Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 17, Issue 7, pp 647–656 | Cite as

The influences of patch shape and boundary contrast on insect response to fragmentation in California grasslands

  • Sharon K. Collinge
  • Todd M. Palmer
Article

Abstract

Landscape ecologists typically identify boundaries to demarcate habitatpatches. The boundary between two habitat types may be abrupt, such as thetransition between a grassland and a parking lot, or more gradual, such as theshift between successional forest stages. Two key aspects of landscapeboundaries, their shape and contrast, are predicted to influence movement ofmaterials, plants, and animals. Ecological theory suggests that a patch’sperimeter-to-area ratio should strongly influence animal emigration when patchboundaries are relatively permeable, but not when boundaries are more severe.Weinvestigated the interactive effects of patch shape and boundary contrast onmovement of ground-dwelling beetles (Carabidae and Tenebrionidae) in nativegrassland habitat at Jepson Prairie, Solano County, California, USA. Weconducted a field experiment with two patch shape treatments, square andrectangle, that held patch area constant, and two boundary contrast treatmentscreated by mowing grass surrounding each plot at two different heights. Wemonitored the number of beetles leaving each patch over a three-week periodfollowing treatment establishment. We observed a significant effect of boundarycontrast on net movement of beetles, with low contrast boundaries exhibitingnetimmigration and high contrast boundaries experiencing net emigration. Moreover,the importance of patch shape appeared to be greater for low contrast versushigh contrast boundaries, consistent with theoretical expectations. Ourcombinedobservations indicate that these ground-dwelling beetles were more likely tomove into patches that were rectangular and surrounded by a low contrast matrixthan patches that were square or surrounded by a high contrast matrix. Weconclude that net movement of beetles across patch boundaries is stronglyinfluenced by boundary contrast and may be affected by patch shape whenboundarycontrast is low.

Beetles Boundaries Connectivity Edge effects Fragmentation Grasslands Landscape structure Patch shape Permeability 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Burel F. 1989. Landscape structure effects on carabid beetles spatial patterns in western France. Landscape Ecology 2: 214–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Collinge S.K. 1996. Ecological consequences of habitat fragmentation: implications for landscape architecture and planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 36: 59–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Collinge S.K. 1998. Spatial arrangement of patches and corridors: clues from ecological field experiments. Landscape and Urban Planning 42: 157–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Collinge S.K. 2000. Effects of grassland fragmentation on insect species loss, recolonization, and movement patterns. Ecology 81: 2211–2226.Google Scholar
  5. Collinge S.K. 2001. Special Issue: Spatial Ecology and Biological Conservation. Biological Conservation 100: 1–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Collinge S.K. and Forman R.T.T. 1998. A conceptual model of land conversion processes: predictions and evidence from a field experiment with grassland insects. Oikos 82: 66–84.Google Scholar
  7. Crist T.O. and Wiens J.A. 1995. Individual movements and estimation of population size in darkling beetles (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). Journal of Animal Ecology 64: 733–746.Google Scholar
  8. Duelli P., Studer M., Marchand I. and Jakob S. 1990. Population movements of arthropods between natural and cultivated areas. Biological Conservation 54: 193–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ferreras P. 2001. Landscape structure and asymmetrical inter-patch connectivity in a metapopulation of the endangered Iberian lynx. Biological Conservation 100: 125–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Forman R.T.T. 1995. Land mosaics: the ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  11. Game M. 1980. Best shape for nature reserves. Nature 287: 630–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grez A.A. and Prado E. 2000. Effect of plant patch shape and surrounding vegetation on the dynamics of predatory coccinellids and their prey Brevicoryne brassicae (Hemiptera: Aphididae). Environmental Entomology 29: 1244–1250.Google Scholar
  13. Gutzwiller K.J. and Anderson S.H. 1992. Interception of moving organisms: influences of patch shape, size, and orientation on community structure. Landscape Ecology 6: 293–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haddad N.M. 1999. Corridor use predicted from behavior at habitat boundaries. The American Naturalist 153: 215–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Halffter G., Favila M.E. and Halffter V. 1992. A comparative study of the structure of the scarab guild in Mexican tropical rain forests and derived ecosystems. Folia Entomológica Mexicana 84: 131–156.Google Scholar
  16. Hamazaki T. 1996. Effects of patch shape on the number of organisms. Landscape Ecology 11: 299–306.Google Scholar
  17. Hansen A.J. and di Castri F. (eds) 1992. Landscape boundaries: consequences for biotic diversity and ecological flows. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  18. Harper S.J., Bollinger E.K. and Barrett G.W. 1993. Effects of habitat patch shape on population dynamics of meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus). Journal of Mammalogy 74: 1045–1055.Google Scholar
  19. Harrison S. and Bruna E. 1999. Habitat fragmentation and largescale conservation: what do we know for sure? Ecography 22: 225–232.Google Scholar
  20. Hawrot R.Y. and Niemi G.J. 1996. Effects of edge type and patch shape on avian communities in a mixed conifer-hardwood forest. Auk 113: 586–598.Google Scholar
  21. Helzer C.J. and Jelinski D.E. 1999. The relative importance of patch area and perimeter-area ratio to grassland breeding birds. Ecological Applications 9: 1448–1458.Google Scholar
  22. Herkert J.R. 1994. The effects of habitat fragmentation on midwestern grassland bird communities. Ecological Applications 4: 461–471.Google Scholar
  23. Holmquist J.G. 1998. Permeability of patch boundaries to benthic invertebrates: influences of boundary contrast, light level, and faunal density and mobility. Oikos 81: 558–566.Google Scholar
  24. Ims R.A. 1995. Movement patterns related to spatial structures. In: Hansson L., Fahrig L. and Merriam G. (eds), Mosaic landscapes and ecological processes. Chapman and Hall, London, UK, pp. 85–109.Google Scholar
  25. Johnson A.R., Milne B.T. and Wiens J.A. 1992. Diffusion in fractal landscapes: simulations and experimental studies of tenebrionid beetle movements. Ecology 73: 1968–1983.Google Scholar
  26. Kareiva P. 1985. Finding and losing host plants by Phyllotreta: patch size and surrounding habitat. Ecology 66: 1809–1816.Google Scholar
  27. Keppel G. 1982. Design and analysis: a researcher’s handbook. 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersy, USA.Google Scholar
  28. Kunin W.E. 1997. Sample shape, spatial scale and species counts: implications for reserve design. Biological Conservation 82: 369–377.Google Scholar
  29. Laurance W.F., Didham R.K. and Power M.E. 2001. Ecological boundaries: a search for synthesis. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16: 70–71.Google Scholar
  30. Lima S.L. and Zollner P.A. 1996. Towards a behavioral ecology of ecological landscapes. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11: 131–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mazerolle M.J. and Villard M. 1999. Patch characteristics and landscape context as predictors of species presence and abundance: A review. Ecoscience 6: 117–124.Google Scholar
  32. McIntyre N.E. and Wiens J.A. 1999a. How does habitat patch size affect animal movement? An experiment with darkling beetles. Ecology 80: 2261–2270.Google Scholar
  33. McIntyre N.E. and Wiens J.A. 1999b. Interactions between landscape structure and animal behavior: the roles of heterogeneously distributed resources and food deprivation on movement patterns. Landscape Ecology 14: 437–447.Google Scholar
  34. Newman J.A., Bergelson J. and Grafen A. 1997. Blocking factors and hypothesis tests in ecology: is your statistics text wrong? Ecology 78: 1312–1320.Google Scholar
  35. Okubo A. 1980. Diffusion and ecological problems: mathematical models. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
  36. Pollak O. and Kan T. 1998. The use of prescribed fire to control invasive exotic weeds at Jepson Prairie Preserve. In: Witham C.W., Bauder E.T., Belk D., Ferren W.R. Jr. and Ornduff R. (eds), Ecology, conservation, and management of vernal pool ecosystems. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California, USA, pp. 241–249.Google Scholar
  37. SAS Institute 1990. SAS Version 6. SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, USA.Google Scholar
  38. SAS Institute 1997. JMP Version 3.2. SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, USA.Google Scholar
  39. Siegfried W.R., Benn G.A. and Gelderblom C.M. 1998. Regional assessment and conservation implications of landscape characteristics of African national parks. Biological Conservation 84: 131–140.Google Scholar
  40. Sokal R.R. and Rohlf F.J. 1995. Biometry. 3rd edn. W.H. Freeman and Company, New York, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  41. Stamps J.A., Buechner M. and Krishnan V. 1987. The effects of edge permeability and habitat geometry on emigration from patches of habitat. American Naturalist 129: 533–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Thiollay J.M. 1993. Response of a raptor community to shrinking area and degradation of tropical rain forest in the southwestern Ghats (India). Ecography 16: 97–110.Google Scholar
  43. Tischendorf L. 2001. Can landscape indices predict ecological processes consistently? Landscape Ecology 16: 235–254.Google Scholar
  44. Tischendorf L. and Fahrig L. 2000. How should we measure landscape connectivity? Landscape Ecology 15: 633–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Turchin P. 1998. Quantitative analysis of movement. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachussets, USA.Google Scholar
  46. Usher M.B. and Keiller S.W.J. 1998. The macrolepidoptera of farm woodlands: determinants of diversity and community structure. Biodiversity and Conservation 7: 725–748.Google Scholar
  47. Vermeulen R. 1994. The effects of different vegetation structures on the dispersal of carabid beetles from poor sandy heaths and grasslands. In: Desender K., Dufrene M., Loreau M., Luff M.L. and Maelfait J.-P. (eds), Carabid beetles: ecology and evolution. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, pp. 387–392.Google Scholar
  48. Virolainen K.M., Suomi T., Suhonen J. and Kuitunen M. 1998. Conservation of vascular plants in single large and several small mires: species richness, rarity and taxonomic diversity. Journal of Applied Ecology 35: 700–707.Google Scholar
  49. White R.E. 1983. A field guide to the beetles of North America. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.Google Scholar
  50. 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
  51. Wiens J.A., Schooley R.L. and Weeks R.D. 1997. Patchy landscapes and animal movements: Do beetles percolate? Oikos 78: 257–264.Google Scholar
  52. Wiens J.A., Stenseth N.C., Van Horne B. and Ims R.A. 1993. Ecological mechanisms and landscape ecology. Oikos 66: 369–380.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sharon K. Collinge
    • 1
  • Todd M. Palmer
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Environmental DesignUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  2. 2.Graduate Group in EcologyUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations