Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 22, Issue 10, pp 1527–1539 | Cite as

Carabids (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in a forest patchwork: a connectivity analysis of the Bereg Plain landscape graph

  • Ferenc Jordán
  • Tibor Magura
  • Béla Tóthmérész
  • Vera Vasas
  • Viktor Ködöböcz
Research Article

Abstract

For many species, one important key to persistence is maintaining connectivity among local populations that allow for dispersal and gene flow. This is probably true for carabid species (Coleoptera:Carabidae) living in the fragmented forests of the Bereg Plain (NE Hungary and W Ukraine). Based on field data, we have drafted a landscape graph of the area representing the habitat network of these species. Graph nodes and links represented two kinds of landscape elements: habitat (forest) patches and corridors, respectively. The quality of habitat patches and corridors were ranked (from low (1) to high (4)), reflecting local population sizes in the case of patches and estimated permeability in the case of corridors. We analysed (1) the positional importance of landscape elements in maintaining the connectivity of the intact network, (2) the effect of inserting hypothetical corridors into the network, (3) the effects of improving the quality of the existing corridors, and (4) how to connect every patch in a cost-effective way. Our results set quantitative priorities for conservation practice by identifying important corridors: what to protect, what to build and what to improve. Several network analytical techniques were used to account for the directed (source-sink) and highly fragmented nature of the landscape graph. We provide conservation priority ranks for the landscape elements and discuss the conditions for the use of particular network indices. Our study could be of extreme relevance, since a new highway is being planned through the area.

Keywords

Landscape graph Reachability Isolation Connectivity Carabidae Hungary Directed graph 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for Zoltán Peresztegi-Nagy for developing a computer programme for one part of the analysis, András Báldi and Gábor Lövei for useful discussions and three anonymous reviewers for their comments on the manuscript. We thank K. Csepi and G. Lövei for linguistic revision. FJ and TM were supported by grants from the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund (OTKA T 37726 and F 61651, respectively). FJ was also supported by Society in Science: the Branco Weiss Fellowship from ETH Zürich, Switzerland.

References

  1. Baum KA, Haynes KJ, Dillemuth FP, Cronin RT (2004) The matrix enhances the effectiveness of corridors and stepping stones. Ecology 85:2671–2676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baudry J, Burel F, Aviron S, Martin M, Ouin A, Pain G, Thenail C (2003) Temporal variability of connectivity in agricultural landscapes: do farming activities help? Landsc Ecol 18:303–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baudry J, Burel F (2004) Trophic flows and spatial heterogeneity in agricultural landscapes. In: Polis GA, Power ME, Huxel GR (eds) Food webs at the landscape level. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 317–332Google Scholar
  4. Beier P, Noss RF (1998) Do habitat corridors provide connectivity? Conserv Biol 12:1241–1252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Borgatti SP (2003) The key player problem. In: Breiger R, Carley K, Pattison P (eds) Dynamic Social Network Modeling and Analysis: Workshop Summary and Papers, Committee on Human Factors, National Research Council, pp 241–252Google Scholar
  7. Briers RA (2002) Incorporating connectivity into reserve selection procedures. Biol Conserv 103:77–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brooks TM, Pimm SL, Oyugi JO (1999) Time lag between deforestation and bird extinction in tropical forest fragments. Conserv Biol 13:1140–1150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brose U (2003a) Island biogeography of temporary wetland carabid beetle communities. J Biogeogr 30:879–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brose U (2003b) Bottom-up control of carabid beetle communities in early successional wetlands: mediated by vegetation structure or plant diversity? Oecologia 135:407–413PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Burel F (1989) Landscape structure effects on carabid beetles spatial patterns in western France. Landsc Ecol 4:215–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Burel F (1992) Effect of landscape structure and dynamics on species diversity in hedgerow networks. Landsc Ecol 6:161–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cantwell MD, Forman RTT (1993) Landscape graphs: ecological modelling with graph theory to detect configurations common to diverse landscapes. Landsc Ecol 8:239–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Collinge SK (2000) Effects of grassland fragmentation on insect species loss, colonization, and movement patterns. Ecology 81:2211–2226Google Scholar
  15. Crooks KR, Soulé ME (1999) Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions in a fragmented system. Nature 400:563–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Davies KF, Margules CR, Lawrence JF (2000) Which traits of species predict population declines in experimental forest fragments? Ecology 81:1450–1461Google Scholar
  17. de la Pena NM, Butet A, Dlettre Y, Morant P, Burel F (2003) Landscape context and carabid beetles (Coleoptera:Carabidae) communities of hedgerows in western France. Agric Ecosyst Environ 94:59–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Étienne RS (2004) On optimal choices in increase of patch area and reduction of interpatch distance for metapopulation persistence. Ecol Modell 179:77–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Haddad NM, Browne DR, Cunningham A, Danielson BJ, Levey DJ, Sargent S, Spira T (2003) Corridor use by diverse taxa. Ecology 84:609–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Henein K, Merriam G (1990) The elements of connectivity where corridor quality is variable. Landsc Ecol 4:157–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ishitani M, Kotze DJ, Niemelä J (2003) Changes in carabid beetle assemblages across an urban-rural gradient in Japan. Ecography 26:481–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jordán F (2000) A reliability-theory approach to corridor design. Ecol Modell 128:211–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jordán F, Báldi A, Orci KM, Rácz I, Varga Z (2003) Characterizing the importance of habitat patches and corridors in maintaining the landscape connectivity of a Pholidoptera transsylvanica (Orthoptera) metapopulation. Landsc Ecol 18:83–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Keitt TH, Urban DL, Milne BT (1997) Detecting critical scales in fragmented landscapes. Conserv Ecol 1(1):4Google Scholar
  25. Keller I, Largiadér CR (2003) Recent habitat fragmentation caused by major roads leads to reduction of gene flow and loss of genetic variability in ground beetles. Proc Roy Soc Lond, Ser B 270:417–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kondoh M (2003) Habitat fragmentation resulting in overgrazing by herbivores. J Theor Biol 225:453–460PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kotze DJ, Niemelä J, O’Hara RB, Turin H (2003) Testing abundance-range size relationships in European carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Ecography 26:553–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ködöböcz V, Magura T (2005) Forests of the Bereg-plain as refuges based on their carabid fauna (Coleoptera:Carabidae). Acta Phytopathologica et Entomologica Hungarica 40:367–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kruess A, Tscharntke T (1994) Habitat fragmentation, species loss, and biological control. Science 264:1581–1584PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lövei GL, Sunderland KD (1996) Ecology and behavior of ground beetles (Coleoptera:Carabidae). Annu Rev Entomol 41: 231–256PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Lövei GL, Magura T, Tóthmérész B, Ködöböcz V (2006) The influence of matrix and edges on species richness patterns of ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in habitat islands. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 15: 283–289Google Scholar
  32. Magura T, Tóthmérész B, Molnár T (2000) Spatial distribution of carabid species along a grass-forest transects. Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientiarium Hungariae 46:1–17Google Scholar
  33. Magura T, Tóthmérész B, Molnár T (2001a) Forest edge and diversity: carabids along forest-grassland transects. Biodiv Conserv 10:287–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Magura T, Ködöböcz V, Tóthmérész B (2001b) Effects of habitat fragmentation on carabids in forest patches. J Biogeogr 28:129–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Magura T, Tóthmérész B, Molnár T (2004) Changes in carabid beetle assemblages along an urbanisation gradient in the city of Debrecen, Hungary. Landsc Ecol 19:747–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Niemelä J, Kotze DJ, Venn S, Penev L, Stoyanov I, Hartley D, Montes de Oca E (2002) Carabid beetle assemblages (Coleoptera, Carabidae) across urban-rural gradients: an international comparison. Landsc Ecol 17:387–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. O`Neill RV, Krummel JR, Gardner RH, Sugihara G, Jackson B, DeAngelis DL, Milne BT, Turner MG, Zygmunt B, Christensen SW, Dale VH, Graham RL (1998) Indices of landscape pattern. Landsc Ecol 1:153–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pascual-Hortal L, Saura S (2006) Comparison and development of new graph-based landscape connectivity indices: towards the prioritization of habitat patches for conservation. Landsc Ecol 21: 959–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML (1995) Landscape ecology: spatial heterogeneity in ecological systems. Science 269:331–334PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schumaker NH (1996) Using landscape indices to predict habitat connectivity. Ecology 77:1210–1225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Selonen V, Hanski IK (2003) Movements of the flying squirrel Pteromys volans in corridors and in matrix habitat. Ecography 26:641–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shimazaki H, Tamura M, Darman Y, Andronov V, Parilov MP, Nagendran M, Higuchi H (2004) Network analysis of potential migration routes for oriental white storks (Ciconia boyciana). Ecol Res 19:683–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Spiller DA, Schoener TW (1998) Lizards reduce spider species richness by excluding rare species. Ecology 79:503–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Suominen O, Niemelä J, Martikainen P, Niemelä P, Kojola I (2003) Impact of reindeer grazing on ground-dwelling Carabidae and Curculionidae assemblages in Lapland. Ecography 26:503–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tewksbury JJ, Levey DJ, Haddad NM, Sargent S, Orrock JL, Weldon A, Danielson BJ, Brinkerhoff J, Damschen EI, Townsend P (2002) Corridors affect plants, animals, and their interactions in fragmented landscapes. Proc Nat Acad Sci, USA 99:12923–12926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thiele HU (1977) Carabid beetles in their environments. Springer Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Tischendorf L, Wissel C (1997) Corridors as conduits for small animals: attainable distances depending on movement pattern, boundary reaction and corridor width. Oikos 79:603–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tischendorf L, Irmler U, Hingst R (1998) A simulation experiment on the potential of hedgerows as movement corridors for forest carabids. Ecol Modell 106:107–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2000a). On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos 90:7–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2000b) How should we measure landscape connectivity? Landsc Ecol 15:633–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Turner MG, Gardner RH, O’Neill RV (2001) Landscape ecology. Springer Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  52. Urban D, Keitt T (2001) Landscape connectivity: a graph-theoretic perspective. Ecology 82:1205–1218Google Scholar
  53. Verboom J, Foppen R, Chardon P, Opdam P, Luttikhuizen P (2001) Introducing the key patch approach for habitat networks with persistent populations: an example for marshland birds. Biol Conserv 100:89–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wassermann S, Faust K (1994) Social network analysis. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ferenc Jordán
    • 1
    • 2
  • Tibor Magura
    • 3
  • Béla Tóthmérész
    • 4
  • Vera Vasas
    • 5
  • Viktor Ködöböcz
    • 3
  1. 1.Collegium BudapestInstitute for Advanced StudyBudapestHungary
  2. 2.Animal Ecology Research Group of HAS, Hungarian Natural History MuseumBudapestHungary
  3. 3.Hortobágy National Park DirectorateDebrecenHungary
  4. 4.Ecological Institute of Debrecen UniversityDebrecenHungary
  5. 5.Department of Plant Taxonomy and EcologyEötvös UniversityBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations