Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Multi-scaled habitat considerations for conserving urban biodiversity: native reptiles and small mammals in Brisbane, Australia

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The rapid expansion of the world’s urban population is a major driver of contemporary landscape change and ecosystem modification. Urbanisation destroys, degrades and fragments native ecosystems, replacing them with a heterogeneous matrix of urban development, parks, roads, and isolated remnant fragments of varying size and quality. This presents a major challenge for biodiversity conservation within urban areas. To make spatially explicit decisions about urban biodiversity conservation actions, urban planners and managers need to be able to separate the relative influence of landscape composition and configuration from patch and local (site)-scale variables for a range of fauna species. We address this problem using a hierarchical landscape approach for native, terrestrial reptiles and small mammals living in a fragmented semi-urban landscape of Brisbane, Australia. Generalised linear modelling and hierarchical partitioning analysis were applied to quantify the relative influence of landscape composition and configuration, patch size and shape, and local habitat composition and structure on the species’ richness of mammal and reptile assemblages. Landscape structure (composition and configuration) and local-scale habitat structure variables were found to be most important for influencing reptile and mammal assemblages, although the relative importance of specific variables differed between reptile and mammal assemblages. These findings highlight the importance of considering landscape composition and configuration in addition to local habitat elements when planning and/or managing for the conservation of native, terrestrial fauna diversity in urban 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
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akaike H (1973) Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International symposium on information theory, Budapest, Hungary, 1973

  • Akaike H (1983) Information measures and model selection. Int Stat Inst 44:277–291

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrén H (1994) Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71:355–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson AC (1985) Plots, transformations and regression: an introduction to graphical methods of diagnostic regression analysis. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Baskin Y (1998) Winners and losers in a changing world. Bioscience 48:788–792

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bender DJ, Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2003) Using patch isolation metrics to predict animal movement in binary landscapes. Landscape Ecol 18:17–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bissonette JA (2002) Scaling roads and wildlife: the Cinderella principle. Zeitschrift-fuer-Jagdwissenschaft 48:208–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjørnstad ON (2008) The ncf package: spatial nonparametric covariance functions. Version 1.1-1. April 14, 2008

  • Bond AR, Jones DN (2008) Temporal trends in use of fauna-friendly underpasses and overpasses. Wildl Res 35:103–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brennan SP, Schnell GD (2005) Relationship between bird abundance and landscape characteristics: the influence of scale. Environ Monit Assess 105:209–228

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multi-model inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Burrow AL, Kazmaier RT, Hellgren EC, Ruthven DC III (2001) Microhabitat selection by Texas horned lizards in southern Texas. J Wildl Manag 65:645–652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catterall CP (2004) Birds, garden plants and suburban bushlots: where good intentions meet unexpected outcomes. In: Lunney D, Burgin S (eds) Urban wildlife: more than meets the eye. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, NSW, pp 21–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Chace JF, Walsh JJ (2006) Urban effects on native avifauna: a review. Landsc Urban Plan 74:46–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chevan A, Sutherland M (1991) Hierarchical partitioning. The American Statistician 45:90–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claridge AW, Barry SC (2000) Factors influencing the distribution of medium-sized ground-dwelling mammals in southeastern mainland Australia. Austral Ecol 25:676–688

    Google Scholar 

  • Coreau A, Martin JL (2007) Multi-scale study of bird species distribution and of their response to vegetation changes: a Mediterranean example. Landscape Ecol 22:747–764

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cushman SA, McGarigal K (2002) Hierarchical, multi-scale decomposition of species-environment relationships. Landscape Ecol 17:637–646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Debinski DM, Ray C, Saveraid EH (2001) Species diversity and the scale of the landscape mosaic: do scales of movement and patch size affect diversity? Biol Conserv 98:179–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ESRI Inc (1999–2005) ArcMAP: GIS and Mapping Software. USA. Available http://www.esri.com. Accessed Oct 2006

  • Fahrig L (2002) Effect of habitat fragmentation on the extinction threshold: a synthesis. Ecol Appl 12:346–353

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L, Pedlar JH, Pope SE, Taylor PD, Wegner JF (1995) Effect of road traffic on amphibian density. Biol Conserv 73:177–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ficetola GF, Sacchi R, Scali S, Gentilli A, De Bernardi F, Galeotti P (2007) Vertebrates respond differently to human disturbance: implications for the use of a focal species approach. Acta Oecol 31:109–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer J, Lindenmayer D, Cowling A (2003) Habitat models for the four-fingered skink (Carlia tetradactyla) at the microhabitat and landscape scale. Wildl Res 30:495–504

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forman RTT (1995) Land mosaics: the ecology of landscape and regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Forman RTT (1999) Horizontal processes, roads, suburbs, societal objectives and landscape ecology. In: Klopatek JM, Gardener RH (eds) Landscape ecological analysis: issues and applications. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 35–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Forman RTT, Alexander LE (1998) Roads and their major ecological effects. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 29:207–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox BJ (1982) Fire and mammalian secondary succession in an Australian coastal heath. Ecology 63:1332–1341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuhlendorf SD, Woodward AJW, Leslie DMJ, Shackford JS (2002) Multi-scale effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on lesser prairie-chicken populations of the US Southern Great Plains. Landscape Ecol 17:154–628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garden JG, McAlpine C, Peterson A, Jones D, Possingham H (2006) Review of the ecology of Australian urban fauna: a focus on spatially explicit processes. Austral Ecol 31:126–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garden JG, McAlpine CA, Possingham HP, Jones DN (2007a) Using multiple survey methods to detect terrestrial reptiles and mammals: what are the most successful and cost efficient combinations? Wildl Res 34:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garden JG, McAlpine CA, Possingham HP, Jones DN (2007b) Habitat structure is more important than vegetation composition for local-scale management of native terrestrial reptile and small mammal species living in urban remnants: a case study from Brisbane, Australia. Austral Ecol 32:669–685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goosem M, Weston Y, Bushnell S (2006) Effectiveness of rope bridge arboreal overpasses and faunal underpasses in providing connectivity for rainforest fauna. In: Irwin CL, Garrett P, McDermott KP (eds) Proceedings of the 2005 international conference on ecology and transportation, Raleigh, August–September 2005. Centre for Transportation and the Environment, North Caroline State University, Raleigh, NC, pp 304–316

  • Griffiths AD, Christian KA (1996) Diet and habitat use of frillneck lizards in a seasonal tropical environment. Oecologia 106:39–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanski I, Ovaskainen O (2002) Extinction debt and the extinction threshold. Conserv Biol 16:666–673

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs RJ (1999) Clark Kent or Superman: where is the phone booth for landscape ecology? In: Klopatek JM, Gardner RH (eds) Landscape ecological analysis: issues and applications. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 11–23

    Google Scholar 

  • How RA, Dell J (2000) Ground vertebrate fauna of Perth’s vegetation remnants: impact of 170 years of urbanization. Pac Conserv Biol 6:198–217

    Google Scholar 

  • Januchowski SR, McAlpine CA, Callaghan JG, Griffin CB, Bowen M, Mitchell D, Lunney D (2008) Identifying multiscale habitat factors influencing koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) occurrence and management in Ballarat, Victoria, Australia. Ecol Manage Restor 9:134–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotliar NB, Wiens JA (1990) Multiple scales of patchiness and patch structure: a hierarchical framework for the study of heterogeneity. Oikos 59:253–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lidicker WZJ, Peterson JA (1999) Responses of small mammals to habitat edges. In: Barrett GW, Peles JD (eds) Landscape ecology of small mammals. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 211–227

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin YB, Lin YP, Fang WT (2008) Mapping and assessing spatial multiscale variations of birds associated with urban environments in metropolitan Taipei, Taiwan. Environ Monit Assess

  • Lindenmayer DB, McIntyre S, Fischer J (2003) Birds in eucalypt and pine forests: landscape alteration and its implications for research models of faunal habitat use. Biol Conserv 110:45–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mac Nally R (2000) Regression and model building in conservation biology, biogeography and ecology: the distinction between—and reconciliation of—‘predictive’ and ‘explanatory’ models. Biodivers Conserv 9:655–671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maiorano L, Falcucci A, Boitani L (2006) Gap analysis of terrestrial vertebrates in Italy: priorities for conservation planning in a human dominated landscape. Biol Conserv 133:455–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marchesan D, Carthew SM (2004) Autoecology of the yellow-footed antechinus (Antechinus flavipes) in a fragmented landscape in southern Australia. Wildl Res 31:273–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mata C, Hervas I, Herranz J, Suárez F, Malo JE (2005) Complementary use by vertebrates of crossing structures along a fenced Spanish motorway. Biol Conserv 124:397–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAlpine CA, Bowen ME, Callaghan JG, Lunney D, Rhodes JR, Mitchell DL, Pullar DV, Possingham HP (2006a) Testing alternative models for the conservation of koalas in fragmented urban-rural landscapes. Austral Ecol 31:529–544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAlpine CA, Rhodes JR, Callaghan JG, Bowen M, Lunney D, Mitchell D, Pullar D, Possingham P (2006b) The importance of forest area and configuration relative to local habitat factors for conserving forest mammals: a case study of koalas in Queensland, Australia. Biol Conserv 132:153–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Neel MC, Ene E (2004) FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for categorical maps. Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • McKinney ML (2006) Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenisation. Biol Conserv 127:247–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menkhorst P, Knight F (2001) A field guide to the mammals of Australia. Oxford University Press, Melbourne

    Google Scholar 

  • Opdam P, Foppen R, Vos C (2002) Bridging the gap between ecology and spatial planning in ecology. Landscape Ecol 16:767–779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opdam P, Verboom J, Pouwels R (2003) Landscape cohesion: an index for the conservation potential of landscapes for biodiversity. Landscape Ecol 18:113–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Development Core Team (2008) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available http://www.R-project.org. Accessed Feb 2006

  • Ramp D, Wilson VK, Croft DB (2006) Assessing the impacts of roads in peri-urban reserves: road-based fatalities and road usage by wildlife in the Royal National Park, New South Wales, Australia. Biol Conserv 129:348–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes JR, Wiegand T, McAlpine CA, Callaghan J, Lunney D, Bowen M, Possingham HP (2006) Modelling species’ distributions for improving conservation in semiurban landscapes: Koala case study. Conserv Biol 20:449–459

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes JR, Callaghan J, McAlpine CA, De Jong C, Bowen ME, Mitchell DL, Lunney D, Possingham HP (2008) Regional variation in habitat-occupancy thresholds: a warning for conservation planning. J Appl Ecol 45:549–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riffell SK, Keas BE, Burton TM (2003) Birds in North American Great Lakes coastal wet meadows: is landscape context important? Landscape Ecol 18:95–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savard JPL, Clergeau P, Mennechez G (2000) Biodiversity concepts and urban ecosystems. Landsc Urban Plan 48:131–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spencer RJ, Cavanough VC, Baxter GS, Kennedy M (2005) Adult free zones in small mammal populations: response of Australian native rodents to reduced cover. Austral Ecol 30:868–876

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilman D, May RM, Lehman CL, Nowak MA (1994) Habitat destruction and the extinction debt. Nature 371:65–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villard MA (2002) Habitat fragmentation: major conservation issue of intellectual attractor? Ecol Appl 12:319–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh C, Mac Nally R (2005) hier.part: Hierarchical partitioning. R package version 1.0.1

  • Wiens JA (1994) Habitat fragmentation: island v landscape perspectives on bird conservation. Ibis 137:97–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilcove DS, Rothstein D, Dubow J, Phillips A, Losos E (1998) Quantifying threats to imperilled species in the United States. Bioscience 48:607–615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu J, Hobbs R (2002) Key issues and research priorities in landscape ecology: an idiosyncratic synthesis. Landscape Ecol 17:355–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young PAR, Dillewaard HA (1999) Southeast Queensland. In: Sattler PS, Williams RD (eds) The conservation status of Queensland’s bioregional ecosystems. Environmental Protection Agency, Brisbane, pp 12/1–12/48

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study formed part of a collaborative research project between The University of Queensland and Brisbane City Council (BCC), and was funded by a UQ postgraduate research scholarship, and financial and in-kind support provided by BCC. We gratefully acknowledge Sean Hough for conducting FRAGSTATS analysis. Thanks also to Leonie Seabrook for providing comments on the draft manuscript, and to Chris Fyfe for assistance with revised analyses.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Jenni G. Garden

    Present address: Environmental Futures Centre, Griffith University, 170 Kessels Rd, Nathan, Brisbane, QLD, 4111, Australia

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia

    Jenni G. Garden & Clive A. McAlpine

  2. The Ecology Centre, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia

    Hugh P. Possingham

Authors
  1. Jenni G. Garden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Clive A. McAlpine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hugh P. Possingham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jenni G. Garden.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Garden, J.G., McAlpine, C.A. & Possingham, H.P. Multi-scaled habitat considerations for conserving urban biodiversity: native reptiles and small mammals in Brisbane, Australia. Landscape Ecol 25, 1013–1028 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-010-9476-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-010-9476-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation