Landscape Ecology

, Volume 27, Issue 6, pp 813–827 | Cite as

Fine-scale effects of habitat loss and fragmentation despite large-scale gene flow for some regionally declining woodland bird species

  • Katherine A. Harrisson
  • Alexandra Pavlova
  • J. Nevil Amos
  • Naoko Takeuchi
  • Alan Lill
  • James Q. Radford
  • Paul Sunnucks
Research Article


Habitat loss and associated fragmentation effects are well-recognised threats to biodiversity. Loss of functional connectivity (mobility, gene flow and demographic continuity) could result in population decline in altered habitat, because smaller, isolated populations are more vulnerable to extinction. We tested whether substantial habitat reduction plus fragmentation is associated with reduced gene flow in three ‘decliner’ woodland-dependent bird species (eastern yellow robin, weebill and spotted pardalote) identified in earlier work to have declined disproportionately in heavily fragmented landscapes in the Box-Ironbark forest region in north-central Victoria, Australia. For these three decliners, and one ‘tolerant’ species (striated pardalote), we compared patterns of genetic diversity, relatedness, effective population size, sex-ratios and genic (allele frequency) differentiation among landscapes of different total tree cover, identified population subdivision at the regional scale, and explored fine-scale genotypic (individual-based genetic signature) structure. Unexpectedly high genetic connectivity across the study region was detected for ‘decliner’ and ‘tolerant’ species. Power analysis simulations suggest that moderate reductions in gene flow should have been detectable. However, there was evidence of local negative effects of reduced habitat extent and structural connectivity: slightly lower effective population sizes, lower genetic diversity, higher within-site relatedness and altered sex-ratios (for weebill and eastern yellow robin) in 10 × 10 km ‘landscapes’ with low vegetation cover. We conclude that reduced structural connectivity in the Box-Ironbark ecosystem may still allow sufficient gene flow to avoid the harmful effects of inbreeding in our study species. Although there may still be negative consequences of fragmentation for demographic connectivity, the high genetic connectivity of mobile bird species in this system suggests that reconnecting isolated habitat patches may be less important than increasing habitat extent and/or quality if these need to be traded off.


Dispersal Demographic connectivity Landscape connectivity Genetic structure 



Funding was provided by the Australian Research Council Linkage Grant (LP0776322), the Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE), Museum of Victoria, Victorian Department of Primary Industries, Parks Victoria, North Central Catchment Management Authority, and Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority. Birds Australia contributed towards NA’s PhD stipend, and Monash University Science Faculty funded a Dean’s Scholarship. We thank Holsworth Wildlife Research Endowment for valuable support to NA. Samples were collected under DSE permit number 10004294 under the Wildlife Act 1975 and the National Parks Act 1975, DSE permit number NWF10455 under section 52 of the forest Act 1958 and the Australian Bird and Bat Banding Scheme permit under approval and monitoring of Monash University ethics processes (BSCI/2007/07). We thank all the volunteers for the Birds Linkage project for assistance with fieldwork, and other Birds Linkage team members for diverse inputs. Jian Yen and three anonymous referees provided very helpful comments on drafts. Computationally intensive analyses (Structure and TESS) were performed on Monash Sun Grid.

Supplementary material

10980_2012_9743_MOESM1_ESM.doc (140 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 141 kb)
10980_2012_9743_MOESM2_ESM.doc (153 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOC 153 kb)


  1. Amos JN, Bennett AF, Mac Nally R, Newell G, Pavlova A, Radford JQ, Thomson JR, White M, Sunnucks P (2012) Predicting landscape-genetic consequences of habitat loss, fragmentation and mobility for multiple species of woodland birds. PLoS ONE 7:e30888. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0030888
  2. Backström N, Fagerberg S, Ellegren H (2008) Genomics of natural bird populations: a gene-based set of reference markers evenly spread across the avian genome. Mol Ecol 17(4):964–980PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balloux F (2001) EASYPOP (version 1.7): a computer program for population genetics simulations. J Hered 92(3):301–302PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banks SC, Piggott MP, Stow AJ, Taylor AC (2007) Sex and sociality in a disconnected world: a review of the impacts of habitat fragmentation on animal social interactions. Can J Zool 85(10):1065–1079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barnett JR, Ruiz-Gutierrez V, Coulon A, Lovette IJ (2008) Weak genetic structuring indicates ongoing gene flow across White-ruffed Manakin (Corapipo altera) populations in a highly fragmented Costa Rica landscape. Conserv Genet 9(6):1403–1412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bennett AF, Radford JQ (2009) Thresholds, incidence functions, and species-specific cues : responses of woodland birds to landscape structure in south-eastern Australia. In: Villard M, Jonsson BG (eds) Setting conservation targets for managed forest landscapes. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 161–184Google Scholar
  7. Bennett AF, Radford JQ, Haslem A (2006) Properties of land mosaics: implications for nature conservation in agricultural environments. Biol Conserv 133(2):250–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Broquet T, Petit EJ (2009) Molecular estimation of dispersal for ecology and population genetics. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 40:193–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown JH, Kodric-Brown A (1977) Turnover rates in insular biogeography: effect of immigration on extinction. Ecology 48:445–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Callens T, Galbusera P, Matthysen E, Durand EY, Githiru M, Huyghe JR, Lens L (2011) Genetic signature of population fragmentation varies with mobility in seven bird species of a fragmented Kenyan cloud forest. Mol Ecol 20(9):1829–1844PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Caughley G (1994) Directions in conservation biology. J Anim Ecol 63(2):215–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen C, Durand E, Forbes F, Francois O (2007) Bayesian clustering algorithms ascertaining spatial population structure: a new computer program and a comparison study. Mol Ecol Notes 7(5):747–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cooper CB, Walters JR (2002) Experimental evidence of disrupted dispersal causing decline of an Australian passerine in fragmented habitat. Conserv Biol 16(2):471–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cooper CB, Walters JR, Priddy J (2002) Landscape patterns and dispersal success: simulated population dynamics in the brown treecreeper. Ecol Appl 12(6):1576–1587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Coulon A, Fitzpatrick JW, Bowman R, Lovette IJ (2010) Effects of habitat fragmentation on effective dispersal of florida scrub-jays. Conserv Biol 24(4):1080–1088PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Debus SJS (2006) Breeding and population parameters of robins in a woodland remnant in northern New South Wales, Australia. Emu 106(2):147–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Delaney KS, Riley SPD, Fisher RN (2010) A rapid, strong, and convergent genetic response to urban habitat fragmentation in four divergent and widespread vertebrates. PLoS ONE 5(9):e12767PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Doerr VAJ, Doerr ED, Davies MJ (2011) Dispersal behaviour of Brown Treecreepers predicts functional connectivity for several other woodland birds. Emu 111(1):71–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. ECC (2001) Box-ironbark forests and woodlands investigation final report. East Melbourne, Environment Conservation CouncilGoogle Scholar
  20. Falush D, Stephens M, Pritchard JK (2003) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data: Linked loci and correlated allele frequencies. Genetics 164(4):1567–1587PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Foley JA (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science 309(5734):570PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ford HA (2011) The causes of decline of birds of eucalypt woodlands: advances in our knowledge over the last 10 years. Emu 111(1):1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ford HA, Walters JR, Cooper CB, Debus SJS, Doerr VAJ (2009) Extinction debt or habitat change?—Ongoing losses of woodland birds in north-eastern New South Wales, Australia. Biol Conserv 142(12):3182–3190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gerlach G, Jueterbock A, Kraemer P, Deppermann J, Harmand P (2010) Calculations of population differentiation based on GST and D: forget GST but not all of statistics! Mol Ecol 19(18):3845–3852PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goudet J (2001) FSTAT, a program to estimate and test gene diversities and fixation indices (version 2.9.3)Google Scholar
  26. Griffiths R, Double MC, Orr K, Dawson RJG (1998) A DNA test to sex most birds. Mol Ecol 7(8):1071–1075PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hanski I, Gilpin ME (eds) (1997) Metapopulation biology: ecology, genetics and evolution. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  28. Hansson B, Bensch S, Hasselquist D (2004) Lifetime fitness of short- and long-distance dispersing great reed warblers. Evolution 58(11):2546–2557PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Harrison S (1991) Local extinction in a metapopulation context: an empirical evaluation. Biol J Linnean Soc 42:73–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hedrick PW (2005) A standardized genetic differentiation measure. Evolution 59(8):1633–1638PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Higgins PJ, Peter JM (eds) (2002) Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic birds, vol 6: Pardalotes to Shrike-thrushes. Oxford University Press, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  32. Jost L (2008) G(ST) and its relatives do not measure differentiation. Mol Ecol 17(18):4015–4026PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kalinowski ST, Taper ML, Marshall TC (2007) Revising how the computer program CERVUS accommodates genotyping error increases success in paternity assignment. Mol Ecol 16(5):1099–1106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lada H, Mac Nally R, Taylor AC (2008) Distinguishing past from present gene flow along and across a river: the case of the carnivorous marsupial (Antechinus flavipes) on southern Australian floodplains. Conserv Genet 9(3):569–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Landguth EL, Cushman SA (2010) CDPOP: an individual-based, cost-distance spatial population genetics model. Mol Ecol Resour 10:156–161PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Landguth EL, Cushman SA, Schwartz MK, McKelvey KS, Murphy M, Luikart G (2010) Quantifying the lag time to detect barriers in landscape genetics. Mol Ecol 19(19):4179–4191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lowe WH, Allendorf FW (2010) What can genetics tell us about population connectivity? Mol Ecol 19(15):3038–3051PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mac Nally R, Bennett AF, Thomson JR, Radford JQ, Unmack G, Horrocks G, Vesk PA (2009) Collapse of an avifauna: climate change appears to exacerbate habitat loss and degradation. Divers Distrib 15(4):720–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mills LS, Allendorf FW (1996) The one-migrant-per-generation rule in conservation and management. Conserv Biol 10(6):1509–1518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mylecraine KA, Bulgin NL, Gibbs HL, Vickery PD, Perkins DW (2008) Limited genetic structure and evidence for dispersal among populations of the endangered Florida grasshopper sparrow, Ammodramus savannarum floridanus. Conserv Genet 9(6):1633–1638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Peakall R, Smouse PE (2006) GENALEX 6: genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research. Mol Ecol Notes 6(1):288–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Peakall R, Ruibal M, Lindenmayer DB (2003) Spatial autocorrelation analysis offers new insights into gene flow in the Australian bush rat, Rattus fuscipes. Evolution 57(5):1182–1195PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Peery MZ, Hall LA, Sellas A, Beissinger SR, Moritz C, Berube M, Raphael MG, Nelson SK, Golightly RT, McFarlane-Tranquilla L, Newman S, Palsboll PJ (2010) Genetic analyses of historic and modern marbled murrelets suggest decoupling of migration and gene flow after habitat fragmentation. Proc R Soc B 277(1682):697–706PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P (2000) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155(2):945–959PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Pulliam HR (1988) Sources, sinks, and population regulation. Am Naturalist 132:652–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Queller DC, Goodnight KF (1989) Estimating relatedness using genetic-markers. Evolution 43(2):258–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. R Development Core Team (2009) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  48. Radford JQ, Bennett AF (2007) The relative importance of landscape properties for woodland birds in agricultural environments. J Appl Ecol 44(4):737–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Radford JQ, Bennett AF, Cheers GJ (2005) Landscape-level thresholds of habitat cover for woodland-dependent birds. Biol Conserv 124(3):317–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Robertson OJ, Radford JQ (2009) Gap-crossing decisions of forest birds in a fragmented landscape. Aust Ecol 34(4):435–446Google Scholar
  51. Rogers K, Rogers A, Rogers D (1986) Bander’s aid: a guide to ageing and sexing bush birds. St. Andrews, VictoriaGoogle Scholar
  52. Rousset F (2008) GENEPOP ‘ 007: a complete re-implementation of the GENEPOP software for Windows and Linux. Mol Ecol Resour 8(1):103–106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Saunders DA, Hobbs RJ, Margules CR (1991) Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation—a review. Conserv Biol 5(1):18–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Segelbacher G, Cushman SA, Epperson BK, Fortin M-J, Francois O, Hardy OJ, Holderegger R, Taberlet P, Waits LP, Manel S (2010) Applications of landscape genetics in conservation biology: concepts and challenges. Conserv Genet 11:375–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Shanahan DF, Possingham HP, Riginos C (2011) Models based on individual level movement predict spatial patterns of genetic relatedness for two Australian forest birds. Landscape Ecol 26(1):137–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Smouse PE, Peakall R, Gonzales E (2008) A heterogeneity test for fine-scale genetic structure. Mol Ecol 17(14):3389–3400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Spielman D, Brook BW, Frankham R (2004) Most species are not driven to extinction before genetic factors impact them. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101(42):15261–15264PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stow AJ, Sunnucks P (2004) Inbreeding avoidance in Cunningham’s skinks (Egernia cunninghami) in natural and fragmented habitat. Mol Ecol 13(2):443–447PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sunnucks P (2000) Efficient genetic markers for population biology. Trends Ecol Evol 15(5):199–203PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sunnucks P (2011) Towards modelling persistence of woodland birds: the role of genetics. Emu 111(1):19–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tallmon DA, Koyuk A, Luikart G, Beaumont MA (2008) ONeSAMP: a program to estimate effective population size using approximate Bayesian computation. Mol Ecol Resour 8(2):299–301PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Taylor PD, Fahrig L, Henein K, Merriam G (1993) Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 69:571–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Veit ML, Robertson RJ, Hamel PB, Friesen VL (2005) Population genetic structure and dispersal across a fragmented landscape in cerulean warblers (Dendroica cerulea). Conserv Genet 6(2):159–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Villard M-A, Jonsson BG (eds) (2009) Setting conservation targets for managed forest landscapes. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  65. Walker FM, Sunnucks P, Taylor AC (2008) Evidence for habitat fragmentation altering within-population processes in wombats. Mol Ecol 17(7):1674–1684PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Watson JEM, Whittaker RJ, Freudenberger D (2005) Bird community responses to habitat fragmentation: how consistent are they across landscapes? J Biogeogr 32(8):1353–1370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wiens JA (2001) The landscape context of dispersal. In: Clobert J, Danchin E, Dhondt AA, Nichols JD (eds) Dispersal. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 96–109Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katherine A. Harrisson
    • 1
  • Alexandra Pavlova
    • 1
  • J. Nevil Amos
    • 1
  • Naoko Takeuchi
    • 1
  • Alan Lill
    • 1
  • James Q. Radford
    • 2
    • 3
  • Paul Sunnucks
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Biological Sciences and Australian Centre for BiodiversityMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Landscape Ecology Research Group, School of Life and Environmental SciencesDeakin UniversityBurwoodAustralia
  3. 3.Bush Heritage AustraliaMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations