Landscape Ecology

, Volume 27, Issue 9, pp 1263–1278 | Cite as

A meta-analysis on the impact of different matrix structures on species movement rates

  • Amy E. EycottEmail author
  • Gavin B. Stewart
  • Lisette M. Buyung-Ali
  • Diana E. Bowler
  • Kevin Watts
  • Andrew S. Pullin
Research Article


Many biodiversity conservation strategies aim to increase species movement by changing the landscape between suitable areas of habitat. We applied systematic review and meta-analytical methods to robustly assess evidence on the impact of matrix structure on movement rates, with the hypothesis that movement will be greater through matrix of a more similar structure (vegetation height and cover) to the home habitat. Twenty studies of movement through two or more different matrix types provided 107 effect sizes, expressing the difference between the relative movement rates in different matrix types. The studies were all on animals, including relatively mobile taxa such as birds and butterflies but also rodents and amphibians. We were able to detect that on average, movement was greater through matrix of a more similar structure to the species’ habitat despite the variation in studies in terms of matrix types, species and methods. The effect size was larger when there was a greater difference in the structure of the two matrix types being compared (e.g. comparing grassland to forest rather than short grass to long grass). However, there was a high degree of covariation between matrix contrast and studies and other significant subgroupings such as taxonomic group and matrix openness. The biological significance of the increase in movement is not clear; however, ecological theory predicts dispersing individuals are important for population dynamics. Changes to the structure of landscapes intended to improve permeability to movement are supported by the findings of this study, particularly for relatively mobile species. However, research over longer timescales, greater distances and range of taxonomic groups is necessary.


Connectivity Emigration Dispersal Permeability Resistance Risk ratio 



We thank all those who responded to our requests for data, offprints and information needed to complete our review. This work was initially funded by a group of UK statutory agencies and NGOs coordinated by Defra, and from thereon by the Forestry Commission GB. ASP and GBS were supported by the Centre for Integrated Research in the Rural Environment.


  1. Alderman J, McCollin D, Hinsley S, Bellamy P, Picton P, Crockett R (2005) Perceptual range and connectivity: exploring the effects of habitat changes on inter-patch dispersal paths. In: McCollin D, Jackson JI (eds) Planning, people and practice. The landscape ecology of sustainable landscapes, ialeUK, Northampton, UK, pp 107–113Google Scholar
  2. Anderson J, Rowcliffe JM, Cowlishaw G (2007) Does the matrix matter? A forest primate in a complex agricultural landscape. Biol Conserv 135:212–222CrossRefGoogle 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. Baker MB, Rao S (2004) Incremental costs and benefits shape natal dispersal: theory and example with Hemilepistus reaumuri. Ecology 85:1039–1051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baum KA, Haynes KJ, Dillemuth FP, Cronin JT (2004) The matrix enhances the effectiveness of corridors and stepping stones. Ecology 85:2671–2676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Begg CB, Mazumdar M (1994) Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 50:1088–1101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Belisle M (2005) Measuring landscape connectivity: the challenge of behavioral landscape ecology. Ecology 86:1988–1995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bhattacharya M, Primack RB, Gerwein J (2003) Are roads and railroads barriers to bumblebee movement in a temperate suburban conservation area? Biol Conserv 109:37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bianchi FJJA, Schellhorn NA, Van der Werf W (2009) Foraging behaviour of predators in heterogeneous landscapes: the role of perceptual ability and diet breadth. Oikos 118:1363–1372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bowler DE, Benton TG (2005) Causes and consequences of animal dispersal strategies: relating individual behaviour to spatial dynamics. Biol Rev 80:205–225PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clobert J, Le Galliard J-F, Cote J, Meylan S, Massot M (2009) Informed dispersal, heterogeneity in animal dispersal syndromes and the dynamics of spatially structured populations. Ecol Lett 12:197–209PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Commission of the European Communities (2009) Adapting to climate change: towards a European framework for action. White Paper April 1 2009, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  13. Conradt L, Roper TJ, Thomas CD (2001) Dispersal behaviour of individuals in metapopulations of two British butterflies. Oikos 95:416–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cronin JT, Haynes KJ (2004) An invasive plant promotes unstable host–parasitoid patch dynamics. Ecology 85:2772–2782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Crooks KR, Sanjayan M (eds) (2006) Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Debinski DM (2005) Forest fragmentation and matrix effects: the matrix does matter. J Biogeogr 33:1791–1792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Delgado MD, Penteriani V, Nams VO (2009) How fledglings explore surroundings from fledging to dispersal. A case study with Eagle Owls Bubo bubo. Ardea 97:7–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. deMaynadier PG, Hunter ML (1999) Forest canopy closure and juvenile emigration by pool-breeding amphibians in Maine. J Wildl Manag 63:441–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7:177–188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Desrochers A, Hannon SJ (1997) Gap crossing decisions by forest songbirds during the post-fledging period. Conserv Biol 11:1204–1210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. EEC (1992) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21st May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna (the ‘Habitats Directive’). Accessed 15 February 2011
  22. Eycott AE, Watts K, Brandt G, Buyung-Ali LM, Bowler D, Stewart GB, Pullin AS (2010) Which matrix features affect species movement? Systematic review no. 43. Collaboration for Environmental Evidence. Accessed 15 February 2011
  23. Franzen M, Nilsson S (2007) What is the required minimum landscape size for dispersal studies? J Anim Ecol 76:1224–1230PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gilbert-Norton L, Wilson R, Stevens JR, Beard KH (2010) A meta-analytic review of corridor effectiveness. Conserv Biol 24:660–668PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gonzalez A, Lawton JH, Gilbert FS, Blackburn TM, Evans-Freke II (1998) Metapopulation dynamics, abundance, and distribution in a microecosystem. Science 281(5385):2045–2047PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Goodwin BJ, Fahrig L (2002) How does landscape structure influence landscape connectivity? Oikos 99:552–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Graham CH (2001) Factors influencing movement patterns of keel-billed toucans in a fragmented tropical landscape in southern Mexico. Conserv Biol 15:1789–1798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Grez AA (1997) Effect of habitat subdivision on the population dynamics of herbivorous and predatory insects in central Chile. Rev Chil Hist Nat 70:481–490Google Scholar
  29. Grez AA, Prado E (2000) Effect of plant patch shape and surrounding vegetation on the dynamics of predatory coccinellids and their prey Brevicoryne brassicae (Hemiptera: Aphididae). Environ Entomol 29:1244–1250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gutierrez D, Thomas CD (2000) Marginal range expansion in a host-limited butterfly species Gonepteryx rhamni. Ecol Entomol 25:165–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Haddad NM, Bowne DR, Cunningham A, Danielson BJ, Levey DJ, Sargent S, Spira T (2003) Corridor use by diverse taxa. Ecology 84:609–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hanski I, Gaggiotti O (2004) Metapopulation biology: past, present, and future. In: Hanski I, Gaggiotti O (eds) Ecology, genetics, and evolution of metapopulations. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 3–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Haynes KJ, Cronin JT (2003) Matrix composition affects the spatial ecology of a prairie planthopper. Ecology 84:2856–2866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Haynes KJ, Cronin JT (2006) Interpatch movement and edge effects: the role of behavioral responses to the landscape matrix. Oikos 113:43–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Haynes KJ, Dillemuth FP, Anderson BJ, Hakes AS, Jackson HB, Jackson SE, Cronin JT (2007a) Landscape context outweighs local habitat quality in its effects on herbivore dispersal and distribution. Oecologia 151:431–441PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Haynes KJ, Diekotter T, Crist TO (2007b) Resource complementation and the response of an insect herbivore to habitat area and fragmentation. Oecologia 153:511–520PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Heller NE, Zavaleta ES (2009) Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: a review of 22 years of recommendations. Biol Conserv 142:14–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Higgins JPT, Green S (eds) (2008) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0.0 [updated February 2008]. The Cochrane CollaborationGoogle Scholar
  39. Higgins JPT, Spiegelhalter DJ (2002) Being sceptical about meta-analyses: a bayesian perspective on magnesium trials in myocardial infarction. Int J Epidemiol 31:96–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hobbs RJ (2002) Habitat networks and biological conservation. In: Gutzwiller KJ (ed) Applying landscape ecology in biological conservation. Springer, New York, pp 150–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hodgson JA, Thomas CD, Wintle BA, Moilanen A (2009) Climate change, connectivity and conservation decision making: back to basics. J Appl Ecol 46:964–969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jonsen ID, Taylor PD (2000) Fine-scale movement behaviors of calopterygid damselflies are influenced by landscape structure: an experimental manipulation. Oikos 88:553–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lipsey MW, Wilson DB (2001) Practical meta-analysis. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  44. Malmgren JC (2002) How does a newt find its way from a pond? Migration patterns after breeding and metamorphosis in great crested newts (Triturus cristatus) and smooth newts (T-vulgaris). Herpetol J 12:29–35Google Scholar
  45. Mantel N, Haenszel W (1959) Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 22:719–748PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Murphy HT, Lovett-Doust J (2004) Context and connectivity in plant metapopulations and landscape mosaics: does the matrix matter? Oikos 105:3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Parmesan C (2006) Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 37:637–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pearson RG, Dawson TP (2005) Long-distance plant dispersal and habitat fragmentation: identifying conservation targets for spatial landscape planning under climate change. Biol Conserv 123:389–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pither J, Taylor PD (1998) An experimental assessment of landscape connectivity. Oikos 83:166–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Prevedello JA, Vieira MV (2010) Does the type of matrix matter? A quantitative review of the evidence. Biodivers Conserv 19:1205–1223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Prugh LR, Hodges KE, Sinclair ARE, Brashares JS (2008) Effect of habitat area and isolation on fragmented animal populations. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 105:20770–20775PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pullin AS, Stewart GB (2006) Guidelines for systematic review in conservation and environmental management. Conserv Biol 20:1647–1656PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Revilla E, Wiegand T, Palomares F, Ferreras P, Delibes M (2004) Effects of matrix heterogeneity on animal dispersal: from individual behavior to metapopulation-level parameters. Am Nat 164:130–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ricketts TH (2001) The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. Am Nat 158:87–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ries L, Debinski DM (2001) Butterfly responses to habitat edges in the highly fragmented prairies of Central Iowa. J Anim Ecol 70:840–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rothermel BB, Semlitsch RD (2002) An experimental investigation of landscape resistance of forest versus old-field habitats to emigrating juvenile amphibians. Conserv Biol 16:1324–1332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Russell RE, Swihart RK, Feng ZL (2003) Population consequences of movement decisions in a patchy landscape. Oikos 103:142–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Russell RE, Swihart RK, Craig BA (2007) The effects of matrix structure on movement decisions of meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus). J Mammal 88:573–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schaefer JF, Marsh-Matthews E, Spooner DE, Gido KB, Matthews WJ (2003) Effects of barriers and thermal refugia on local movement of the threatened leopard darter, Percina pantherina. Environ Biol Fishes 66:391–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sharp S (1998) Meta-analysis regression: statistics, biostatistics, and epidemiology. Stata Tech Bull 42:16–22Google Scholar
  61. St Clair CC (2003) Comparative permeability of roads, rivers, and meadows to songbirds in Banff National Park. Conserv Biol 17:1151–1160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sterne JA, Egger M, Smith GD (2001) Systematic reviews in health care: investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis. Br Med J 323:101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Stevens VM, Polus E, Wesselingh RA, Schtickzelle N, Baguette M (2004) Quantifying functional connectivity: experimental evidence for patch-specific resistance in the Natterjack toad (Bufo calamita). Landscape Ecol 19:829–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Stewart G (2010) Meta-analysis in applied ecology. Biol Lett 6:78–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tanner JE (2006) Landscape ecology of interactions between seagrass and mobile epifauna: the matrix matters. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 68:404–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Taylor PD, Fahrig L, Henein K, Merriam G (1993) Connectivity as a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68:571–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Thomas CD, Hanski IA (1997) Butterfly metapopulations. In: Hanski IA, Gilpin ME (eds) Metapopulation biology. Academic Press, New York, pp 359–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Thomas CD, Kunin WE (1999) The spatial structure of populations. J Anim Ecol 68:647–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Thomas CD, Franco A, Hill J (2006) Range retractions and extinction in the face of climate warming. Trends Ecol Evol 21:415–416PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Thompson SG, Sharp SJ (1999) Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods. Stat Med 18:2693–2708PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Towne WF (2008) Honeybees can learn the relationship between the solar ephemeris and a newly-experienced landscape. J Exp Biol 211:3737–3743PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Trakhtenbrot A, Nathan R, Perry G, Richardson DM (2005) The importance of long-distance dispersal in biodiversity conservation. Divers Distrib 11:173–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Travis JMJ (2003) Climate change and habitat destruction: a deadly anthropogenic cocktail. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:467–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Vesk PA, Nolan R, Thomson JR, Durrough JW, MacNally R (2008) Time lags in provision of habitat resources through revegetation. Biol Conserv 141:174–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Warren M, Hill J, Thomas J, Asher J, Fox R, Huntley B, Roy D, Telfer M, Jeffcoate S, Harding P, Jeffcoate G, Willis S, Greatorex-Davies J, Moss D, Thomas CD (2001) Rapid responses of British butterflies to opposing forces of climate and habitat change. Nature 414:65–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Watling JI, Nowakowski AJ, Donnelly MA, Orrock JL (2010) Meta-analysis reveals the importance of matrix composition for animals in fragmented habitat. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 20:209–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Watts K, Quine C, Eycott AE, Moseley DG, Humphrey JW, Ray D (2008) Conserving forest biodiversity: recent approaches in UK forest planning and management. In: Lafortezza R, Chen J, Sanesi G, Crow TR (eds) Patterns and processes in forest landscapes—multiple use and sustainable management. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 373–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wiltschko R, Wiltschko W (2003) Avian navigation: from historical to modern concepts. Anim Behav 65:257–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Zollner PA, Lima SL (1999) Search strategies for landscape-level interpatch movements. Ecology 80:1019–1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Crown Copyright 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amy E. Eycott
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Gavin B. Stewart
    • 3
    • 4
  • Lisette M. Buyung-Ali
    • 3
  • Diana E. Bowler
    • 3
    • 5
  • Kevin Watts
    • 1
  • Andrew S. Pullin
    • 3
  1. 1.Forest Research, Alice Holt LodgeFarnhamUK
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of BergenBergenNorway
  3. 3.Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation, School of Environment and Natural Resources and GeographyBangor UniversityBangorUK
  4. 4.University of YorkYorkUK
  5. 5.Biodiversity and Climate Research CentreFrankfurt am MainGermany

Personalised recommendations