Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 31, Issue 9, pp 1891–1902 | Cite as

Spatial configuration matters: a test of the habitat amount hypothesis for plants in calcareous grasslands

  • Marianne EvjuEmail author
  • Anne Sverdrup-Thygeson
Research Article

Abstract

Context

A recent hypothesis, the habitat amount hypothesis, predicts that the total amount of habitat in the landscape can replace habitat patch size and isolation in studies of species richness in fragmented landscapes.

Objectives

To test the habitat amount hypothesis by first evaluating at which spatial scale the relationship between species richness in equal-sized sample quadrats and habitat amount was the strongest, and then test the importance of spatial configuration of habitat—measured as local patch size and isolation—when habitat amount was taken into account.

Methods

A quasi-experimental setup with 20 habitat patches of dry calcareous grasslands varying in patch size, patch isolation and habitat amount at the landscape scale was established in the inner Oslo fjord, Southern Norway. We recorded species richness of habitat specialists of vascular plants in equal-sized sample quadrats and analysed the relationship between species richness, habitat amount in the landscape and patch size and isolation.

Results

Although the total amount of habitat in a 3 km-radius around the local patch was positively related to species richness in the sample quadrats, local patch size had an additional positive effect, and the effect of patch size was higher when the amount of habitat within the 3 km-radius was high than when it was low.

Conclusions

In our study system of specialist vascular plants in dry calcareous grasslands, we do not find support for the habitat amount hypothesis.

Keywords

Connectivity Conservation Fragmentation Habitat amount Plant diversity Spatial configuration 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was carried out under the projects ‘‘Survey and monitoring of red-listed species’’ (ARKO, funded by the Norwegian Environment Agency), and ‘‘Management of biodiversity and ecosystem services in spatially structured landscapes’’ (funded by the Norwegian Research Council, grant 208434/F40). We are grateful to A. Often, O. Skarpaas, O.E. Stabbetorp and J. Wesenberg for fieldwork contributions, and to three referees for valuable comments to earlier versions of this manuscript.

Supplementary material

10980_2016_405_MOESM1_ESM.docx (16 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 16 kb)
10980_2016_405_MOESM2_ESM.docx (14 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 13 kb)

References

  1. Alofs K, González A, Fowler N (2014) Local native plant diversity responds to habitat loss and fragmentation over different time spans and spatial scales. Plant Ecol 215:1139–1151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrén H (1994) Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71:355–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bakkestuen V, Stabbetorp O, Molia A, Evju M (2014) The hotspot dry calcareous grassland in the Oslofjord region. Description of the habitat and a monitoring method developed in the ARKO project. NINA Report 1102Google Scholar
  4. Brown JH, Kodric-Brown A (1977) Turnover rates in insular biogeography: effect of immigration on extinction. Ecology 58:445–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Cain ML, Miligan BG, Strand AE (2000) Long-distance seed dispersal in plant populations. Am J Bot 87:1217–1227CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Connor EF, McCoy ED (1979) The statistics and biology of the species-area relationship. Am Nat 13:791–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coudrain V, Schüepp C, Herzog F, Albrecht M, Entling MH (2014) Habitat amount modulates the effect of patch isolation on host-parasitoid interactions. Front Environ Sci 2:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cousins SAO, Vanhoenacker D (2011) Detection of extinction debt depends on scale and specialisation. Biol Conserv 144:782–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Didham RK, Kapos V, Ewers RM (2012) Rethinking the conceptual foundations of habitat fragmentation research. Oikos 121:161–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Evju M, Blumentrath S, Skarpaas O, Stabbetorp OE, Sverdrup-Thygeson A (2015) Plant species occurrence in a fragmented landscape: the importance of species traits. Biodivers Conserv 24:547–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Evju M, Stange E (eds) (2016) Når artenes leveområder splittes opp-eksempler fra øyene i indre Oslofjord. Sluttrapport fra strategisk instituttsatsing (SIS) 2011-2015. NINA Temahefte 65Google Scholar
  13. Ewers RM, Didham RK (2006) Confounding factors in the detection of species responses to habitat fragmentation. Biol Rev 81:117–143CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fahrig L (2013) Rethinking patch size and isolation effects: the habitat amount hypothesis. J Biogeogr 40:1649–1663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fahrig L (2015) Just a hypothesis: a reply to Hanski. J Biogeogr 42:993–994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2007) Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: a synthesis. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 16:265–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Franzén M, Schweiger O, Betzholtz P-E (2012) Species-area relationships are controlled by species traits. PloS one 7:e37359CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Giladi I, May F, Ristow M, Jeltsch F, Ziv Y (2014) Scale-dependent species-area and species-isolation relationships: a review and a test study from a fragmented semi-arid agro-ecosystem. J Biogeogr 41:1055–1069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Haddad NM, Brudvig LA, Clobert J, Davies KF, Gonzalez A, Holt RD, Lovejoy TE, Sexton JO, Austin MP, Collins CD, Cook WM (2015) Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems. Sci Adv 1(2):e1500052CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Hanski I (1994) Patch-occupancy dynamics in fragmented landscapes. Trends Ecol Evol 9:131–135CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Hanski I (2015) Habitat fragmentation and species richness. J Biogeogr 42:989–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. He FL, Hubbell SP (2011) Species-area relationships always overestimate extinction rates from habitat loss. Nature 473:368–371CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Holland JD, Bert DG, Fahrig L (2004) Determining the spatial scale of species’ response to habitat. Bioscience 54:227–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jackson HB, Fahrig L (2015) Are ecologists conducting research at the optimal scale? Glob Ecol Biogeogr 24:52–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Köchy M, Rydin H (1997) Biogeography of vascular plants on habitat islands, peninsulas and mainlands in an east-central Swedish agricultural landscape. Nord J Bot 17:215–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lid J, Lid DT (2005) Norsk flora, 7th edn. Det Norske Samlaget, OsloGoogle Scholar
  28. MacArthur RH, Wilson EO (1967) The theory of island biogeography. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  29. Matthews TJ, Cottee-Jones HE, Whittaker RJ (2014) Habitat fragmentation and the species-area relationship: a focus on total species richness obscures the impact of habitat loss on habitat specialists. Divers Distrib 20:1136–1146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mazerolle MJ (2016) AICcmodavg: Model selection and multimodel inference based on (Q)AIC(c). R package version 2:0–4. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=AICcmodavg
  31. Munguia-Rosas MA, Montiel S (2014) Patch size and isolation predict plant species density in a naturally fragmented forest. PloS one 9(10):e111742CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Nakagawa S, Cuthill IC (2007) Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists. Biol Rev 82:591–605CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Pärtel M, Zobel M, Zobel K, van der Maarel E (1996) The species pool and its relation to species richness: evidence from estonian plant communities. Oikos 75:111–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, R Development Core Team (2013) nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effect models. R package version 3:1–109. http://www.r-project.org
  35. R Core Team (2015) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/
  36. Reitalu T, Purschke O, Johansson LJ, Hall K, Sykes MT, Prentice HC (2012) Responses of grassland species richness to local and landscape factors depend on spatial scale and habitat specialization. J Veg Sci 23:41–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rosenzweig ML (1995) Species diversity in space and time. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rybicki J, Hanski I (2013) Species-area relationships and extinctions caused by habitat loss and fragmentation. Ecol Lett 16:27–38CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Saunders DA, Hobbs RJ, Margules CR (1991) Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conserv Biol 5:18–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schielzeth H (2010) Simple means to improve the interpretability of regression coefficients. Methods Ecol Evol 1:103–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shadish WR, Cook TD, Campbell DT (2002) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  42. Silvertown J (2004) Plant coexistence and the niche. Trends Ecol Evol 19:605–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Smith AC, Koper N, Francis CM, Fahrig L (2009) Confronting collinearity: comparing methods for disentangling the effects of habitat loss and fragmentation. Landscape Ecol 24:1271–1285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sverdrup-Thygeson A, Gustafsson L, Kouki J (2014) Spatial and temporal scales relevant for conservation of dead-wood associated species: current status and perspectives. Biodivers Conserv 23:513–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Villard M-A, Metzger JP (2014) Beyond the fragmentation debate: a conceptual model to predict when habitat configuration really matters. J Appl Ecol 51:309–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wiens JA (1989) Spatial scaling in ecology. Func Ecol 3:385–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Williams CB (1943) Area and the number of species. Nature 152:262–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wilson MC, Chen XY, Corlett RT, Didham RK, Ding P, Holt RD, Laurance WF (2016) Habitat fragmentation and biodiversity conservation: key findings and future challenges. Landscape Ecol 31:219–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. With KA (2016) Are landscapes more than the sum of their patches? Landscape Ecol. doi: 10.1007/s10980-015-0328-8 Google Scholar
  50. Wollan AK, Bakkestuen V, Bjureke K, Bratli H, Endrestøl A, Stabbetorp OE, Sverdrup-Thygeson A, Halvorsen R (2011a) Open calcareous ground with shallow soil in the Oslo fjord region-a hotspot habitat. Final report from period II of the ARKO project. NINA Report 713Google Scholar
  51. Wollan AK, Bakkestuen V, Halvorsen R (2011b) Spatial predictive modelling of dry calcareous grasslands in the Oslofjord area. In: Halvorsen R (ed) The scientific basis for habitat monitoring in Norway-baseline surveys. University of Oslo, OlsoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA)OsloNorway
  2. 2.Department of Ecology and Natural Resource ManagementNorwegian University of Life SciencesAasNorway

Personalised recommendations