fragmented landscapes: an example of western hoolock gibbons in Garo Hills, India. Biol Conserv 181:124–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Vasudev D, Fletcher RJ, Goswami VR, Krishnadas M (2015) From dispersal constraints to landscape connectivity: lessons from species distribution modeling. Ecography 38:967–978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Vega Rivera JH, McShea WJ, Rappole JH, Haas CA (1999) Postbreeding movements and habitat use of adult Wood Thrushes in northern Virginia. Auk 116:458–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Vega Rivera JH, Rappole JH, McShea WJ, Haas CA (1998) Wood Thrush postfledging movements and habitat use in northern Virginia. Condor 100:69–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Villard M-A, Merriam G (1995) Dynamics in subdivided populations of neotropical migratory birds in a fragmented temperate forest. Ecol 76:27–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Villard M-A, Trzcinski MK, Merriam G (1999) Fragmentation effects on forest birds: relative influence of woodland cover and configuration on landscape occupancy. Conserv Biol 13:774–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Vitz AC, Rodewald AD (2010) Movements of fledgling Ovenbirds (Seiurus aurocapilla) and Worm-eating Warblers (Helmitheros vermivorum) within and beyond the natal home range. Auk 127:364–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Volpe NL, Hadley AS, Robinson WD, Betts MG (2014) Functional connectivity experiments reflect routine movement behavior of a tropical hummingbird species. Ecol Appl 24:2122–2131CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Zeller KA, McGarigal K, Whiteley AR (2012) Estimating landscape resistance to movement: a review. Landscape Ecol 27:777–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. government work and its text is not subject to copyright protection in the United States; however, its text may be subject to foreign copyright protection 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, Migratory Bird CenterNational Zoological ParkWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Forest Biodiversity Research Network, Department of Forest Ecosystems and SocietyOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  3. 3.Environmental LaboratoryU.S. Army Engineer Research and Development CenterVicksburgUSA

Personalised recommendations