Landscape Ecology

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 21–50 | Cite as

What can studies of woodland fragmentation and creation tell us about ecological networks? A literature review and synthesis

  • Jonathan W. HumphreyEmail author
  • Kevin Watts
  • Elisa Fuentes-Montemayor
  • Nicholas A. Macgregor
  • Andrew J. Peace
  • Kirsty J. Park
Review Article


The development of ecological networks could help reverse the effects of habitat fragmentation on woodland biodiversity in temperate agricultural landscapes. However, efforts to create networks need to be underpinned by clear evidence of the relative efficacy of local (e.g. improving or expanding existing habitat patches) versus landscape-scale actions (e.g. creating new habitat or corridors in the landscape matrix). Using cluster analyses we synthesised the findings of 104 studies, published between 1990 and 2013 focusing on the responses of woodland vascular plant, vertebrate, cryptogam and invertebrate species to local and landscape variables. Species responses (richness, diversity, occurrence) were strongly influenced by patch area, patch characteristics (e.g. stand structure) and isolation (e.g. distance between habitat patches). Patch characteristics were of overriding importance for all species groups, especially cryptogams. Many studies recording significant species responses to patch characteristics did not record significant responses to patch area and vice versa, suggesting that patch area may sometimes act as a surrogate for patch characteristics (i.e. larger patches being of ‘better quality’). Ecological continuity was important for vascular plants, but assessed in only a few vertebrate and invertebrate studies. Matrix structure (e.g. presence of corridors) was important for vertebrates, but rarely assessed for other species groups. Actions to develop ecological networks should focus on enhancing the quality and/or size of existing habitat patches and reducing isolation between patches. However, given that very few studies have assessed all local and landscape variables together, further information on the relative impacts of different attributes of ecological networks in temperate agricultural landscapes is urgently needed.


Biodiversity Landscape ecology Connectivity Matrix Patch Corridor 



The authors would like to thank Forest Research, the Forestry Commission (GB), Scottish Natural Heritage, Natural England and The University of Stirling for resourcing this review work.


  1. Andrén H (1997) Habitat fragmentation and changes in biodiversity. Ecol Bull 46:171–181Google Scholar
  2. Andrén H (1994) Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71:355–366Google Scholar
  3. Arrhenius O (1921) Species and area. J Ecol 9:95–99Google Scholar
  4. Bailey S (2007) Increasing connectivity in fragmented landscapes: an investigation of evidence for biodiversity gain in woodlands. For Ecol Manag 238:7–23Google Scholar
  5. Bellamy PE, Hinsley SA, Newton I (1996) Factors influencing bird species numbers in small woods in south-east England. J Appl Ecol 33:249–262Google Scholar
  6. Bennett AF, Hinsley SA, Bellamy PE, Swetnam RD, MacNally R (2004) Do regional gradients in land-use influence richness, composition and turnover of bird assemblages in small woods? Biol Conserv 119:191–206Google Scholar
  7. Bennett AF, Radford JQ, Haslem A (2006) Properties of land mosaics: implications for nature conservation in agricultural environments. Biol Conserv 133:250–264Google Scholar
  8. Bennett G, Wit P (2001) The development and application of ecological networks. AID Environment and World Conservation Union (IUCN), GlandGoogle Scholar
  9. Berg A, Ahrné K, Öckinger E, Svensson R, Söderström B (2011) Butterfly distribution and abundance is affected by variation in the Swedish forest-farmland landscape. Biol Conserv 144:2819–2831Google Scholar
  10. Bright PW, Mitchell P, Morris PA (1994) Dormouse distribution—survey techniques, insular ecology and selection of sites for conservation. J Appl Ecol 31:329–339Google Scholar
  11. Brouwers NC, Newton AC (2009a) Movement rates of woodland invertebrates: a systematic review of empirical evidence. Insect Conserv Divers 2:10–22Google Scholar
  12. Brouwers NC, Newton AC (2009b) The influence of habitat availability and landscape structure on the distribution of wood cricket (Nemobius sylvestris) on the Isle of Wight, UK. Landscape Ecol 24:199–212Google Scholar
  13. Brunet J, Valtinat K, Mayr ML, Felton A, Lindbladh M, Bruun HH (2011) Understory succession in post-agricultural oak forests: habitat fragmentation affects forest specialists and generalists differently. For Ecol Manag 262:1863–1871Google Scholar
  14. Brunet J (2007) Plant colonization in heterogeneous landscapes: an 80-year perspective on restoration of broadleaved forest vegetation. J Appl Ecol 44:563–572Google Scholar
  15. Brunet J (2004) Colonization of oak plantations by forest plants: effects of regional abundance and habitat fragmentation. In: Honnay O, Verheyen K, Bossuyt B, Hermy M (eds) Forest biodiversity: lessons from history for conservation, IUFRO Research Series 10. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, pp 129–141Google Scholar
  16. Buffa G, Villani M (2012) Are the ancient forests of the Eastern Po Plain large enough for a long term conservation of herbaceous nemoral species? Plant Biosist 146:970–984Google Scholar
  17. Burke D, Goulet H (1998) Landscape and area effects on beetle assemblages in Ontario. Ecography 21:472–479Google Scholar
  18. Calabrese JM, Fagan WF (2004) A comparison-shopper’s guide to connectivity metrics. Front Ecol Environ 2:529–536Google Scholar
  19. Capizzi D, Battistini M, Amori G (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation and forest management on the distribution of the edible dormouse Glis glis. Acta Theriol 48:359–371Google Scholar
  20. Celada C, Bogliani G, Gariboldi A, Maracci A (1994) Occupancy of isolated woodlots by the red squirrel Sciurus-vulgaris L. in Italy. Biol Conserv 69:177–183Google Scholar
  21. Charman EC, Smith KW, Gruar DJ, Dodd S, Grice PV (2010) Characteristics of woods used recently and historically by lesser spotted woodpeckers Dendrocopos minor in England. Ibis 152:543–555Google Scholar
  22. Crabtree J (1996) Evaluation of the farm woodland premium scheme. Economics and Policy Series. Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment & Fisheries Department, Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, AberdeenGoogle Scholar
  23. Crooks KR, Sanjayan M (2006) Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  24. Davies ZG, Pullin AS (2007) Are hedgerows effective corridors between fragments of woodland habitat? An evidence-based approach. Landscape Ecol 22:333–351Google Scholar
  25. Doerr VAJ, Barrett T, Doerr ED (2011) Connectivity, dispersal behaviour and conservation under climate change: a response to Hodgson et al. J Appl Ecol 48:143–147Google Scholar
  26. De Frenne P, Baeten L, Graae BJ, Brunet J, Wulf M, Orczewska A, Kolb A, Jansen I, Jamoneau A, Jacquemyn H, Hermy M, Diekmann M, De Schrijver A, De Sanctis M, Decocq G, Cousins SAO, Verheyen K (2011) Interregional variation in the floristic recovery of post-agricultural forests. J Ecol 99:600–609Google Scholar
  27. Dejong J (1995) Habitat use and species richness of bats in a patchy landscape. Acta Theriol 40:237–248Google Scholar
  28. Diamond JM (1975) The island dilemma: lessons of modern biogeographic studies for the design of nature reserves. Biol Conserv 7:129–146Google Scholar
  29. Diaz M, Carbonell R, Santos T, Telleria JL (1998) Breeding bird communities in pine plantations of the Spanish plateaux: biogeography, landscape and vegetation effects. J Appl Ecol 35:562–574Google Scholar
  30. Digiovinazzo P, Ficetola GF, Bottoni L, Andreis C, Padoa-Schioppa E (2010) Ecological thresholds in herb communities for the management of suburban fragmented forests. For Ecol Manag 259:343–349Google Scholar
  31. Doherty PF, Grubb TC (2000) Habitat and landscape correlates of presence, density, and species richness of birds wintering in forest fragments in Ohio. Wilson Bull 112:388–394Google Scholar
  32. Dolman PM, Hinsley SA, Bellamy PE, Watts K (2007) Woodland birds in patchy landscapes: the evidence base for strategic networks. Ibis 149:146–160Google Scholar
  33. Dupre C, Ehrlen J (2002) Habitat configuration, species traits and plant distributions. J Ecol 90:796–805Google Scholar
  34. Edman M, Gustafsson M, Stenlid J, Jonsson BG, Ericson L (2004) Spore deposition of wood-decaying fungi: importance of landscape composition. Ecography 27:103–111Google Scholar
  35. Ellis CJ (2012) Lichen epiphyte diversity: a species, community and trait-based review. Perspec Plant Ecol Evol Syst 14:131–152Google Scholar
  36. Ellis CJ, Hope JCE (2012) Lichen epiphyte dynamics in Scottish Atlantic oakwoods—the effect of tree age and historical continuity. Scottish Natural Heritage, InvernessGoogle Scholar
  37. Eycott AE, Stewart GB, Buyung-Ali LM, Bowler DE, Watts K, Pullin AS (2012) A meta-analysis on the impact of different matrix structures on species movement rates. Landscape Ecol 27:1263–1278Google Scholar
  38. Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515Google Scholar
  39. Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2007) Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: a synthesis. Global Ecol and Biogeog 16:265–280Google Scholar
  40. Fisher JT, Merriam G (2000) Resource patch array use by two squirrel species in an agricultural landscape. Landscape Ecol 15:333–338Google Scholar
  41. Fitzgibbon CD (1997) Small mammals in farm woodlands: the effects of habitat, isolation and surrounding land-use patterns. J Appl Ecol 34:530–539Google Scholar
  42. Franc N, Götmark F, Økland B, Nordén B, Palttoc H (2006) Factors and scales potentially important for saproxylic beetles in temperate mixed oak forest. Biol Conserv 135:86–98Google Scholar
  43. French LJ, Smith GF, Kelly DL, Mitchell FJG, O’Donoghue S, Iremonger SE, McKee AM (2008) Ground flora communities in temperate oceanic plantation forests and the influence of silvicultural, geographic and edaphic factors. For Ecol Manag 255:476–494Google Scholar
  44. Fritz O, Gustafsson L, Larsson K (2008) Does forest continuity matter in conservation? A study of epiphytic lichens and bryophytes in beech forests of southern Sweden. Biol Conserv 141:655–668Google Scholar
  45. Fuentes-Montemayor E, Goulson D, Cavin L, Wallace JM, Park KJ (2013) Fragmented woodlands in agricultural landscapes: the influence of woodland character and landscape context on bat abundance and activity. Agric Ecosyst Environ 172:6–15Google Scholar
  46. Fuentes-Montemayor E, Goulson D, Cavin L, Wallace JM, Park KJ (2012) Factors influencing moth assemblages in woodland fragments on farmland: implications for woodland management and creation schemes. Biol Conserv 153:265–275Google Scholar
  47. Garmendia E, Gamboa G (2012) Weighting social preferences in participatory multi-criteria evaluations: a case study on sustainable natural resource management. Ecol Econ 84:110–120Google Scholar
  48. Giordano M, Meriggi A (2009) Use by small mammals of short-rotation plantations in relation to their structure and isolation. Hystrix-Ital J Mamm 20:127–135Google Scholar
  49. Graae BJ (2000) The effect of landscape fragmentation and forest continuity on forest floor species in two regions of Denmark. J Veg Sci 11:881–892Google Scholar
  50. GrashofBokdam C (1997) Forest species in an agricultural landscape in the Netherlands: effects of habitat fragmentation. J Veg Sci 8:21–28Google Scholar
  51. Gregory VL, Pike CK (2012) Missing data: a comparison of online and classroom data collection methods with social work students. J Soc Serv Res 38:351–365Google Scholar
  52. Hanski I (1994) A practical model of metapopulation dynamics. J Anim Ecol 63:151–162Google Scholar
  53. Henderson LE, Broders HG (2008) Movements and resource selection of the northern long-eared myotis (Myotis septentrionalis) in a forest-agriculture landscape. J Mammal 89:952–963Google Scholar
  54. Hérault B, Honnay O (2005) The relative importance of local, regional and historical factors determining the distribution of plants in fragmented riverine forests: an emergent group approach. J Biogeogr 32:2069–2081Google Scholar
  55. Hérault B, Honnay O, Thoen D (2005) Evaluation of the ecological restoration potential of plant communities in Norway spruce plantations using a life-trait based approach. J Appl Ecol 42:536–545Google Scholar
  56. Higgs AJ (1981) Island biogeography theory and nature reserve design. J Biogeogr 8:117–124Google Scholar
  57. Hinsley SA, Bellamy PE, Enoksson B, Fry G, Gabrielsen L, McCollin D, Schotman A (1998a) Geographical and land-use influences on bird species richness in small woods in agricultural landscapes. Glob Ecol Biogeogr Lett 7:125–135Google Scholar
  58. Hinsley SA, Bellamy PE, Rothery P (1998b) Co-occurrence of bird species-richness and the abundance of individual bird species in highly fragmented farm woods in eastern England. In: Dover JW, Bunce RGH (eds) Key concepts in landscape ecology. IALE European Congress Preston, IALE(UK), pp 227–232Google Scholar
  59. 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 26:94–104Google Scholar
  60. Hobson KA, Bayne E (2000) Effects of forest fragmentation by agriculture on avian communities in the southern boreal mixed woods of western Canada. Wilson Bull 112:373–387Google Scholar
  61. Hodgson JA, Moilanen A, Wintle BA, Thomas CD (2011) Habitat area, quality and connectivity: striking the balance for efficient conservation. J Appl Ecol 48:148–152Google Scholar
  62. Hodgson JA, Thomas CD, Wintle BA, Moilanen A (2009) Climate change, connectivity and conservation decision making: back to basics. J Appl Ecol 46:964–969Google Scholar
  63. Honnay O, Hermy M, Coppin P (1999) Effects of area, age and diversity of forest patches in Belgium on plant species richness, and implications for conservation and reforestation. Biol Conserv 87:73–84Google Scholar
  64. Humphrey JW, Watts K, Fuentes-Montemayor E, Macgregor N, Park KJ (2013) The evidence base for ecological networks: lessons from studies of woodland fragmentation and creation. Forest Research Report. Forest Research, Roslin, University of Stirling, Stirling, Natural England, LondonGoogle Scholar
  65. Humphrey JW, Ray D, Brown T, Stone D, Watts K, Anderson ARA (2009) Using focal species modelling to evaluate the impact of land use change on forest and other habitat networks in western oceanic landscapes. Forestry 82:119–134Google Scholar
  66. Humphrey JW (2005) Benefits to biodiversity from developing old-growth conditions in British upland spruce plantations: a review and recommendations. Forestry 78:33–53Google Scholar
  67. Humphrey JW, Peace AJ, Jukes MR, Poulsom EL (2004) Multiple-scale factors affecting the development of biodiversity in UK plantations. In: Honnay O, Verheyen K, Bossuyt B, Hermy M (eds) Forest biodiversity: lessons from history for conservation, IUFRO Research Series 10. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, pp 143–162Google Scholar
  68. Humphrey JW, Davey S, Peace AJ, Ferris R, Harding K (2002) Lichens and bryophytes of planted and semi-natural forests in Britain: the influence of site type, stand structure and deadwood. Biol Conserv 107:165–180Google Scholar
  69. Humphrey JW, Newton AC, Peace AJ, Holden E (2000) The importance of conifer plantations in northern Britain as a habitat for native fungi. Biol Conserv 96:241–252Google Scholar
  70. Irmler U, Arp H, Notzold R (2010) Species richness of saproxylic beetles in woodlands is affected by dispersion ability of species, age and stand size. J Insect Conserv 14:227–235Google Scholar
  71. Jacquemyn H, Butaye J, Hermy M (2003) Influence of environmental and spatial variables on regional distribution of forest plant species in a fragmented and changing landscape. Ecography 26:768–776Google Scholar
  72. Jamoneau A, Sonnier G, Chabrerie O, Closset-Kopp D, Saguez R, Gallet-Moron E, Decocq G (2011) Drivers of plant species assemblages in forest patches among contrasted dynamic agricultural landscapes. J Ecol 99:1152–1161Google Scholar
  73. Kajtoch L, Zmihorski M, Bonczar Z (2012) Hazel grouse occurrence in fragmented forests: habitat quantity and configuration is more important than quality. Eur J For Res 13:1783–1795Google Scholar
  74. Kindlmann P, Burel F (2008) Connectivity measures: a review. Landscape Ecol 23:879–890Google Scholar
  75. Kleijn D, Sutherland WJ (2003) How effective are European agri-environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity? J Appl Ecol 40:947–969Google Scholar
  76. Kolozsvary MB, Swihart RK (1999) Habitat fragmentation and the distribution of amphibians: patch and landscape correlates in farmland. Can J Zool 77:1288–1299Google Scholar
  77. Kupfer JA, Malanson GP, Franklin SB (2006) Not seeing the ocean for the islands: the mediating influence of matrix-based process on forest fragmentation effects. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 15:8–20Google Scholar
  78. Lawton JH, Brotherton PNM, Brown VK, Elphick C, Fitter AH, Forshaw J, Haddow RW, Hilborne S, Leafe RN, Mace GM, Southgate MP, Sutherland WJ, Tew TE, Varley J, Wynne GRD (2010) Making space for nature: a review of England’s wildlife sites and ecological network. Defra, London. Accessed 8 April 2014
  79. Lentini PE, Gibbons P, Carwardine J, Fischer J, Drielsma M, Martin TG (2013) Effect of planning for connectivity on linear reserve networks. Conserv Biol 27:796–807PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Legendre P, Legendre L (1998) Numerical ecology. Second English Edition. Developments in environmental modelling 20. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  81. Liira J, Lohmus K, Tuisk E (2012) Old manor parks as potential habitats for forest flora in agricultural landscapes of Estonia. Biol Conserv 146:144–154Google Scholar
  82. Lindborg R, Helm A, Bommarco R, Heikkinen RK, Kuehn I, Pykala J, Paertel M (2012) Effect of habitat area and isolation on plant trait distribution in European forests and grasslands. Ecography 35:356–363Google Scholar
  83. Lindenmayer DB, Fischer J (2007) Tackling the habitat fragmentation panchreston. Trends Ecol Evol 22:127–132PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Löbel S, Snäll T, Rydin H (2006) Metapopulation processes in epiphytes inferred from patterns of regional distribution and local abundance in fragmented forest landscapes. J Ecol 94:856–868Google Scholar
  85. Lõhmus A, Lõhmus P (2008) First-generation forests are not necessarily worse than long-term managed forests for lichens and bryophytes. Restor Ecol 16:231–239Google Scholar
  86. Lõhmus A, Lõhmus P, Vellak K (2007) Substratum diversity explains landscape-scale co-variation in the species-richness of bryophytes and lichens. Biol Conserv 135:405–414Google Scholar
  87. Lorenzetti E, Battisti C (2006) Area as component of habitat fragmentation: corroborating its role in breeding bird communities and guilds of oak wood fragments in Central Italy. Rev Ecol 61:53–68Google Scholar
  88. Luque S, Pastur GM, Echeverria C, Pacha MJ (2011) Overview of biodiversity loss in South America: a landscape perspective for sustainable forest management and conservation in temperate forests. In: Li C, Lafortezza R, Chen J (eds) Landscape ecology in forest management and conservation: challenges and solutions for global change. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 352–379Google Scholar
  89. MacArthur RH, Wilson EO (1967) The theory of island biogeography. Princeton, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  90. Margules C, Higgs AJ, Rafe RW (1982) Modern biogeographic theory: are there lessons for nature reserve design? Biol Conserv 24:115–128Google Scholar
  91. Marmor L, Torra T, Saag L, Randlane T (2011) Effects of forest continuity and tree age on epiphytic lichen biota in coniferous forests in Estonia. Ecol Ind 11:1270–1276Google Scholar
  92. Marsh ACW, Harris S (2000) Partitioning of woodland habitat resources by two sympatric species of Apodemus: lessons for the conservation of the yellow-necked mouse (A. flavicollis) in Britain. Biol Conserv 92:275–283Google Scholar
  93. Mason CF (2001) Woodland area, species turnover and the conservation of bird assemblages in lowland England. Biodivers Conserv 10:495–510Google Scholar
  94. Matthysen E (1999) Nuthatches (Sitta europaea: Aves) in forest fragments: demography of a patchy population. Oecologia 119:501–509Google Scholar
  95. McKenzie AJ, Emery SB, Franks JR, Whittingham MJ (2013) Landscape-scale conservation: collaborative agri-environment schemes could benefit both biodiversity and ecosystem services, but will farmers be willing to participate? J Appl Ecol 50:1274–1280Google Scholar
  96. McGarigal K, Cushman SA (2002) Comparative evaluation of experimental approaches to the study of habitat fragmentation effects. Ecol Appl 12:335–345Google Scholar
  97. Moore NP, Askew N, Bishop JD (2003) Small mammals in new farm woodlands. Mamm Rev 33:101–104Google Scholar
  98. Mortelliti A (2013) Targeting habitat management in fragmented landscapes: a case study with forest vertebrates. Biodivers Conserv 22:187–207Google Scholar
  99. Mortelliti A, Amori G, Boitani L (2010) The role of habitat quality in fragmented landscapes: a conceptual overview and prospectus for future research. Oecologia 163:535–547PubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. Murphy SE, Greenaway F, Hill DA (2012) Patterns of habitat use by female brown long-eared bats presage negative impacts of woodland conservation management. J Zool 288:177–183Google Scholar
  101. Newton AC, Hodder K, Cantarello E, Perrella L, Birch JC, Robins J, Douglas S, Moody C, Cordingley J (2012) Cost–benefit analysis of ecological networks assessed through spatial analysis of ecosystem services. J Appl Ecol 49:571–580Google Scholar
  102. Niemelä J (2001) The utility of movement corridors in forested landscapes. Scand J For Res (Suppl.) 3:70–78Google Scholar
  103. Nordén B, Appelqvist T (2001) Conceptual problems of ecological continuity and its bioindicators. Biodivers Conserv 10:779–791Google Scholar
  104. Nupp TE, Swihart RK (2000) Landscape-level correlates of small-mammal assemblages in forest fragments on farmland. J Mamm 81:512–526Google Scholar
  105. Oliver TH, Smithers RJ, Bailey S, Walmsley CA, Watts K (2012) A decision framework for considering climate change adaptation in biodiversity conservation planning. J Appl Ecol 49:1247–1255Google Scholar
  106. Opdam P, Steingrover E, van Rooij S (2006) Ecological networks: a spatial concept for multi-actor planning of sustainable landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 75:322–332Google Scholar
  107. Ouin A, Sarthou JP, Bouyjou B, Deconchat M, Lacombe JP, Monteil C (2006) The species-area relationship in the hoverfly (Diptera, Syrphidae) communities of forest fragments in southern France. Ecography 29:183–190Google Scholar
  108. Paltto H, Nordén B, Götmark F, Franc N (2006) At which spatial and temporal scales does landscape context affect local density of red data book and indicator species? Biol Conserv 133:442–454Google Scholar
  109. Patterson JEH, Malcolm JR (2010) Landscape structure and local habitat characteristics as correlates of Glaucomys sabrinus and Tamiasciurus hudsonicus occurrence. J Mamm 91:642–653Google Scholar
  110. Pena L, Amezaga I, Onaindia M (2011) At which spatial scale are plant species composition and diversity affected in beech forests? Ann For Sci 68:1351–1362Google Scholar
  111. Peterken GF (1993) Woodland conservation and management. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  112. Petit S, Griffiths L, Smart SS, Smith GM, Stuart RC, Wright SM (2004) Effects of area and isolation of woodland patches on herbaceous plant species richness across Great Britain. Landscape Ecol 19:463–472Google Scholar
  113. Pickett STA, Thompson JN (1978) Patch dynamics and the design of nature reserves. Biol Conserv 13:27–36Google Scholar
  114. Pierik M, van Ruijven J, Bezemer TM, Berendse F (2010) Travelling to a former sea floor: colonization of forests by understorey plant species on land recently reclaimed from the sea. J Veg Sci 21:167–176Google Scholar
  115. Piha H, Luoto M, Merila J (2007) Amphibian occurrence is influenced by current and historic landscape characteristics. Ecol Appl 17:2298–2309PubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. Prevedello JA, Vieira MV (2010) Does the type of matrix matter? A quantitative review of the evidence. Biodivers Conserv 19:1205–1223Google Scholar
  117. Prugh LR, Hodges KE, Sinclair ARE, Brashares JS (2008) Effect of habitat area and isolation on fragmented animal populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:20770–20775PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  118. Quine CP, Cahalan C, Hester AJ, Humphrey JW, Kirby KJ, Moffat A, Valatin G (2011) Woodlands. The UK National Ecosystem Assessment Technical Report. UNEP-WCMC, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  119. Redpath SM (1995) Habitat fragmentation and the individual - tawny owls Strix aluco in woodland patches. J Anim Ecol 64:652–661Google Scholar
  120. Rodriguez-Loinaz G, Amezaga I, Onaindia M (2012) Does forest fragmentation affect the same way all growth-forms? J Environ Manag 94:125–131Google Scholar
  121. Rukke BA, Midtgaard F (1998) The importance of scale and spatial variables for the fungivorous beetle Bolitophagus reticulatus (Coleoptera, Tenebrionidae) in a fragmented forest landscape. Ecography 21:561–572Google Scholar
  122. Silva M, Hartling L, Opps SB (2005) Small mammals in agricultural landscapes of Prince Edward Island (Canada): effects of habitat characteristics at three different spatial scales. Biol Conserv 126:556–568Google Scholar
  123. Slade EM, Merckx T, Riutta T, Bebber DP, Redhead D, Riordan P, Macdonald DW (2013) Life-history traits and landscape characteristics predict macro-moth responses to forest fragmentation. Ecology 94:1519–1530PubMedGoogle Scholar
  124. Sokal R, Michener C (1958) A statistical method for evaluating systematic relationships. Univ Kansas Sci Bull 38:1409–1438Google Scholar
  125. Summerville KS, Crist TO (2004) Contrasting effects of habitat quantity and quality on moth communities in fragmented landscapes. Ecography 27:3–12Google Scholar
  126. Stewart GB, Coles CF, Pullin AS (2005) Applying evidence-based practice in conservation management: lessons from the first systematic review and dissemination projects. Biol Conserv 126:270–278Google Scholar
  127. Swihart RK, Goheen JR, Schnelker SA, Rizkalla CE (2007) Testing the generality of patch and landscape-level predictors of tree squirrel occurrence at a regional scale. J Mamm 88:564–572Google Scholar
  128. Tworek S (2004) Factors affecting temporal dynamics of avian assemblages in a heterogeneous landscape. Acta Ornithol 39:155–163Google Scholar
  129. Tworek S (2002) Different bird strategies and their responses to habitat changes in an agricultural landscape. Ecol Res 17:339–359Google Scholar
  130. Usher MB, Keiller SWJ (1998) The macrolepidoptera of farm woodlands: determinants of diversity and community structure. Biodivers Conserv 7:725–748Google Scholar
  131. Usher MB, Field JP, Bedford SE (1993) Biogeography and diversity of ground-dwelling arthropods in farm woodlands. Biodivers Lett 1:54–62Google Scholar
  132. Usher MB, Brown AC, Bedford SE (1992) Plant-species richness in farm woodlands. Forestry 65:1–13Google Scholar
  133. Vanapeldoorn RC, Celada C, Nieuwenhuizen W (1994) Distribution and dynamics of the red squirrel (Sciurus-vulgaris L.) in a landscape with fragmented habitat. Landscape Ecol 9:227–235Google Scholar
  134. Vanhinsbergh D, Gough S, Fuller RJ, Brierley EDR (2002) Summer and winter bird communities in recently established farm woodlands in lowland England. Agric Ecosys Environ 92:123–136Google Scholar
  135. van Langevelde F (2000) Scale of habitat connectivity and colonization in fragmented nuthatch populations. Ecography 23:614–622Google Scholar
  136. Verboom B, Vanapeldoorn R (1990) Effects of habitat fragmentation on the red squirrel, Sciurus-vulgaris L. Landscape Ecol 4:171–176Google Scholar
  137. Verheyen K, Fastenaekels I, Vellend M, De Keersmaeker L, Hermy M (2006) Landscape factors and regional differences in recovery rates of herb layer richness in Flanders (Belgium). Landscape Ecol 21:1109–1118Google Scholar
  138. Verheyen K, Guntenspergen GR, Biesbrouck B, Hermy M (2003) An integrated analysis of the effects of past land use on forest herb colonization at the landscape scale. J Ecol 91:731–742Google Scholar
  139. Verheyen K, Hermy M (2001) The relative importance of dispersal limitation of vascular plants in secondary forest succession in Muizen forest, Belgium. J Ecol 89:829–840Google Scholar
  140. Virgos E, Garcia FJ (2002) Patch occupancy by stone martens Martes foina in fragmented landscapes of central Spain: the role of fragment size, isolation and habitat structure. Acta Oecol 23:231–237Google Scholar
  141. Vojta J, Drhovska L (2012) Are abandoned wooded pastures suitable refugia for forest species? J Veg Sci 23:880–891Google Scholar
  142. Vos C, Baveco H, Grashof-Bokdam CJ (2002) Corridors and species dispersal. In: Gutzwiller KJ (ed) Applying landscape ecology in biological conservation. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 84–104Google Scholar
  143. Watts K, Eycott AE, Handley P, Ray D, Humphrey JW, Quine CP (2010) Targeting and evaluating biodiversity conservation action within fragmented landscapes: an approach based on generic focal species and least-cost networks. Landscape Ecol 25:1305–1318Google Scholar
  144. Wiens JA (2009) Landscape ecology as a foundation for sustainable conservation. Landscape Ecol 24:1053–1065Google Scholar
  145. Worboys GL, Francis WL, Lockwood M (eds) (2010) Connectivity conservation management: a global guide. Earthscan, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  146. Wulf M (2004) Plant species richness of afforestations with different former use and habitat continuity. For Ecol Manag 195:191–200Google Scholar
  147. Zapponi L, Del Bianco M, Luiselli L, Catorci A, Bologna MA (2013) Assessing environmental requirements effects on forest fragmentation sensitivity in two arboreal rodents. Mamm Biol 78:157–163Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Crown Copyright 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan W. Humphrey
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kevin Watts
    • 2
  • Elisa Fuentes-Montemayor
    • 3
  • Nicholas A. Macgregor
    • 4
  • Andrew J. Peace
    • 5
  • Kirsty J. Park
    • 3
  1. 1.Forest ResearchMidlothianUK
  2. 2.Forest Research, Alice Holt LodgeSurreyUK
  3. 3.Biological and Environmental Sciences, School of Natural SciencesUniversity of StirlingStirlingUK
  4. 4.Natural EnglandLondonUK
  5. 5.Forest Research, Northern Research StationMidlothianUK

Personalised recommendations