Advertisement

Current Landscape Ecology Reports

, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp 61–69 | Cite as

Meta-analysis on a Decade of Testing Corridor Efficacy: What New Have we Learned?

  • Julian ResascoEmail author
Interface of Landscape Ecology and Conservation Biology (J Watling, SECTION EDITOR)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Interface of Landscape Ecology and Conservation Biology

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Corridors are widely considered as a strategy to mitigate effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. There are, however, lingering concerns about whether corridors work as intended and whether managing for connectivity in fragmented landscapes is even important for biodiversity conservation. In response, numerous manipulative and natural experiments have been conducted to test the effectiveness of corridors. Gilbert-Norton et al. Conserv Biol. 2010;24(3):660-8 (2010) reviewed such studies published between 1985 and 2008 and concluded that corridors are generally effective at increasing inter-patch movement. The authors noted a lack of studies measuring responses at the population and community levels, responses that would better approximate corridor effects on population persistence and aspects of biodiversity. Here I explored what new insights can be gained on corridor effectiveness from studies published in the last decade, particularly with an eye toward insights going beyond effects on inter-patch movement.

Recent Findings

Following the same selection criteria as Gilbert-Norton et al. Conserv Biol. 2010;24(3):660-8 (2010), I reviewed studies published between 2008 and 2018 that tested corridor effectiveness by comparing ecological response variables from patches connected and not connected by corridors. Analysis of effect sizes showed that corridors increase response variables, reinforcing earlier conclusions that corridors function as intended. Whereas the previous review mainly included corridor effects on dispersal, recent research shows support for corridor efficacy at a variety of levels of organization, from individuals to communities.

Summary

These findings provide further support for the conclusion that efforts spent creating and maintaining corridors are worthwhile for biodiversity conservation.

Keywords

Corridor experiment Habitat fragmentation Conservation Landscape ecology Connectivity Biodiversity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I thank James Watling and Lenore Fahrig for the invitation to write this paper. I thank Nick Haddad, John Orrock, Doug Levey, Melissa Burt, Lars Brudvig, and Rob Fletcher for valuable feedback. I thank Karen Beard and John Stevens for answering my questions and openly sharing data and code from their meta-analysis. I thank the authors of the reviewed studies who provided additional data. I was supported by a Chancellor’s Postdoctoral Fellowship from the University of Colorado while writing this manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Julian Resasco declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Hilty JA, Lidicker WZ, Merenlender AM. Corridor ecology : the science and practice of linking landscapes for biodiversity conservation. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2006.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Haddad NM, Brudvig LA, Clobert J, Davies KF, Gonzalez A, Holt RD, et al. Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems. Sci Adv. 2015;1(2):E1500052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Simberloff D, Cox J. Consequences and costs of conservation corridors. Conserv Biol. 1987;1:63–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Simberloff D, Farr JA, Cox J, Mehlman DW. Movement corridors: conservation bargains or poor investments? Conserv Biol. 1992;6(4):493–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jain A, Chong KY, Chua MAH, Clements GR. Moving away from paper corridors in Southeast Asia. Conserv Biol. 2014;28(4):889–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beier P, Noss RF. Do habitat corridors provide connectivity? Conserv Biol. 1998;12(6):1241–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gilbert-Norton L, Wilson R, Stevens JR, Beard KH. A meta-analytic review of corridor effectiveness. Conserv Biol. 2010;24(3):660–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Haddad NM, Brudvig LA, Damschen EI, Evans DM, Johnson BL, Levey DJ et al. A review of potential negative ecological effects of corridors. Conserv Biol. 2014;28(5):1178–87.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fahrig L, Arroyo-Rodríguez V, Bennett JR, Boucher-Lalonde V, Cazetta E, Currie DJ, et al. Is habitat fragmentation bad for biodiversity? Biol Conserv. 2019;230:179–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fletcher RJ, Didham RK, Banks-Leite C, Barlow J, Ewers RM, Rosindell J, et al. Is habitat fragmentation good for biodiversity? Biol Conserv. 2018;226:9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Levey DJ, Caughlin TT, Brudvig LA, Haddad NM, Damschen EI, Tewksbury JJ, et al. Disentangling fragmentation effects on herbivory in understory plants of longleaf pine savanna. Ecology. 2016;97(9):2248–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gurevitch J, Curtis PS, Jones MH. Meta-analysis in ecology. Adv Ecol Res. 2001;32:199–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, N.J: L. Erlbaum Associates; 1988.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stevens JR, Metahdep NG. Hierarchical dependence in meta-analysis. In: R package version 1.34.0. ed; 2011.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Araujo Calçada E, Closset-Kopp D, Gallet-Moron E, Lenoir J, Reve M, Hermy M, et al. Streams are efficient corridors for plant species in forest metacommunities. J Appl Ecol. 2013;50(5):1152–60.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Awade M, Metzger JP. Using gap-crossing capacity to evaluate functional connectivity of two Atlantic rainforest birds and their response to fragmentation. Austral Ecol. 2008;33(7):863–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bowler DE, Benton TG. Impact of dispersal on population growth: the role of inter-patch distance. Oikos. 2009;118(3):403–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cranmer L, McCollin D, Ollerton J. Landscape structure influences pollinator movements and directly affects plant reproductive success. Oikos. 2012;121(4):562–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Evans DM, Turley NE, Levey DJ, Tewksbury JJ. Habitat patch shape, not corridors, determines herbivory and fruit production of an annual plant. Ecology. 2012;93(5):1016–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fletcher RJ, Acevedo MA, Robertson EP. The matrix alters the role of path redundancy on patch colonization rates. Ecology. 2014;95(6):1444–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Galanes IT, Thomlinson JR. Soil millipede diversity in tropical forest patches and its relation to landscape structure in northeastern Puerto Rico. Biodivers Conserv. 2011;20(13):2967–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Grainger TN, Gilbert B. Multi-scale responses to warming in an experimental insect metacommunity. Glob Chang Biol. 2017;23(12):5151–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hadley AS, Betts MG. Tropical deforestation alters hummingbird movement patterns. Biol Lett. 2009;5(2):207–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hawn CL, Herrmann JD, Griffin SR, Haddad NM. Connectivity increases trophic subsidies in fragmented landscapes. Ecol Lett. 2018;21(11):1620–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Herrmann JD, Haddad NM, Levey DJ. Testing the relative importance of local resources and landscape connectivity on Bombus impatiens (hymenoptera, Apidae) colonies. Apidologie. 2017;48(4):545–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Holzschuh A, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T. Grass strip corridors in agricultural landscapes enhance nest-site colonization by solitary wasps. Ecol Appl. 2009;19(1):123–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ibarra-Macias A, Robinson WD, Gaines MS. Forest corridors facilitate movement of tropical forest birds after experimental translocations in a fragmented Neotropical landscape in Mexico. J Trop Ecol. 2011;27:547–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jesus FM, Pivello VR, Meirelles ST, Franco GADC, Metzger JP. The importance of landscape structure for seed dispersal in rain forest fragments. J Veg Sci. 2012;23(6):1126–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kormann U, Scherber C, Tscharntke T, Klein N, Larbig M, Valente JJ, et al. Corridors restore animal-mediated pollination in fragmented tropical forest landscapes. P Roy Soc B-Biol Sci. 2016;283(1823).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Krewenka KM, Holzschuh A, Tscharntke T, Dormann CF. Landscape elements as potential barriers and corridors for bees, wasps and parasitoids. Biol Conserv. 2011;144(6):1816–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kuykendall MT, Keller GS. Impacts of roads and corridors on abundance and movement of small mammals on the llano Estacado of Texas. Southwest Nat. 2011;56(1):9–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Leidner AK, Haddad NM. Combining measures of dispersal to identify conservation strategies in fragmented landscapes. Conserv Biol. 2011;25(5):1022–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Orrock JL, Curler GR, Danielson BJ, Coyle DR. Large-scale experimental landscapes reveal distinctive effects of patch shape and connectivity on arthropod communities. Landsc Ecol. 2011;26(10):1361–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Paolucci LN, Solar RRC, Sobrinho TG, Sperber CF, Schoereder JH. How does small-scale fragmentation affect litter-dwelling ants? The role of isolation. Biodivers Conserv. 2012;21(12):3095–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Resasco J, Levey DJ, Damschen EI. Habitat corridors alter relative trophic position of fire ants. Ecosphere. 2012;3(11).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Resasco J, Haddad NM, Orrock JL, Shoemaker D, Brudvig TA, Damschen EI, et al. Landscape corridors can increase invasion by an exotic species and reduce diversity of native species. Ecology. 2014;95(8):2033–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Riva F, Acorn JH, Nielsen SE. Narrow anthropogenic corridors direct the movement of a generalist boreal butterfly. Biol Lett. 2018;14(2).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Seaman BS, Schulze CH. The importance of gallery forests in the tropical lowlands of Costa Rica for understorey forest birds. Biol Conserv. 2010;143(2):391–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Shimazaki A, Yamaura Y, Senzaki M, Yabuhara Y, Akasaka T, Nakamura F. Urban permeability for birds: an approach combining mobbing-call experiments and circuit theory. Urban Urban Gree. 2016;19:167–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Van Geert A, Van Rossum F, Triest L. Do linear landscape elements in farmland act as biological corridors for pollen dispersal? J Ecol. 2010;98(1):178–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Van Rossum F, Triest L. Stepping-stone populations in linear landscape elements increase pollen dispersal between urban forest fragments. Plant Ecol Evol. 2012;145(3):332–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Vergnes A, Le Viol I, Clergeau P. Green corridors in urban landscapes affect the arthropod communities of domestic gardens. Biol Conserv. 2012;145(1):171–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Vergnes A, Kerbiriou C, Clergeau P. Ecological corridors also operate in an urban matrix: a test case with garden shrews. Urban Ecosyst. 2013;16(3):511–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Viljur ML, Teder T. Disperse or die: colonisation of transient open habitats in production forests is only weakly dispersal-limited in butterflies. Biol Conserv. 2018;218:32–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wells CN, Williams RS, Walker GL, Haddad NM. Effects of corridors on genetics of a butterfly in a landscape experiment. Southeast Nat. 2009;8(4):709–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zaitsev AS, Gongalsky KB, Persson T, Bengtsson J. Connectivity of litter islands remaining after a fire and unburnt forest determines the recovery of soil fauna. Appl Soil Ecol. 2014;83:101–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Gregory AJ, Beier P. Response variables for evaluation of the effectiveness of conservation corridors. Conserv Biol. 2014;28(3):689–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Brudvig LA, Leroux SJ, Albert CH, Bruna EM, Davies KF, Ewers RM, et al. Evaluating conceptual models of landscape change. Ecography. 2017;40(1):74–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Damschen EI, Brudvig LA, Burt MA, Fletcher RJ, Haddad NM, Levey DJ et al. Landscape connectivity promotes colonization credits and reduces extinction debt over decades. in prep.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Resasco J, Bruna EM, Haddad NM, Banks-Leite C, Margules CR. The contribution of theory and experiments to conservation in fragmented landscapes. Ecography. 2017;40(1):109–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Debinski DM, Holt RD. A survey and overview of habitat fragmentation experiments. Conserv Biol. 2000;14(2):342–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Fletcher RJ, Burrell NS, Reichert BE, Vasudev D, Austin JD. Divergent perspectives on landscape connectivity reveal consistent effects from genes to communities. Curr Landscape Ecol Rep. 2016;1(2):67–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecology & Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of ColoradoBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations