Advertisement

Mammalian Biology

, Volume 78, Issue 3, pp 157–163 | Cite as

Assessing environmental requirements effects on forest fragmentation sensitivity in two arboreal rodents

  • Livia ZapponiEmail author
  • Marta Del Bianco
  • Luca Luiselli
  • Andrea Catorci
  • Marco A. Bologna
Original Investigation

Abstract

The study of the effect of habitat fragmentation on species that inhabit residual patches requires the investigation of the relationship existing between species distribution and landscape components. To understand which components of landscape mosaics are more influential for species’ persistence, we compared the distribution of two arboreal rodents proved to be sensitive to habitat fragmentation, the hazel dormouse Muscardinus avellanarius and the red squirrel Sciurus vulgaris. Their occurrence in residual oak woods in central Italy was studied with nest-boxes and hair-tubes, developing a new method for hair analysis. Their distributions were analysed considering patch, matrix composition and configuration, and landscape vegetation variables. The two species showed a different degree of plasticity, with the squirrel being significantly more specialised at the landscape scale. The comparison of the two distribution patterns highlighted the influence of different ecological constraints and the existence of different strategies to cope with fragmentation. Patch size and patch attributes were generally weaker determinants of occurrence, compared to landscape metrics. The squirrel presence was significantly influenced by the presence of shared perimeter between hedgerows and woods and by the lack of isolation of the residual patches, suggesting the use of several fragments to compensate the low habitat quality. Conversely the hazel dormouse seemed to be more affected by the internal management of the woods, and in particular by the mean DBH. Our results highlight how the recognition of the extrinsic constraints and the influence of multi-scale habitat selection may help guiding land use management, to ensure species conservation in profoundly exploited landscapes.

Keywords

Land use Spatial scale Hair analysis Sciurus vulgaris Muscardinus avellanarius 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amori, G., Contoli, L., Nappi, A., 2008. Mammalia II. Erinaceomorpha, Soricomorpha, Lagomorpha, Rodentia. Fauna d’Italia, vol. XLIV. Edizioni Calderini de Il Sole 24 ORE Edagricole.Google Scholar
  2. Amori, G., Mortelliti, A., Guidarelli, G., Schiavano, A., Luiselli, L., 2012. Detectability of the European red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) in a Mediterranean area. Rendiconti Lincei 23, 203–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baguette, M., Van Dyck, H., 2007. Landscape connectivity and animal behavior: functional grain as a key determinant for dispersal. Landscape Ecol. 22, 1117–1129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker, W.L., Cai, Y., 1992. The r.le programs for multiscale analysis of landscape structure using the GRASS geographical information system. Landscape Ecol. 7, 291–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barbault, R., Stearns, S., 1991. Towards an evolutionary ecology linking species interactions, life-history strategies and community dynamics: an introduction. Acta Oecol. 12, 3–10.Google Scholar
  6. Bastrup-Birk, A., Neville, P., Chirici, G., Houston, T., 2007. The BioSoil Forest Biodiversity Field Manual Version 1.0/1.1/1.1A for the Field Assessment 2006–07. European Commission Joint Research Centre.Google Scholar
  7. Bertolino, S., Wauters, L., Pizzul, A., Molinari, A., Lurz, P., Tosi, G., 2009. A general approach of using hair-tubes to monitor the European red squirrel: a method applicable at regional and national scales. Mamm. Biol. 74, 210–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blondel, J., Aronson, J., 1999. Biology and Wildlife of the Mediterranean Region. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  9. Brady, M.J., McAlpine, C.A., Possingham, H.P., Miller, C.J., Baxter, G.S., 2011. Matrix is important for mammals in landscapes with small amounts of native forest habitat. Landscape Ecol. 26, 617–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bright, P., Morris, P., 1989. A practical guide to dormouse conservation. Mamm. Soc. Lond. 11, 1–31.Google Scholar
  11. Bright, P., Morris, P., 1990. Habitat requirements of dormice Muscardinus avellanarius in relation to woodland management in southwest England. Biol. Conserv. 54, 307–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bright, P.W., Morris, P.A., 1996. Why are dormice rare? A case study in conservation biology. Mamm. Rev. 4, 157–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Büchner, S., 2008. Dispersal of common dormice Muscardinus avellanarius in a habitat mosaic. Acta Theriol. (Warsz.) 53, 259–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burnham, K.P., Anderson, D.R., 2002. Model selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach. Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Capizzi, D., Battistini, M., Amori, G., 2002. Analysis of hazel dormouse Muscardinus avellanarius, distribution in a Mediterranean fragmented woodland. Ital. J. Zool. 69, 25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Capizzi, D., Santini, L., 2007. I roditori italiani, ecologia, impatto sulle attività umane e sugli ecosistemi gestione delle popolazioni. Antonio Delfino Editore, Roma.Google Scholar
  17. Carey, A., 2000. Effects of new forest management strategies on squirrel populations. Ecol. Appl. 10, 248–257.Google Scholar
  18. Catorci, A., Biondi, E., Casavecchia, S., Pesaresi, S., Vitanzi, A., Foglia, M., Galassi, S., Pinzi, M., Angelini, E., Bianchelli, M., Ventrone, F., Cesaretti, S., Gatti, R., 2007. La Carta della vegetazione e degli elementi di paesaggio vegetale delle Marche (scala 1:50.000) per la progettazione e la gestione della rete ecologica regionale. Fitosociologia 44, 115–118.Google Scholar
  19. 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, 177–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. De Marinis, A., Agnelli, P., 1993. Guide to the microscope analysis of Italian mammals hairs: Insectivora Rodentia and Lagomorpha. Ital. J. Zool. 60 (2), 225–232.Google Scholar
  21. Dunning, J.B., Brent, J.D., Pulliam, H.R., 1992. Ecological processes that affect populations in complex landscapes. Oikos 65, 169–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fischer, C., Thies, C., Tscharntke, T., 2011. Small mammals in agricultural landscapes: opposing responses to farming practices and landscape complexity. Biol. Conserv. 144, 1130–1136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Foley, J., 2005. Global consequences of land use. Science 309, 570–574.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Franklin, J.F., Lindenmayer, D.B., 2009. Importance of matrix habitats in maintaining biological diversity. PNAS 106, 349–350.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Gehring, T.M., Swihart, R.K., 2003. Body size, niche breadth, and ecologically scaled responses to habitat fragmentation: mammalian predators in an agricultural landscape. Biol. Conserv. 109, 283–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Greaves, R.K., Sanderson, R.A., Rushton, S.P., 2006. Predicting species occurrence using information-theoretic approaches and significance testing: an example of dormouse distribution in Cumbria, UK. Biol. Conserv. 130, 239–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hawkins, B.A., 2012. Eight (and a half) deadly sins of spatial analysis. J. Biogeogr. 39, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Holland, G.J., Bennett, A.F., 2009. Differing responses to landscape change: implications for small mammal assemblages in forest fragments. Biodivers. Conserv. 18, 2997–3016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. IPLA, 2000. Inventario e carta forestale della regione Marche. Istituto per le Piante da Legno e l’Ambiente, Regione Marche, p. 283.Google Scholar
  30. Juškaitis, R., 2008. Long-term common dormouse monitoring: effects of forest management on abundance. Biodivers. Conserv. 17, 3559–3565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Juškaitis, R., Šiožinyte˙, V., 2008. Habitat requirements of the common dormouse (Muscardinus avellanarius) and the fat dormouse (Glisglis) in mature mixed forest in Lithuania. Ekológia 27, 143–151.Google Scholar
  32. Koprowski, J., 2005. The response of tree squirrels to fragmentation: a review and synthesis. Anim. Conserv. 8, 369–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Legendre, P., Legendre, L., 1998. Numerical Ecology, second English ed. Elsevier.Google Scholar
  34. Macdonald, D.W., Rushton, S., 2003. Modelling space use and dispersal of mammals in real landscapes: a tool for conservation. J. Biogeogr. 30, 607–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Magrini, C., Manzo, E., Zapponi, L., Angelici, F.M., Boitani, L., Cento, M., 2009. A seasonal analysis of weasel (Mustela nivalis) spatial ranging behaviour and habitat selection in a Mediterranean agricultural landscape. Acta Theriol. (Warsz.) 54, 137–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McGarigal, K., Cushman, S.A., 2002. Comparative evaluation of experimental approaches to the study of habitat fragmentation effects. Ecol. Appl. 12, 335–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mortelliti, A., Amori, G., Capizzi, D., Cervone, C., Fagiani, S., Pollini, B., Boitani, L., 2011. Independent effects of habitat loss, habitat fragmentation and structural connectivity on the distribution of two arboreal rodents. J. Appl. Ecol., 153–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mortelliti, A., Boitani, L., 2008. Inferring red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) absence with hair tubes surveys: a sampling protocol. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 54, 353–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mortelliti, A., Santulli Sanzo, G., Boitani, L., 2009. Species’ surrogacy for conservation planning: caveats from comparing the response of three arboreal rodents to habitat loss and fragmentation. Biodivers. Conserv. 18, 1131–1145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mortelliti, A., Amori, G., Capizzi, D., Rondinini, C., Boitani, L., 2010. Experimental design and taxonomic scope of fragementation studies on European mammals: current status and future priorities. Mamm. Rev. 40, 125–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Naim, D., Telfer, S., Tatman, S., Bird, S., Kemp, S., Hughes, R., Watts, P., 2012. Patterns of genetic divergence among populations of the common dormouse Muscardinus avellanarius in the UK. Mol. Biol. Rep. 39, 1205–1215.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Norton, M., Hannon, S., Schmiegelow, F., 2000. Fragments are not islands: patch vs landscape perspectives on songbird presence and abundance in a harvested boreal forest. Ecography 23, 209–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ovaskainen, O., Hanski, I., 2004. Metapopulation dynamics in highly fragmented landscapes. In: Hanski, I., Gaggiotti, O. (Eds.), Ecology, Genetics and Evolution of Metapopulations. Elsevier Academic Press, Burlington, pp. 73–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Prugh, L.R., Hodges, K.E., Sinclair, R.E., Brashares, J.S., 2008. Effect of habitat area and isolation on fragmented animal populations. PNAS 105, 20770–20775.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Quadros, J.de A., Monteiro-Filho, E., 2006. Coleta e preparação de pêlos de mamiferos para indentificação em microscopia óptica. Rev. Bras. Zool. 23, 274–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Riitters, K.H., O’Neill, R.V., Wickam, J.D., Jones, K.B., 1996. A note on contagion indices for landscape analysis. Landscape Ecol. 11, 197–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rima, P.C., Cagnin, M., Aloise, G., Preatoni, D., Wauters, L.A., 2010. Scale dependent environmental variables affecting red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris meridionalis) distribution. Ital. J. Zool. 77, 92–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rodríguez, A., Andrén, H., 1999. A comparison of Eurasian red squirrel distribution in different fragmented landscapes. J. Appl. Ecol. 36, 649–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sanecki, G., Green, K., 2005. A technique for using hair tubes beneath the snowpack to detect winter-active small mammals in the subnivean space. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 51, 41–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Swihart, R.K., Atwood, T.C., Goheen, J.R., Scheiman, D.M., Munroe, K.E., Gehring, T.M., 2003. Patch occupancy of North American mammals: is patchiness in the eye of the beholder? J. Biogeogr. 30, 1259–1279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Teerink, B.J., 1991. Hair of West-European Mammals. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Van Apeldoorn, R.C., Celada, C., Nieuwenhuizen, W., 1994. Distribution and dynamics of the red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris L.) in a landscape with fragmented habitat. Landscape Ecol. 9, 227–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Verbeylen, G., De Bruyn, L., Adriaensen, F., Matthysen, E., 2003. Does matrix resistance influence Red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris L 1758) distribution in an urban landscape? Landscape Ecol. 18, 791–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Verbeylen, G., Wauters, L., De Bruyn, L., Matthysen, E., 2009. Woodland fragmentation affects space use of Eurasian red squirrels. Acta Oecol. 35, 94–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wauters, L., Casale, P., Dhondt, A., 1994. Space use and dispersal of red squirrels in fragmeted habitats. Oikos 69, 140–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wauters, L., Verbeylen, G., Preatoni, D., Martinoli, A., Matthysen, E., 2010. Dispersal and habitat cuing of Eurasian red squirrels in fragmented habitats. Popul. Ecol. 52, 527–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wiens, J.A., Stenseth, N.C., Van Horne, B., Ims, R.A., 1993. Ecological mechanisms and landscape ecology. Oikos 66, 369–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zapponi, L., 2010. Influence of matrix heterogeneity on vertebrate assemblages of fragmented woodland. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Roma Tre.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Deutsche Gesellschaft für Säugetierkunde 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Livia Zapponi
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Marta Del Bianco
    • 3
  • Luca Luiselli
    • 4
  • Andrea Catorci
    • 5
  • Marco A. Bologna
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Biologia AmbientaleUniversità Roma TreRomaItaly
  2. 2.Centro Nazionale per lo Studio e la Conservazione della Biodiversità Forestale “Bosco Fontana”Marmirolo, MNItaly
  3. 3.Centre for Plant Sciences, Faculty of Biological SciencesUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK
  4. 4.Eni s.p.a. Environmental Department - Centre of Environmental StudiesRomaItaly
  5. 5.Dipartimento di Scienze AmbientaliCamerino, MCItaly

Personalised recommendations