Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 33, Issue 2, pp 307–322 | Cite as

Matrix transformation alters species-area relationships in fragmented coastal forests

  • Marc T. Freeman
  • Pieter I. Olivier
  • Rudi J. van Aarde
Research Article

Abstract

Context

Ecological theory suggests that large habitat fragments should harbour more species than small fragments. However, this may depend on the surrounding matrix. Matrices in fragmented landscapes may either amplify or reduce area effects, which could influence predicted extinctions based on species-area relationships (SARs).

Objective

To determine the influence of matrix type on SARs.

Methods

We surveyed birds within 59 coastal forest fragments in two matrix types, anthropogenic (South Africa) and natural (Mozambique). We classified species as forest specialists or habitat generalists and fitted species-area models to compare how SAR slopes differed among matrix types. We also calculated nestedness and evenness to determine if these varied among matrix type and used logistic regressions to identify species-specific responses to matrix type.

Results

For habitat generalists, SARs were weak within both matrices, while for forest specialists it was strong in the anthropogenic but weak in the natural matrix. In the former, the SAR was similar to those recorded for real islands within archipelagos. Forest specialist assemblages were nested by area within anthropogenic, but not natural matrices. Matrix type did not influence evenness. Area only affected the occurrence of one species when the matrix was natural, compared to 11 species when it was anthropogenic.

Conclusions

Forest specialist bird species conformed to island biogeographic predictions of species loss in forest fragments embedded in anthropogenic, but not natural matrices. Extinctions from small forest fragments might be prevented by conserving natural- or restoring anthropogenic matrices, as well as by increasing forest area.

Keywords

Birds Extinction Forest specialists Habitat generalists Island biogeography Nestedness Anthropogenic habitats 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The MOZAL Community Development Trust, BHP Billiton HSC, National Research Foundation, Conservation Ecology Research Unit, Richards Bay Minerals, the Department of Trade and Industry and the University of Pretoria funded the study. Pieter Olivier was supported by an Innovation post-doctoral grant from the National Research Foundation. We also thank the field assistants who assisted with fieldwork and Thomas Matthews for valuable discussions around nestedness metrics.

Funding

Funding was provided by National Research Foundation (Grant No. 8817)

Supplementary material

10980_2017_604_MOESM1_ESM.docx (67 kb)
Appendix S1 Spatial structure, bird assemblages and matrix proportions for both study areas. Appendix S2 Species presence and forest fragment area. Appendix S3 SAR z-values obtained for forest specialists and habitat generalists. Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 67 kb)

References

  1. Almeida-Neto M, Guimara P, Guimara PR, Ulrich W (2008) A consistent metric for nestedness analysis in ecological systems: reconciling concept and measurement. Oikos 117:1227–1239CrossRefGoogle 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. Arcilla N, Holbech LH, O’Donnell S (2015) Severe declines of understory birds follow illegal logging in Upper Guinea forests of Ghana, West Africa. Biol Conserv 188:41–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arrhenius O (1921) Species and area. J Ecol 9:95–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berliner DD (2009) Systematic conservation planning for South Africas forest biome: an assessment of the conservation status of South Africa’s forests and recommendations for their conservation. University of Cape TownGoogle Scholar
  6. Bibby CJ, Burgess ND, Hill DA, Mustoe S (2000) Bird Census Techniques, 2nd edn. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Botzat A, Fischer L, Farwig N (2015) Regeneration potential in South African forest fragments: extinction debt paid off or hampered by contemporary matrix modification? Plant Ecol 216:535–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bridgman LJ, Benitez VV, Graña Grilli M, Mufato N, Acosta D, Laura Guichón M (2012) Short perceptual range and yet successful invasion of a fragmented landscape: The case of the red-bellied tree squirrel (Callosciurus erythraeus) in Argentina. Landsc Ecol 27:633–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brooks TM, Pimm SL, Collar NJ (1997) Deforestation predicts the number of threatened birds in insular Southeast Asia. Conserv Biol 11:382–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brotons L, Mönkkönen M, Martin JL (2003) Are fragments islands? Landscape context and density-area relationships in boreal forest birds. Am Nat 162:343–357CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Burgess N, Hales J, Underwood E, Dinerstein E, Olson D, Itoua I, Schipper J, Ricketts T, Newman K, Hales J (2004) Terrestrial ecoregions of Africa and Madagascar: a conservation assessment. Island Press  Google Scholar
  12. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multi-model inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Carrara E, Arroyo-Rodríguez V, Vega-Rivera JH, Schondube JE, de Freitas SM, Fahrig L (2015) Impact of landscape composition and configuration on forest specialist and generalist bird species in the fragmented Lacandona rainforest, Mexico. Biol Conserv 184:117–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chao A (1984) Board of the foundation of the scandinavian journal of statistics nonparametric estimation of the number of classes in a population. Scand J Stat 11:265–270Google Scholar
  15. Chao A, Jost L (2012) Coverage-based rarefaction and extrapolation: standardizing samples by completeness rather than size. Ecology 93:2533–2547CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Colwell RK (2013) EstimateS: Statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samplesGoogle Scholar
  17. Daily GC, Ehrlich PR, Sánchez-Azofeifa GA (2001) Countryside biogeography: use of human-dominated habitats by the avifauna of southern Costa Rica. Ecol Appl 11:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dengler J (2009) Which function describes the species-area relationship best? A review and empirical evaluation. J Biogeogr 36:728–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dennis JE, Schnabel RB (1983) Numerical methods for unconstrained optimization and nonlinear equations. classics in applied mathematics, 16. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  20. Development Core Team R (2012) A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  21. Didham RK, Kapos V, Ewers RM (2012) Rethinking the conceptual foundations of habitat fragmentation research. Oikos 121:161–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Drakare S, Lennon JJ, Hillebrand H (2006) The imprint of the geographical, evolutionary and ecological context on species-area relationships. Ecol Lett 9:215–227CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Driscoll DA, Banks SC, Barton PS, Lindenmayer DB, Smith AL (2013) Conceptual domain of the matrix in fragmented landscapes. Trends Ecol Evol 28:605–613CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Driscoll MJL, Donovan TM (2003) Landscape effects moderate edge effects: nesting success of wood thrushes in central Newyork. Conserv Biol 18:1330–1338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dunning JB, Danielson BJ, Pulliam HR (1992) Ecological processes that affect populations in complex landscapes. Oikos 65:169–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Eeley HHAC, Lawes MMJ, Piper SES, Forest T (1999) The influence of climate change on the distribution of indigenous forest in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. J Biogeogr 26:595–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Eycott A, Watts K, Brandt G, Buyung-Ali L, Bowler D, Stewart G, Pullin A (2010) Do landscape matrix features affect species movement? Collab Environ Evid 44:0–54Google Scholar
  28. Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Rev Lit Arts Am 34:487–515Google Scholar
  29. Fahrig L (2013) Rethinking patch size and isolation effects: the habitat amount hypothesis. J Biogeogr 40:1649–1663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gascon C, Lovejoy TE, Bierregaard RO, Malcolm JR, Stouffer PC, Vasconcelos HL, Laurance WFL, Zimmerman B, Tocher M, Borges S (1999) Matrix habitat and species richness in tropical forest remnants. Biol Conserv 91:223–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gotelli NJ, Colwell RK (2001) Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecol Lett 4:379–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Guilhaumon F, Mouillot D, Gimenez O (2010) mmSAR: an R-package for multimodel species-area relationship inference. Ecography (Cop) 33:420–424Google Scholar
  33. Guldemond RAR, van Aarde RJ (2010) Forest patch size and isolation as drivers of bird species richness in Maputaland, Mozambique. J Biogeogr 37:1884–1893Google Scholar
  34. Haddad NM, Brudvig LA, Clobert J, Davies KF, Gonzalez A, Holt RD, Lovejoy TE, Sexton JO, Austin MP, Collins CD, Cook WM, Damschen EI, Ewers RM, Foster BL, Jenkins CN, King AJ, Laurance WF, Levey DJ, Margules CR, Melbourne BA, Nicholls AO, Orrock JL, Song D-X, Townshend JR (2015) Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems. Sci Adv 1:e1500052–e1500052CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Haila Y (2002) A conceptual genealogy of fragmentation research: from island biogeography to landscape ecology A. Ecol Appl 12:321–334Google Scholar
  36. Hockey PAR, Dean WRJ, Ryan PG (2005) Roberts birds of Southern Africa VII. The John Voelcker Bird Book Fund, Cape TownGoogle Scholar
  37. Ibarra JT, Martin K (2015) Biotic homogenization: loss of avian functional richness and habitat specialists in disturbed Andean temperate forests. Biol Conserv 192:418–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jamoneau A, Chabrerie O, Closset-Kopp D, Decocq G (2012) Fragmentation alters beta-diversity patterns of habitat specialists within forest metacommunities. Ecography (Cop) 35:124–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jewitt D, Goodman PS, Erasmus BFN, O'Connor TG, Witowski ET (2015) Systematic land-cover change in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa : implications for biodiversity : research article. S Afr J Sci 111:01–09Google Scholar
  40. Johnson P, Mason LG, Raven PH (1968) Ecological parameters and plant species diversity. Am Nat 102:297–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Koh LP, Ghazoul J (2010) A matrix-calibrated species-area model for predicting biodiversity losses due to land-use change. Conserv Biol 24:994–1001CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Küper W, Henning Sommer J, Lovett JC, Mutke J, Linder HP, Beentje HJ, Rompaey RSARV, Chatelain C, Sosef M, Barthlott W (2004) Africa’s hotspots of biodiversity re-defined. Ann Missouri Bot Gard 91:525–535Google Scholar
  43. Laurance WF (2008) Theory meets reality: how habitat fragmentation research has transcended island biogeographic theory. Biol Conserv 141:1731–1744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Laurance WF, Nascimento HEM, Laurance SG, Andrade AC, Fearnside PM, Ribeiro JEL, Capretz RL (2006) Rain forest fragmentation and the proliferation of successional trees. Ecology 87:469–482CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Lawes MJ, Eeley HAC, Findlay NJ, Forbes D (2007) Resilient forest faunal communities in South Africa: a legacy of palaeoclimatic change and extinction filtering? J Biogeogr 34:1246–1264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lawes MJ, Eeley HAC, Shackleton BG. (2004) Indigenous forests and woodlands in South Africa: policy, people and practice. University of KwaZulu-Natal Press, KwaZulu-NatalGoogle Scholar
  47. Lenz J, Fiedler W, Caprano T, Friedrichs W, Gaese BH, Wikelski M, Böhning-Gaese K (2011) Seed-dispersal distributions by trumpeter hornbills in fragmented landscapes. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 278:2257–2264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lôbo D, Leão T, Melo FPL, Santos AMM, Tabarelli M (2011) Forest fragmentation drives Atlantic forest of northeastern Brazil to biotic homogenization. Divers Distrib 17:287–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mac Nally R (2007) Use of the abundance spectrum and relative-abundance distributions to analyze assemblage change in massively altered landscapes. Am Nat 170:319–330CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. MacArthur RH, Wilson EO (1967) The theory of island biogeography. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  51. Martensen AC, Ribeiro MC, Banks-leite C, Prado PI, Metzger JP (2012) Associations of forest cover, fragment area, and connectivity with neotropical understory bird species richness and abundance. Conserv Biol 26:1100–1111CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Matthews T, Whittaker RJQ (2015) Quantifying and interpreting nestedness in habitat islands: a synthetic analysis of multiple datasets. Divers Distrib 21:392–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mendenhall CD, Karp DS, Meyer CFJ, Hadly EA, Daily GC (2014) Predicting biodiversity change and averting collapse in agricultural landscapes. Nature 509:213–217CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Menke S, Böhning-gaese K, Schleuning M (2012) Plant–frugivore networks are less specialized and more robust at forest–farmland edges than in the interior of a tropical forest. Oikos 121:1553–1566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Morante-Filho JC, Arroyo-Rodríguez V, Faria D (2015) Patterns and predictors of beta-diversity in the fragmented Brazilian Atlantic forest: a multiscale analysis of forest specialist and generalist birds. J Anim Ecol 85:240–250CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Morante-Filho JC, Arroyo-Rodriguez V, Lohbeck M, Tscharntke T, Faria D (2016) Tropical forest loss and its multitrophic effects on insect herbivory. Ecology 97:3315–3325CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Mueller T, Lenz J, Caprano T, Fiedler W, Böhning-Gaese K (2014) Large frugivorous birds facilitate functional connectivity of fragmented landscapes. J Appl Ecol 51:684–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Öckinger E, Lindborg R, Sjödin NE, Bommarco R (2012) Landscape matrix modifies richness of plants and insects in grassland fragments. Ecography (Cop) 35:259–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Oksanen JF, Blanchet G, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin PR, O’Hara RB, Simpson GL (2013) Vegan: community ecology package. R package version 2.0-9. R Foundation for Statistical Computing  Google Scholar
  60. Olivier PI, van Aarde RJ (2017) The response of bird feeding guilds to forest fragmentation reveals conservation strategies for a critically endangered African eco-region. Biotropica 49:268–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Olivier PI, Van Aarde RJ, Lombard AT (2013) The use of habitat suitability models and species-area relationships to predict extinction debts in coastal forests, South Africa. Divers Distrib 19:1353–1365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Pardini R, de Bueno AA, Gardner TA, Prado PI, Metzger JP (2010) Beyond the fragmentation threshold hypothesis: regime shifts in biodiversity across fragmented landscapes. PLoS ONE 5(10):e13666CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. Peter F, Berens DG, Grieve GR, Farwig N (2015) Forest fragmentation drives the loss of insectivorous birds and an associated increase in herbivory. Biotropica 47:626–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Pielou EC (1967) The measurement of diversity in different types of biological collections. J Theor Biol 15:177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Preston FW (1962) The canonical distribution of commonness and rarity: part I. Ecology 43:185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Prevedello JA, Vieira MV (2010) Does the type of matrix matter? A quantitative review of the evidence. Biodivers Conserv 19:1205–1223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rao CR (1973) Linear statistical inference and its applications. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Ries L, Fletcher RJ, Battin J, Sisk TD (2004) Ecological responses to habitat edges: mechanisms, models, and variability explained. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:491–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rosenzweig ML (1995) Species diversity in space and time. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sanchez-de-Jesus HA, Arroyo-Rodriguez V, Andresen E, Escobar F (2016) Forest loss and matrix composition are the major drivers shaping dung beetle assemblages in a fragmented rainforest. Landscape Ecol 31:843–854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Socolar JB, Gilroy JJ, Kunin WE, Edwards DP (2015) How should beta-diversity inform biodiversity conservation? Trends Ecol Evol 31:67–80CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Stratford JA, Stouffer PC (2015) Forest fragmentation alters microhabitat availability for Neotropical terrestrial insectivorous birds. Biol Conserv 188:109–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Tabarelli M, Peres CA, Melo FPL (2012) The “few winners and many losers” paradigm revisited: emerging prospects for tropical forest biodiversity. Biol Conserv 155:136–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Tews J, Brose U, Grimm V, Tielborger K, Wichmann MC, Schwager M, Jeltsch F (2004) Animal species diversity driven by habitat heterogeneity/diversity: the importance of keystone structures. J Biogeogr 31(1):79–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Triantis KA, Guilhaumon F, Whittaker RJ (2012) The island species-area relationship: biology and statistics. J Biogeogr 39:215–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Tscharntke T, Tylianakis JM, Rand TA, Didham RK, Fahrig L, Batáry P, Bengtsson J, Clough Y, Crist TO, Dormann CF, Ewers RM, Fründ J, Holt RD, Holzschuh A, Klein AM, Kleijn D, Kremen C, Landis DA, Laurance W, Lindenmayer D, Scherber C, Sodhi N, Steffan-Dewenter I, Thies C, van der Putten WH, Westphal C (2012) Landscape moderation of biodiversity patterns and processes—eight hypotheses. Biol Rev 87:661–685CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Ulrich W, Almeida-Neto M (2012) On the meanings of nestedness: back to the basics. Ecography (Cop) 35:865–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Ulrich W, Almeida-Neto M, Gotelli NJ (2009) A consumer’s guide to nestedness analysis. Oikos 118:3–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Urban DL, O’Neill RV, Shugart HH (1987) Landscape ecology. Bioscience 37:119–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. van Aarde RJ, Guldemond RAR, Olivier PI (2014) Biodiversity status of coastal dune forests in South Africa. In: Maslo B, Lockwood L (eds) Conservation biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 161–179Google Scholar
  81. Van Wyk AE, Smith GF (2001) Regions of floristic endemism in Southern Africa. Umdaus Press, PretoriaGoogle Scholar
  82. Von Maltitz G, Mucina L, Geldenhuys CJ, Lawes MJ, Eeley H, Aidie H, Vink D, Fleming G, Bailey C (2003) Classification system for South African indigenous forests: an objective classification for the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Environmentek report ENV-PCGoogle Scholar
  83. Wang Y, Bao Y, Yu M, Xu G, Ding P (2010) Nestedness for different reasons: the distributions of birds, lizards and small mammals on islands of an inundated lake. Divers Distrib 16:862–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wethered R, Lawes MJ (2005) Nestedness of bird assemblages in fragmented Afromontane forest: the effect of plantation forestry in the matrix. Biol Conserv 123:125–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Zaloumis NP, Bond WJ (2011) Grassland restoration after afforestation: no direction home? Austral Ecol 36:357–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marc T. Freeman
    • 1
  • Pieter I. Olivier
    • 1
  • Rudi J. van Aarde
    • 1
  1. 1.Conservation Ecology Research Unit, Department of Zoology and EntomologyUniversity of PretoriaHatfieldSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations