Landscape Ecology

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 7–18 | Cite as

The influence of landscape, patch, and within-patch factors on species presence and abundance: a review of focal patch studies

  • Daniel H. Thornton
  • Lyn C. Branch
  • Melvin E. Sunquist
Landscape Ecology in Review

Abstract

Understanding the influence of large and small-scale heterogeneity on species distribution and abundance is one of the major foci of landscape ecology research in fragmented environments. Although a large number of studies have addressed this issue individually, little effort has been made to synthesize the vast amount of literature published in the last decade. We reviewed 122 focal patch studies on 954 species published between 1998 and 2009 to determine the probability of species responding significantly to landscape, patch, and within-patch variables. We assessed the influence of taxonomic, life history, and methodological variables on probability of response to these 3 levels. Species in diverse taxa responded at high rates to factors at all three levels, suggesting that a multi-level approach is often necessary for understanding species response in patchy systems. Mammals responded at particularly high rates to landscape variables and therefore may benefit more than other taxa from landscape-level conservation efforts in fragmented environments. The probability of detecting a species response to landscape context, patch, and within-patch factors was influenced by a variety of methodological aspects of the studies such as type of landscape metric used, type of response variable, and sample size. Study design issues rarely are discussed by authors as reasons why a particular study did not find an effect of a variable, but should be given more consideration in future studies.

Keywords

Focal patch study Isolation Landscape Patch quality Presence–absence vs. abundance Review Multi-level Sample size Study design and methodology 

Supplementary material

10980_2010_9549_MOESM1_ESM.doc (363 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 363 kb)

References

  1. Banks SC, Finlayson GR, Lawson SJ, Lindenmayer DB, Paetkau D, Ward SJ, Taylor AC (2005) The effects of habitat fragmentation due to forestry plantation establishment on the demography and genetic variation of a marsupial carnivore, Antechinus agilis. Biol Conserv 122:581–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Belisle 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
  3. Bender D, Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2003) Using patch isolation metrics to predict animal movement in binary landscapes. Landscape Ecol 18:17–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bolker BM, Brooks ME, Clark CJ, Geange SW, Poulsen JR, Stevens MHH, White JS (2008) Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 24(3):127–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boscolo D, Metzger JP (2009) Is bird incidence in Atlantic forest fragments influenced by landscape patterns at multiple scales? Landscape Ecol 24:907–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carbone C, Cowlishaw G, Isaac NJB, Rowcliffe JM (2005) How far do animals go? Determinants of day range in mammals. Am Nat 165(2):290–297CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Christman MC (2008) Statistical modeling of observation data with spatial dependencies. J Wildl Manag 72:22–33Google Scholar
  8. Churchill JL, Hannon SJ (2010) Off-territory movement of male American Redstarts (Setophaga ruticilla) in a fragmented agricultural landscape is related to song rate, mating status and access to females. J Ornithol 151:33–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cooper CB, Walters JR (2002) Independent effects of woodland loss and fragmentation on Brown Treecreeper distribution. Biol Conserv 105:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cushman SA, McGarigal K (2002) Hierarchical, multi-scale decomposition of species–environment relationships. Landscape Ecol 17:637–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cushman SA, McGarigal K (2004a) Hierarchical analysis of forest bird species–environment relationships in the Oregon coast range. Ecol Appl 14:1090–1105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cushman SA, McGarigal K (2004b) Patterns in the species–environment relationship depend on both scale and choice of response variables. Oikos 105:117–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cushman SA, McGarigal K, Neel MC (2008a) Parsimony in landscape metrics: strength, universality, and consistency. Ecol Indic 8:691–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cushman SA, McKelvey KS, Flather CH, McGarigal K (2008b) Do forest community types provide a sufficient basis to evaluate biological diversity? Front Ecol Environ 6(1):13–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dunning JB (2007) CRC handbook of avian body masses, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fletcher RJ, Hutto RL (2008) Partitioning the multi-scale effects of human activity on the occurrence of riparian forest birds. Landscape Ecol 23:727–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fraser GS, Stutchbury BJM (2004) Area-sensitive forest birds move extensively among forest patches. Biol Conserv 118:377–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grand J, Cushman SA (2003) A multi-scale analysis of species–environment relationships: breeding birds in a pitch pine–scrub oak (Pinus rigidaQuercus ilicifolia) community. Biol Conserv 112:307–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grand J, Mello MJ (2004) A multi-scale analysis of species–environment relationships: rare moths in a pitch pine-scrub oak (Pinus rigidaQuercus ilicifolia) community. Biol Conserv 119:495–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hannah D, Woinarski JCZ, Catterall CP, Mccosker JC, Thurgate NY, Fensham RJ (2007) Impacts of clearing, fragmentation and disturbance on the bird fauna of Eucalypt savanna woodlands in central Queensland, Australia. Austral Ecol 32:261–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Haskell JP, Ritchie ME, Olff H (2002) Fractal geometry predicts varying body size scaling relationships for mammal and bird home ranges. Nature 418:527–530CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Hedges LV, Olkin I (1980) Vote-counting methods in research synthesis. Psychol Bull 88:359–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hedges LV, Olkin I (1985) Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Hinsley SA, Bellamy PE, Newton I, Sparks TH (1995) Habitat and landscape factors influencing the presence of individual breeding bird species in woodland fragments. J Avian Biol 26(2):94–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Holland GJ, Bennett AF (2009) Differing responses to landscape change: implications for small mammal assemblages in forest fragments. Biodivers Conserv 18:2997–3016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kadoya T, Suda S, Tsubaki Y, Washitani I (2008) The sensitivity of dragonflies to landscape structure differs between life-history groups. Landscape Ecol 23:149–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Klingbeil BT, Willig MR (2009) Guild-specific responses of bats to landscape composition and configuration in fragmented Amazonian rainforest. J Appl Ecol 46:203–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kolozsvary MB, Swihart RK (1999) Habitat fragmentation and the distribution of amphibians: patch and landscape correlates in farmland. Can J Zool 77:1288–1299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Legendre P (1993) Spatial autocorrelation: trouble or new paradigm? Ecology 74:1659–1673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Levin SA (1992) The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73:1943–1967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lichstein JW, Simons TR, Shriner SA, Franzreb KE (2002) Spatial autocorrelation and autoregressive models in ecology. Ecol Monogr 72:445–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lindenmayer DB, Fischer J (2006) Habitat fragmentation and landscape change. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  34. Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinger RD, Schabenberber O (2006) SAS for mixed models. SAS Institute, Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  35. Mac Nally R (2000) Regression and model-building in conservation biology, biogeography and ecology: the distinction between—and reconciliation of—“predictive” and explanatory models. Biodivers and Conserv 9:655–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mazerolle MJ, Villard M (1999) Patch characteristics and landscape context as predictors of species presence and abundance: a review. Ecoscience 6:117–124Google Scholar
  37. McGarigal K, Cushman SA (2002) Comparative evaluation of experimental approaches to the study of habitat fragmentation effects. Ecol Appl 12:335–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Michalski F, Peres CA (2007) Disturbance-mediated mammal persistence and abundance–area relationships in Amazonian forest fragments. Conserv Biol 21:1626–1640PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Moilanen A, Nieminen M (2002) Simple connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Ecology 83:1131–1145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mortelliti A (2010) Experimental design and taxonomic scope of fragmentation studies on European mammals: current status and future priorities. Mammal Rev 40(2):125–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nielsen SE, Haughland DL, Bayne E, Schieck J (2009) Capacity of large-scale, long-term biodiversity monitoring programmes to detect trends in species prevalence. Biodivers and Conserv 18:2961–2978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nowak RM (1999) Walker’s mammals of the world. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  43. Osenberg CW, Sarnelle O, Cooper SD, Holt RD (1999a) Resolving ecological questions through meta-analysis: goals, metrics, and models. Ecology 80:1105–1117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Osenberg CW, Sarnelle O, Goldberg DE (1999b) Meta-analysis in ecology: concepts, statistics, and applications. Ecology 80:1103–1104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ottaviani D, Cairns SC, Oliverio M, Boitani L (2006) Body mass as a predictive variable of home-range size among Italian mammals and birds. J Zool 269:317–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Prugh LR, Hodges KE, Sinclair ARE, Brashares JS (2008) Effect of habitat area and isolation on fragmented animal populations. PNAS 105:20770–20775CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Quinn GP, Keough MJ (2002) Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  48. Reid FA (1997) A field guide to the mammals of Central America and Southeast Mexico. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  49. Renfrew RB, Ribic CA (2008) Multi-scale models of grassland passerine abundance in a fragmented system in Wisconsin. Landscape Ecol 23:181–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Robertson OJ, Radford JQ (2009) Gap-crossing decisions of forest birds in a fragmented landscape. Austral Ecol 34:435–446Google Scholar
  51. Sallabanks R, Riggs RA, Cobb LE, Dodson SW (2006) Bird-habitat relationships in grand fir forests of the Blue Mountains, Oregon. For Sci 52:489–502Google Scholar
  52. SAS (2008) SAS for Windows, Version 9.2. SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, USAGoogle Scholar
  53. Schooley RL, Branch LC (2009) Enhancing the area-isolation paradigm: habitat heterogenetiy and metapopulation dynamics of a rare wetland mammal. Ecol Appl 19:1708–1722CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Sunquist M, Sunquist F (2002) Wild cats of the world. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  55. Thompson CM, McGarigal K (2002) The influence of research scale on bald eagle habitat selection along the lower Hudson River, New York (USA). Landscape Ecol 17:569–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Thornton DH, Branch LC, Sunquist ME (2011) Passive sampling effects and landscape location alter the relationship between species traits and vulnerability to fragmentation. Ecol Appl 21(3). doi:10.1890/10-0549.1
  57. Tischendorf L, Bender D, Fahrig L (2003) Evaluation of patch isolation metrics in mosaic landscapes for specialist vs. generalist dispersers. Landscape Ecol 18:41–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Turner MG (2005) Landscape ecology in North America: past, present, and future. Ecology 86:1967–1974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ward D, Pepler D, Botha R (2008) The influence of sample size on the determination of population trends in the vulnerable Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni overwintering in South Africa. Ostrich 79:199–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Watling JI, Donnelly MA (2006) Fragments as islands: a synthesis of faunal responses to habitat patchiness. Conserv Biol 20:1016–1025CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Wisz MS, Hijmans RJ, Li J, Peterson AT, Graham CH, Guisan A (2008) Effects of sample size on the performance of species distribution models. Divers Distrib 14:763–773CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel H. Thornton
    • 1
  • Lyn C. Branch
    • 1
  • Melvin E. Sunquist
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Wildlife Ecology and ConservationUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations