Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Does the type of matrix matter? A quantitative review of the evidence

  • Review Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It has been increasingly recognized that the type of matrix surrounding habitat patches can affect biodiversity in landscapes, but there were only qualitative reviews of the subject focused on particular taxonomic groups. We present a quantitative review of studies from 1985 to 2008 that compared effects of different matrix types on individuals, populations and communities. We compiled 104 studies, most on animals, covering a broad range of landscape types and spatial scales. Most studies were empirical, focused on individuals and communities, and evaluated abundance/richness in the patch as the dependent variable. The type of matrix surrounding habitat patches influenced the studied parameters in 95% of the studies, but such effects were overall smaller compared to patch size or isolation effects. Matrix type effects were strongly species-specific, with different species responding differently to matrix type in 96% of studies comparing species or group of species. In 88% of studies, matrix types more similar in structure to the patch had higher quality for the studied organisms from the point of view of functional connectivity. Overall, the type of matrix is important, but patch size and isolation are the main determinants of ecological parameters in landscapes. Matrix quality generally increases with increasing structural similarity with habitat patches, a pattern that could be used as a general guideline for management of the matrix in fragmented landscapes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aberg J, Jansson G, Swenson JE, Angelstam P (1995) The effect of matrix on the occurrence of hazel groU (Bonasa bonasia) in isolated habitat fragments. Oecologia 103:265–269

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson J, Rowcliffle JM, Cowlishaw G (2007) Does the matrix matter? A forest primate in a complex agricultural landscape. Biol Conserv 135:212–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrén H, Delin A, Seiler A (1997) Population response to landscape changes depends on specialization to different landscape elements. Oikos 80:193–196

    Google Scholar 

  • Antogiovanni M, Metzger JP (2005) Influence of matrix habitats on the occurrence of insectivorous bird species in Amazonian forest fragments. Biol Conserv 122:441–451

    Google Scholar 

  • Bach CE (1988) Effects of host plant patch size on herbivore density: underlying mechanisms. Ecology 69:1103–1117

    Google Scholar 

  • Baum K, Haynes KJ, Dillemuth FP, Cronin J (2004) The matrix enhances the effectiveness of corridors and stepping stones. Ecology 85:2671–2676

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayne EM, Hobson KA (1997) Comparing the effects of landscape fragmentation by forestry and agriculture on predation of artificial nests. Conserv Biol 11:1418–1429

    Google Scholar 

  • Beier P, Noss RF (1998) Do habitat corridors provide connectivity? Conserv Biol 12:1241–1252

    Google Scholar 

  • Bender DJ, Fahrig L (2005) Matrix structure obscures the relationship between interpatch movement and patch size and isolation. Ecology 86(4):1023–1033

    Google Scholar 

  • Bender DJ, Contreras TA, Fahrig L (1998) Habitat loss and population decline: a meta-analysis of the patch size effect. Ecology 79:517–533

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry O, Tocher MD, Gleeson DM, Sarre SD (2005) Effect of vegetation matrix on animal dispersal: genetic evidence from a study of endangered skinks. Conserv Biol 19:855–864

    Google Scholar 

  • Brotons L, Mönkkönen M, Martin JL (2003) Are fragments islands? Landscape context and density-area relationships in Boreal Forest birds. Am Nat 162:343–357

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Castellon TD, Sieving KE (2006) An experimental test of matrix permeability and corridor use by an endemic understory bird. Conserv Biol 20:135–145

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chardon JP, Adriansen F, Matthysen E (2003) Incorporating landscape elements into a connectivity measure: a case study for the Speckled wood butterfly (Pararge aegeria L.). Landsc Ecol 18:561–573

    Google Scholar 

  • Collinge SH, Palmer TM (2002) The influences of patch shape and boundary contrast on insect response to fragmentation in California grasslands. Landsc Ecol 17:647–656

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook WM, Lane KT, Foster BL, Holt RD (2002) Island theory, matrix effects and species richness patterns in habitat fragments. Ecol Lett 5:619–623

    Google Scholar 

  • Cozzi G, Müller CB, Krauss J (2008) How do local habitat management and landscape structure at different spatial scales affect fritillary butterfly distribution on fragmented wetlands? Landsc Ecol 23:269–283

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronin JT (2003) Matrix heterogeneity and host-parasitoid interactions in space. Ecology 84:1506–1516

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronin JT (2004) Host-parasitoid extinction and colonization in a fragmented prairie landscape. Oecologia 139:503–514

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin JT (2007) From population sources to sieves: the matrix alters host-parasitoid source-sink structure. Ecology 88:2966–2976

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Davis JD, Debinski DM, Danielson BJ (2007) Local and landscape effects on the butterfly community in fragmented Midwest USA prairie habitats. Landsc Ecol 22:1341–1354

    Google Scholar 

  • Denoël M, Lehmann A (2006) Multi-scale effect of landscape processes and habitat quality on newt abundance: implications for conservation. Biol Conserv 130:495–504

    Google Scholar 

  • Diekötter T, Haynes KJ, Mazeffa D, Crist TO (2007) Direct and indirect effects of habitat area and matrix composition on species interactions among flower-visiting insects. Oikos 116:1588–1598

    Google Scholar 

  • Drakare S, Lennon JL, Hillebrand H (2006) The imprint of the geographical, evolutionary and ecological context on species–area relationships. Ecol Lett 9:215–227

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dunford W, Freemark K (2004) Matrix matters: effects of surrounding land us on forest birds near Ottawa, Canada. Landsc Ecol 20:497–511

    Google Scholar 

  • Fagan WF, Calabrese JM (2006) Quantifying connectivity: balancing metric performance with data requirements. In: Crooks KR, Sanjayan M (eds) Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 297–317

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferreras P (2001) Landscape structure and asymmetrical inter-patch connectivity in a metapopulation of the endangered Iberian lynx. Biol Conserv 100:125–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer J, Fazey I, Briese R, Lindenmayer DB (2005) Making the matrix matter: challenges in Australian grazing landscapes. Biodivers Conserv 14:561–578

    Google Scholar 

  • FitzGibbon SI, Putland DA, Goldizen AW (2007) The importance of functional connectivity in the conservation of a ground-dwelling mammal in an urban Australian landscape. Landsc Ecol 22:1513–1525

    Google Scholar 

  • Gascon C, Lovejoy TE, Bierregaard Jr. RO, Malcolm JR, Stouffer PC, Vasconcelos HL, Laurance WF, Zimmerman B, Tocher M, Borges S (1999) Matrix habitat and species richness in tropical forest remnants. Biol Conserv 91:223–229

  • Goheen JR, Swihart RK, Gehring TM, Miller MS (2003) Forces structuring tree squirrel communities in landscapes fragmented by agriculture: species differences in perceptions of forest connectivity and carrying capacity. Oikos 102:95–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin BJ (2003) Is landscape connectivity a dependent or independent variable? Landscape Ecol 18:687–699

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin BJ, Fahrig L (2002) How does landscape structure influence landscape connectivity? Oikos 99:552–570

    Google Scholar 

  • Grundel R, Pavlovic NB (2007) Resource availability, matrix quality, microclimate, and spatial pattern as predictors of patch U by the Karner blue butterfly. Biol Conserv 135:135–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Guadagnin DL, Maltchik L (2007) Habitat and landscape factors associated with neotropical waterbird occurrence and richness in wetland fragments. Biodivers Conserv 16:1231–1244

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson EJ, Gardner RH (1996) The effect of landscape heterogeneity on the probability of patch colonization. Ecology 77:94–107

    Google Scholar 

  • Haila Y (2002) A conceptual genealogy of fragmentation research: from island biogeography to landscape ecology. Ecol Appl 12:321–333

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamer TL, Flather CH, Noon BR (2006) Factors associated with grassland bird species richness: the relative roles of grassland area, landscape structure, and prey. Landsc Ecol 21:569–583

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey CA, Medina A, Sánchez DM, Vílchez S, Hernández B, Saenz JC, Maes JM, Casanoves F, Sinclair FL (2006) Patterns of animal diversity in different forms of tree cover in agricultural landscapes. Ecol Appl 16:1986–1999

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Haynes KJ, Cronin JT (2003) Matrix composition affects the spatial ecology of a prairie planthopper. Ecology 84:2856–2866

    Google Scholar 

  • Haynes KJ, Cronin JT (2004) Confounding of patch quality and matrix effects in herbivore movement studies. Landsc Ecol 19:119–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Haynes KJ, Cronin JT (2006) Interpatch movement and edge effects: the role of behavioral responses to the landscape matrix. Oikos 113:43–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Haynes KJ, Dillemuth FP, Anderson BJ, Hakes AS, Jackson HB, Jackson SE, Cronin JT (2007a) Landscape context outweighs local habitat quality in its effects on herbivore dispersal and distribution. Oecologia 151:431–441

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Haynes KJ, Diekötter T, Crist TO (2007b) Resource complementation and the response of an insect herbivore to habitat area and fragmentation. Oecologia 153:511–520

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hedges LV, Olkin I (1985) Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Academic Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hein S, Gombert J, Hovestadt T, Poethke H (2003) Movement patterns of the bush cricket Platycleis albopunctata in different types of habitat: matrix is not always matrix. Ecol Entomol 28:432–438

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinsley SA, Bellamy PE, Newton I, Sparks TH (1995) Habitat and landscape factors influencing the presence of individual breeding bird species in woodland fragments. J Avian Biol 26:94–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson P, French K, Major RE (2007) Avian movement across abrupt ecological edges: differential responses to housing density in an urban matrix. Landsc Urban Plan 79:266–272

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmquist JG (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 

  • Hunter MK (2002) Landscape structure, habitat fragmentation and the ecology of insects. Agric For Entomol 4:159–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Joly P, Miaud C, Lehmann A, Grolet O (2001) Habitat matrix effects on pond occupancy in newts. Conserv Biol 15:239–248

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonsen ID, Bourchier RS, Roland J (2001) The influence of matrix habitat on Aphthona flea beetle immigration to leafy spurge patches. Oecologia 127:287–294

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonsen ID, Bourchier RS, Roland J (2007) Effect of matrix habitat on the spread of flea beetle introductions for biological control of leafy spurge. Landsc Ecol 22:883–896

    Google Scholar 

  • Jules ES, Shahani P (2003) A broader ecological context to habitat fragmentation: why matrix habitat is more important than we thought. J Veg Sci 14:459–464

    Google Scholar 

  • Kareiva P (1985) Finding and losing host plants by Phyllotreta: patch size and surrounding habitat. Ecology 66:1809–1816

    Google Scholar 

  • Keyser AJ (2002) Nest predation in fragmented forests: landscape matrix by distance from edge interactions. Wilson Bull 114:186–191

    Google Scholar 

  • Kindvall O (1999) Dispersal in a metapopulation of the Bush Cricket, Metrioptera bicolor (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae). J Anim Ecol 68:172–185

    Google Scholar 

  • Krauss J, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2003) How does landscape context contribute to effects of habitat fragmentation on diversity and population density of butterflies? J Biogeogr 30:889–900

    Google Scholar 

  • Kupfer JA, Malanson GP, Franklin SB (2006) Not seeing the ocean for the islands: the mediating influence of matrix-based processes on forest fragmentation effects. Global Ecol Biogeogr 15:8–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuussaari M, Nieminen M, Hanski I (1996) An experimental study of migration in the Glanville Fritillary Butterfly Melitaea cinxia. J Anim Ecol 65:791–801

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurance WF (1991) Ecological correlates of extinction proneness in Australian tropical rainforest mammals. Conserv Biol 5:79–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurance WF (2008) Theory meets reality: how habitat fragmentation research has transcended island biogeographic theory. Biol Conserv 141:1731–1744

    Google Scholar 

  • Lomolino MV, Smith GA (2003) Prairie dog towns as islands: applications of island biogeography and landscape ecology for conserving nonvolant terrestrial vertebrates. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 12:275–286

    Google Scholar 

  • López-Barrera F, Manson RH, González-Espinosa M, Newton AC (2007) Effects of varying forest edge permeability on seed dispersal in a neotropical montane forest. Landsc Ecol 22:189–203

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovett-Doust J, Kuntz K (2001) Land ownership and other landscape-level effects on biodiversity in southern Ontario’s Niagara Escarpment Biosphere Reserve, Canada. Landsc Ecol 16:743–755

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovett-Doust J, Biernacki M, Page R, Chan M, Natgunarajah R, Timis G (2003) Effects of land ownership and landscape-level factors on rare-species richness in natural areas of southern Ontario, Canada. Landsc Ecol 18:621–633

    Google Scholar 

  • Manning AD, Lindenmayer DB, Nix HA (2004) Continua and Umwelt: novel perspectives on viewing landscapes. Oikos 104:621–628

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazerolle MJ, Desrochers A (2005) Landscape resistance to frog movements. Can J Zool 83:455–464

    Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre S, Hobbs RJ (1999) A framework for conceptualizing human effects on landscapes and its relevance to management and research models. Conserv Biol 13:1282–1292

    Google Scholar 

  • Mesquita RCG, Delamônica P, Laurance WF (1999) Effect of surrounding vegetation on edge-related tree mortality in Amazonian forest fragments. Biol Conserv 91:129–134

    Google Scholar 

  • Metzger JP (2000) Tree functional group rochness and landscape structure in a Brazilian tropical fragmented landscape. Ecol Appl 10:1147–1161

    Google Scholar 

  • Moilanen A, Hanski I (1998) Metapopulation dynamics: effects of habitat quality and landscape structure. Ecology 79:2503–2515

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy HT, Lovett-Doust J (2004) Context and connectivity in plant metapopulations and landscape mosaics: does the matrix matter? Oikos 105:3–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Nascimento HEM, Aandrade ACS, Camargo JLC, Laurance WF, Laurance SG, Ribeiro JEL (2006) Effects of the surrounding matrix on tree recruitment in Amazonian forest fragments. Conserv Biol 20(3):853–860

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nunes MFC, Galetti M (2007) U of forest fragments by blue-winged macaws (Primolius maracana) within a fragmented landscape. Biodivers Conserv 16:953–967

    Google Scholar 

  • Pardini R (2004) Effects of forest fragmentation on small mammals in an Atlantic Forest landscape. Biodivers Conserv 13:2567–2586

    Google Scholar 

  • Perfecto I, Vandermeer J (2002) Quality of agroecological matrix in a tropical montane landscape: ants in coffee plantations in southern Mexico. Conserv Biol 16:174–182

    Google Scholar 

  • Pita R, Beja P, Mira A (2007) Spatial population structure of the Cabrera vole in Mediterranean farmland: the relative role of patch and matrix effects. Biol Conserv 134:383–392

    Google Scholar 

  • Pither J, Taylor PD (1998) An experimental assessment of landscape connectivity. Oikos 83:166–174

    Google Scholar 

  • Radford JQ, Bennett AF (2007) The relative importance of landscape properties for woodland birds in agricultural environments. J Appl Ecol 44:737–747

    Google Scholar 

  • Ranganathan J, Chanb KMA, Karanthc KU, Smith JLD (2008) Where can tigers persist in the future? A landscape-scale, density-based population model for the Indian subcontinent. Biol Conserv 141:67–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Ray N, Lehmann A, Joly P (2002) Modeling spatial distribution of amphibian populations: a GIS approach based on habitat matrix permeability. Biodivers Conserv 11:2143–2165

    Google Scholar 

  • Renjifo LM (2001) Effect of natural and anthropogenic landscape matrices on the abundance of subandean bird species. Ecol Appl 11:14–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Revilla E, Wiegand T (2008) Individual movement behavior, matrix heterogeneity, and the dynamics of spatially structured populations. PNAS 105(49):19120–19125

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Revilla E, Wiegand T, Palomares F, Ferreras P, Delibes M (2004) Effects of matrix heterogeneity on animal dispersal: from individual behavior to metapopulation-level parameters. Am Nat 164:130–153

    Google Scholar 

  • Richter-Boix A, Llorente GA, Montori A (2007) Structure and dynamics of an amphibian metacommunity in two regions. J Anim Ecol 76:607–618

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ricketts TH (2001) The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. Am Nat 158:87–99

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ries L, Debinski DM (2001) Butterfly responses to habitat edges in the highly fragmented prairies of Central Iowa. J Anim Ecol 70:840–852

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittenhouse TAG, Semlitsch RD (2006) Grasslands as movement barriers for a forest-associated salamander: migration behavior of adult and juvenile salamanders at a distinct habitat edge. Biol Conserv 131:14–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodewald AD (2002) Nest predation in forested regions: landscape and edge effects. J Wildl Manag 66:634–640

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodewald AD (2003) The importance of land uses within the landscape matrix. Wildl Soc Bull 31:586–592

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodewald AD, Yahner RH (2001a) Avian nesting success in forested landscapes: influence of landscape composition, stand and nest-patch microhabitat, and biotic interactions. Auk 118:1018–1028

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodewald AD, Yahner RH (2001b) Influence of landscape composition on avian community structure and associated mechanisms. Ecology 82:3493–3504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg DK, Noon BR, Meslow EC (1997) Biological corridors: form, function, and efficacy. Bioscience 47:677–687

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothermel BB, Semlitsch RD (2002) An experimental investigation of landscape resistance of forest versus old-field habitats to emigrating juvenile amphibians. Conserv Biol 16:1324–1332

    Google Scholar 

  • Russel RE, Swihart RK, Craig BA (2007) The effects of matrix structure on movement decisions of meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus). J Mammal 88:573–579

    Google Scholar 

  • Schippers P, Verboom J, Knaapen JP, van Apeldoorn RC (1996) Dispersal and habitat connectivity in complex heterogeneous landscapes: an analysis with a GIS-based random walk model. Ecography 19:97–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt MH, Thies C, Nentwig W, Tscharntke T (2008) Contrasting responses of arable spiders to the landscape matrix at different spatial scales. J Biogeogr 35:157–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Schooley RL, Wiens JA (2004) Movements of cactus bugs: patch transfers, matrix resistance, and edge permeability. Landsc Ecol 19:801–810

    Google Scholar 

  • Schooley RL, Wiens JA (2005) Spatial ecology of cactus bugs: area constraints and patch connectivity. Ecology 86:1627–1639

    Google Scholar 

  • Schtickzelle N, Baguette M (2003) Behavioural responses to habitat patch boundaries restrict dispersal and generate emigration–patch area relationships in fragmented landscapes. J Anim Ecol 72:533–545

    Google Scholar 

  • Selonen V, Hanski IK (2004) Young flying squirrels (Pteromys volans) dispersing in fragmented forests. Behav Ecol 15:564–571

    Google Scholar 

  • Sieving KE, Willson M, de Santo TL (1996) Habitat barriers to movement of understory birds in fragmented south-temperate rainforest. Auk 113:944–949

    Google Scholar 

  • Sisk TD, Haddad NM, Ehrlich PR (1997) Bird assemblages in patchy woodlands: modeling the effects of edge and matrix habitats. Ecol Appl 7:1170–1180

    Google Scholar 

  • Stamps JA, Buechner M, Krishnan VV (1987) The effects of edge permeability and habitat geometry on emigration from patches of habitat. Am Nat 129:533–552

    Google Scholar 

  • Stasek DJ, Bean C, Crist TO (2008) Butterfly abundance and movements among prairie patches: the roles of habitat quality, edge, and forest matrix permeability. Environ Entomol 37(4):897–906

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Steffan-Dewenter I (2003) Importance of habitat area and landscape context for species richness of bees and wasps in fragmented orchard meadows. Conserv Biol 17:1036–1044

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens VM, Polus E, Wesselingh RA, Schtickzelle N, Baguette M (2004) Quantifying functional connectivity: experimental evidence for patch-specific resistance in the natterjack toad (Bufo calamita). Landsc Ecol 19:829–842

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens VM, Leboulengé E, Wesselingh RA, Baguette M (2006) Quantifying functional connectivity: experimental assessment of boundary permeability for the natterjack toad (Bufo calamita). Oecologia 150:161–171

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stouffer PC, Bierregaard RA Jr (1995a) Effects of forest fragmentation on understory hummingbirds in Amazonian Brazil. Conserv Biol 9:1085–1094

    Google Scholar 

  • Stouffer PC, Bierregaard RA Jr (1995b) U of Amazonian forest fragments by understory insectivorous birds. Ecology 76:2429–2445

    Google Scholar 

  • Stouffer PC, Bierregaard RO Jr, Strong C, Lovejoy TE (2006) Long-term landscape change and bird abundance in Amazonian rainforest fragments. Conserv Biol 20:1212–1223

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor PD, Fahrig L, With KA (2006) Landscape connectivity: a return to the basics. In: Crooks KR, Sanjayan M (eds) Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 29–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Tischendorf L, Bender DJ, Fahrig L (2003) Evaluation of patch isolation metrics in mosaic landscapes for specialist vs. generalist species. Landscape Ecol 18:41–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2000) On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos 90:7–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomasevic JA, Estades CF (2008) Effects of the structure of pine plantations on their ‘‘softness’’ as barriers for ground-dwelling forest birds in south-central Chile. For Ecol Manag 255:810–816

    Google Scholar 

  • Tubelis DP, Lindenmayer DB, Cowling A (2007) Bird populations in native forest patches in south-eastern Australia: the roles of patch width, matrix type (age) and matrix U. Landsc Ecol 22:1045–1058

    Google Scholar 

  • Tworek S (2004) Factors affecting temporal dynamics of avian assemblages in a heterogeneous landscape. Acta Ornithol 39:155–163

    Google Scholar 

  • Umetsu F, Pardini R (2006) Small mammals in a mosaic of forest remnants and anthropogenic habitats—evaluating matrix quality in an Atlantic forest landscape. Landsc Ecol 22:517–530

    Google Scholar 

  • Umetsu F, Metzger JP, Pardini R (2008) Importance of estimating matrix quality for modeling species distribution in complex tropical landscapes: a test with Atlantic forest small mammals. Ecography 31:359–370

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandermeer J, Carvajal R (2001) Metapopulation dynamics and the quality of the matrix. Am Nat 158:211–220

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vandermeer J, Lin BB (2008) The importance of matrix quality in fragmented landscapes: understanding ecosystem collapse through a combination of deterministic and stochastic forces. Ecol Complex 5:222–227

    Google Scholar 

  • Verbeylen G, Bruyn LD, Adriaensen F, Matthysen E (2003) Does matrix resistance influence Red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris L.1758) distribution in an urban landscape? Landsc Ecol 18:791–805

    Google Scholar 

  • Viveiros de Castro EB, Fernandez FAZ (2004) Determinants of differential extinction vulnerabilities of small mammals in Atlantic Forest fragments in Brazil. Biol Conserv 119:73–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Vos CC, Goedhart PW, Lammertsma DR, Spitzen-Van der Sluijs AM (2007) Matrix permeability of agricultural landscapes: an analysis of movements of the common frog (Rana temporaria). Herpetol J 17:174–182

    Google Scholar 

  • Walters S (2007) Modeling scale-dependent landscape pattern, dispersal, and connectivity from the perspective of the organism. Landsc Ecol 22:867–881

    Google Scholar 

  • Watling JI, Donnelly MA (2006) Fragments as islands: a synthesis of faunal responses to habitat patchiness. Conserv Biol 20:1016–1025

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Watson JEM, Whittaker RJ, Freudenberger D (2005) Bird community responses to habitat fragmentation: how consistent are they across landscapes? J Biogeogr 32:1353–1370

    Google Scholar 

  • Wethered R, Lawes MJ (2003) Matrix effects on bird assemblages in fragmented Afromontane forests in South Africa. Biol Conserv 114:327–340

    Google Scholar 

  • Wethered R, Lawes MJ (2005) Nestedness of bird assemblages in fragmented Afromontane forest: the effect of plantation forestry in the matrix. Biol Conserv 123:125–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiegand T, Revilla L, Moloney KA (2005) Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on population dynamics. Conserv Biol 19(1):108–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiens JA (2006) Introduction: connectvity research-what are the issues? In: Crooks KR, Sanjayan M (eds) Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 24–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams NSG, Morgan JW, McCarthy MA, McDonnell MJ (2006) Local extinction of grassland plants: the landscape matrix is more important than patch attributes. Ecology 97:3000–3006

    Google Scholar 

  • Zollner PA (2000) Comparing the landscape level perceptual abilities of forest sciurids in fragmented agricultural landscapes. Landsc Ecol 15:523–533

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Ana C. Delciellos, Diogo Loretto, Fernando A. S. Fernandez, Helena G. Bergallo, Marcos S. L. Figueiredo, Renata Pardini, Renato Crouzeilles, and two anonymous reviewers for valuable comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. This study was part of Jayme A. Prevedello M.Sc. thesis in the PPG-Ecologia (UFRJ), supported by a scholarship from CNPq, Ministry of Science and Technology, Brazil, and by grants from CNPq to Marcus V. Vieira (Edital Universal 2005 and Adicional de Bancada).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil

    Jayme Augusto Prevedello

  2. Laboratório de Vertebrados, Departamento de Ecologia, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, CP 68020, Ilha do Fundão, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 21941-590, Brazil

    Jayme Augusto Prevedello & Marcus Vinícius Vieira

Authors
  1. Jayme Augusto Prevedello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marcus Vinícius Vieira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jayme Augusto Prevedello.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Prevedello, J.A., Vieira, M.V. Does the type of matrix matter? A quantitative review of the evidence. Biodivers Conserv 19, 1205–1223 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-009-9750-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-009-9750-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation