Landscape Ecology

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 333–343 | Cite as

Responses of mammals to habitat edges: an overview

  • William Z. LidickerJr.

Abstract

Life generates discontinuites (boundaries) in the distribution of matter and energy. One class of these constitutes the edges between habitat-types; these are fundamental structures in landscape functioning, and hence are of central importance in conservation biology. The symposium on which this series of papers is based focused on the responses of mammals to habitat edges. A diversity of views are represented, and a variety of edge related behaviors illustrated. A survey of general ecology texts dating back to 1933 demonstrates a decline of interest in ecotones and edge effects extending into the 1980's but showing a resurgence of interest in the 1990's. Habitat edges are defined operationally with respect to particular focal species leading to a number of important corollary features. The variety of phenomena subsumed under ‘edge effects’ is emphasized, and an initial attempt at classification is proposed based primarily on the presence or absence of emergent properties in edge response behaviors (matrix vs. ecotonal effects). This scheme provides for clear null hypotheses needed to distinguish the two types, enlightens mechanistic explanations of edge effects, and encourages predictions about the results of untested management schemes or other novel situations. The use and design of landscape corridors are tied to edge related behaviors. A functional and general definition of corridors is urged, so that their effectiveness can be judged with respect to specified attributes rather than to a general collection of things that might be termed corridors. Linear habitat patches are specifically excluded from the definition. Studies on small mammals have contributed to our understanding of the potential role of corridors in metapopulation dynamics. Fine versus coarse grained perceptions of environment by different species will generate ecotonal edge effects such as spillover predation. In general, the effects on landscape processes of various species operating on different spatial scales seems a fruitful direction for future research.

boundary effects conservation corridor ecotone fragment landscape matrix metapopulation patch spillover predation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, G.S. and Danielson, B.J. 1997. The effects of landscape composition and physiognomy on metapopulation size: the role of corridors. Landscape Ecol. 12: 261–271.Google Scholar
  2. Andreassen, H.P., Halle, S., and Ims, R.A. 1996a. Optimal width of movement corridors for root voles: not too narrow and not too wide. Jour. Applied Ecol. 33: 63–70.Google Scholar
  3. Andreassen, H.P., Ims, R.A., and Steinset, O.K. 1996b. Discontinuous habitat corridors: effects on male root vole movements. Jour. Applied Ecol. 33: 555–560.Google Scholar
  4. Andreassen, H.P., Hertzberg, K., and Ims, R.A. 1998. Space use responses to habitat fragmentation and connectivity in the root vole Microtus oeconomus. Ecology 79: 1223–1235.Google Scholar
  5. Bascompte, J. and Vila, C. 1997. Fractals and search paths in mammals. Landscape Ecol. 12: 213–221.Google Scholar
  6. Berg, K.W. 1995. Space use responses of root voles (Microtus oeconomus) to a habitat fragmentation gradient. Cand. Sci. (MS) dissertation in Biology, Univ. of Oslo.Google Scholar
  7. Buechner, M. 1987. Conservation in insular parks: simulation models of factors affecting the movement of animals across park boundaries. Biol. Cons. 41: 57–76.Google Scholar
  8. Clements, F.E. 1897. Peculiar zonal formations of the Great Plains. Amer. Nat. 31: 968–970.Google Scholar
  9. Clements, F.E. 1904. The development and structure of vegetation. Studies in the vegetation of the State, III. Botanical Survey of Nebraska VII. Woodruff-Collins Printing Co., Lincoln, Nebraska.Google Scholar
  10. Daily, G.C. and Ehrlich, P.R. 1996. Nocturnality and species survival. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 93: 11709–11712.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Delattre, P., Giraudoux, P., Baudry, J. et al. 1992. Land use patterns and types of common vole (Microtus arvalis) population kinetics. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 39: 153–168.Google Scholar
  12. Delattre, P., Giraudoux, P., Baudry, J. et al. 1996. Effect of landscape structure on common vole (Microtus arvalis) distribution and abundance at several space scales. Landscape Ecol. 11: 279–288.Google Scholar
  13. Delattre, P., De Sousa, B., Fichet, E. et al. 1999. Vole outbreaks in a landscape context: evidence from a six year study of Microtus arvalis. Landscape Ecol. 14.Google Scholar
  14. Duelli, P., Studer, M., Marchand, I., and Jakob, J. 1990. Population movements of arthropods between natural and cultivated areas. Biol. Cons. 54: 193–207.Google Scholar
  15. Forman, R.T.T. and Godron, M. 1986. Landscape ecology. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  16. Gosz, J.R. 1993. Ecotone hierarchies. Ecol. Applications 3: 369–376.Google Scholar
  17. Giraudoux, P., Delattre, P., Hebert, M., et al. 1997. Population dynamics of fossorial water voles (Arvicola terrestris scherman): a land use and landscape perspective. Agric., Ecosystems, & Environ. 66: 47–60.Google Scholar
  18. Hansen, A.J. and di Castri, F. (eds.). 1992. Landscape boundaries, consequences for biotic diversity and ecological flows. Ecological Studies vol. 92, Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  19. Heske, E.J. 1995. Mammalian abundances on forest-farm edges versus forest interiors in southern Illinois: is there an edge effect? Jour. Mamm. 76: 562–568.Google Scholar
  20. Hobbs, R.J. 1992. The role of corridors in conservation: solution or bandwagon? Trends Ecol. Evol. 7: 389–392.Google Scholar
  21. La Polla, V.N. and Barrett, G.W. 1993. Effects of corridor width and presence on the population dynamics of the meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus). Landscape Ecol. 8: 25–37.Google Scholar
  22. Laurance, W.F. 1991. Ecological correlates of extinction proneness in Australian tropical rainforest mammals. Cons. Biol. 5: 79–89.Google Scholar
  23. Laurance, W.F. 1995. Extinction and survival of rainforest mammals in a fragmented tropical landscape. In Landscape approaches in mammalian ecology and conservation. pp. 46–63. Edited by W. Z. Lidicker, Jr. Univ. of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  24. Laurance, W.F. 1997. Hyper-disturbed parks: edge effects and the ecology of iolated rainforest reserves in tropical Australia. In Tropical forest remnants. pp. 71–83. Edited by W.F. Laurance and R.O. Bierregaard, Jr. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  25. Laurance, W.F. and Bierregaard, R.O., Jr. (eds.) 1997. Tropical forest remnants. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  26. Laurance, W.F., Bierregaard, R.O., Jr., Gascon, C. et al. 1997a. Tropical forest fragmentation: synthesis of a diverse and dynamic discipline. In Tropical forest remnants. pp. 502–514. Edited by W.F. Laurance and R.O. Bierregaard, Jr. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  27. Laurance, W.F., Laurance, S.G., Ferreira, L.V., et al. 1997b. Biomass collapse in Amazonian forest fragments. Science 278: 1117–1118.Google Scholar
  28. Leopold, A. 1933. Game management. Chas. Scribner's Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  29. Lidicker, W.Z., Jr. 1988. The synergistic effects of reductionist and holistic approaches in animal ecology. Oikos 53: 278–281.Google Scholar
  30. Lidicker, W.Z., Jr. 1995a. The landscape concept: something old, something new. In Landscape approaches in mammalian ecology and conservation. pp. 3–19. Edited by W.Z. Lidicker, Jr. Univ. of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  31. Lidicker, W.Z., Jr. (ed.). 1995b. Landscape approaches in mammalian ecology and conservation. Univ. of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  32. Lidicker, W.Z., Jr. and Koenig, W.D. 1996. Responses of terrestrial vertebrates to habitat edges and corridors. In Metapopulations and wildlife conservation. pp. 85–109. Edited by D.R. McCullough. Island Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  33. Lidicker, W.Z., Jr. and Peterson, J.A. 1999. Responses of small mammals to habitat edges. In Landscape ecology of small mammals. pp. 211–227. Edited by G.W. Barrett and J.D. Peles. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  34. Lidicker, W.Z., Jr. and Stenseth, N.C. 1992. To disperse or not to disperse: who does it and why? In Animal dispersal; small mammals as a model. pp. 21–36. Edited by N.C. Stenseth and W.Z. Lidicker, Jr. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
  35. Lidicker, W.Z., Jr., Wolff, J.O., Lidicker, L.N., and Smith, M.H. 1992. Utilization of a habitat mosaic by cotton rats during a population decline. Landscape Ecol. 6: 259–268.Google Scholar
  36. Liro, A. and Szacki, J. 1987. Movements of field mice Apodemus agrarius (Pallas) in a suburban mosaic of habitats. Oecologia 74: 438–440.Google Scholar
  37. Lorenz, G.C. and Barrett, G.W. 1990. Influence of simulated landscape corridors on house mouse (Mus musculus) dispersal. Amer. Midl. Nat. 12: 348–356.Google Scholar
  38. McCullough, D.R. (ed.) 1996. Metapopulations and wildlife conservation. Island Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  39. Merriam, G. 1991. Corridors and connectivity: animal populations in heterogeneous environments. In Nature conservation 2: the role of corridors. pp. 133–142. Edited by D.A. Saunders and R.J. Hobbs. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton, NSW.Google Scholar
  40. Merriam, G. and Lanoue, A. 1990. Corridor use by small mammals: field measurement for three experimental types of Peromyscus leucopus. Landscape Ecol. 4: 123–131.Google Scholar
  41. Mills, L.S. 1996. Fragmentation of a natural area: dynamics of isolation for small mammals on forest remnants. In National parks and protected areas: their role in environmental protection. pp. 199–218. Edited by R.G. Wright. Blackwell Sci. Pub., Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  42. Murcia, C. 1995. Edge effects in fragmented forests: implications for conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 10: 58–62.Google Scholar
  43. Oksanen, T., Oksanen, L., and Gyllenberg, M. 1992. Exploitation ecosystems in heterogeneous habitat complexes. II. Impact of small-scale heterogeneity on predator-prey dynamics. Evol. Ecol. 6: 383–398.Google Scholar
  44. Oksanen, T. and Schneider, M. 1995. Predator-prey dynamics as influenced by habitat heterogeneity. In Landscape approaches in mammalian ecology and conservation. pp. 122–150. Edited by W. Z. Lidicker, Jr. Univ. of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  45. Peterson, J.L. 1996. Gray-tailed vole population responses to inbreeding and environmental stress. PhD dissertation, Univ. of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  46. Risser, P.G. 1995. The status of the science examining ecotones. BioSci. 45: 318–325.Google Scholar
  47. Rosenberg, D.K., Noon, B.R., and Meslow, E.C. 1997. Biological corridors: form, function, and efficacy. BioScience 47: 677–687.Google Scholar
  48. Saunders, D.A. and Hobbs, R.J. (eds.). 1991. Nature conservation 2: the role of corridors. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton, NSW.Google Scholar
  49. Simberloff, D. and Cox, J. 1987. Consequences and costs of conservation corridors. Cons. Biol. 1: 63–71.Google Scholar
  50. Simberloff, D., Farr, J.A., Cox, J., and Mehlman, D.W. 1992. Movement corridors: conservation bargins or poor investments? Cons. Biol. 6: 493–504.Google Scholar
  51. Soulé, M.E. and Gilpin, M.E. 1991. The theory of wildlife corridor capability. In Nature conservation 2: the role of corridors. pp. 3–8. Edited by D.A. Saunders and R.J. Hobbs. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton, NSW.Google Scholar
  52. Stamps, J.A., Buechner, M., and Krishnan, V.V. 1987a. The effects of habitat geometry on territorial defense costs: intruder pressure in bounded habitats. Amer. Zool. 27: 307–325.Google Scholar
  53. Stamps, J.A., Buechner, M., and Krishnan, V.V. 1987b. The effects of edge permeability and habitat geometry on emigration from patches of habitat. Amer. Nat. 129: 533–552.Google Scholar
  54. Szacki, J. and Liro, A. 1991. Movements of small mammals in the heterogeneous landscape. Landscape Ecol. 5: 219–224.Google Scholar
  55. Turner, M.G. 1989. Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 20: 171–197.Google Scholar
  56. Wallace, J.B., Eggert, S.L., Meyer, J.L., and Webster, J.R. 1997. Multiple trophic levels of a forest stream linked to terrestrial litter inputs. Science 277: 102–104.Google Scholar
  57. Wegner, J. and Merriam, G. 1990. Use of spatial elements in a farmland mosaic by a woodland rodent. Biol. Cons. 54: 263–276.Google Scholar
  58. Wiens, J.A. 1996. Wildlife in patchy environments: metapopulations, mosaics, and management. In Metapopulations and wildlife conservation. pp. 53–84. Edited by D.R. McCullough. Island Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  59. Wiens, J.A., Crawford, C.S., and Gosz, J.R. 1985. Boundary dynamics: a conceptual framework for studying landscape ecosystems. Oikos 45: 421–427.Google Scholar
  60. Wolff, J.O. and Lidicker, W.Z., Jr. 1980. Population ecology of the taiga vole, Microtus xanthognathus, in interior Alaska. Canad. Jour. Zool. 58: 1800–1812.Google Scholar
  61. Wolff, J.O., Schauber, E.M., and Edge, W.D. 1996. Can dispersal barriers really be used to depict emigrating small mammals? Canad. Jour. Zool. 74: 1826–1830.Google Scholar
  62. Wolff, J.O., Schauber, E.M., and Edge, W.D. 1997. Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on the behavior and demography of gray-tailed voles. Cons. Biol. 11: 945–956.Google Scholar
  63. Yahner, R.H. 1983. Small mammals in farmstead shelterbelts: habitat correlates of seasonal abundance and community structure. Jour. Wildlife Mgmt. 47: 74–84.Google Scholar
  64. Yahner, R.H. 1988. Changes in wildlife communities near edges. Cons. Biol. 2: 333–339.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • William Z. LidickerJr.
    • 1
  1. 1.Museum of Vertebrate ZoologyUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations