Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Ecological corridors also operate in an urban matrix: A test case with garden shrews

  • Published:
Urban Ecosystems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The fragmentation of landscapes, induced by the growing urbanisation, is a major cause of biodiversity loss. Ecological corridors are landscape elements that make up for the negative effects of habitat fragmentation in agricultural or natural landscapes. However, their effectiveness have been rarely assess in an urban context. To do so, we analysed shrews in woodlots, corridors and domestic gardens that are connected or disconnected from a corridor. Indeed, these mammals are very sensitive to fragmentation and could play an important ecological role even in small and isolated areas such as domestic gardens. Ninety-seven shrews, from three species were trapped. In our study, Sorex coronatus, Sorex minutus and Crocidura russula were not widely distributed and mainly occurred in woodlots, corridors and connected gardens. In gardens, shrew occurrences were mainly determined by landscape configuration with negative effects of the distance to the corridor and the distance to the woodlot, stronger for C.russula than Sorex species. At the local scale, garden management and vegetation showed a positive effect mainly for Sorex species. The quality of gardens seems good enough to permit the co-occurrence of several species of shrews and thus competition was not identified as a major process for determining the occurrence. We showed that, as in other ecosystems, ecological corridors in urban context can play an effective role for the distribution of organisms with low dispersal capabilities and should be develop in planning strategies.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahern J (2007) Green infrastructure for cities: the spatial dimension. In: Novotny V, Brown P (eds) Cities of the future: towards integrated sustainable water and landscape management. IWA Publishers, London, pp 267–283

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey S (2007) Increasing connectivity in fragmented landscapes: an investigation of evidence for biodiversity gain in woodlands. For Ecol Manage 238:7–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker PJ, Harris S (2007) Urban mammals: what does the future hold? An analysis of the factors affecting patterns of use of residential gardens in Great Britain. Mamm Rev 37:297–315

    Google Scholar 

  • Balloux F, Goudet J, Perrin N (1998) Breeding system and genetic variance in the monogamous, semi-social shrew, Crocidura russula. Evolution 52:1230–1235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnard CJ, Brown CAJ (1981) Prey size selection and competition in the common shrew (Sorex araneus L.). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 8:239–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanchoud H, Farrugia F, Mouchel JM (2004) Pesticide uses and transfers in urbanised catchments. Chemosphere 55:905–913. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2003.11.061

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bryant MM (2006) Urban landscape conservation and the role of ecological greenways at local and metropolitans cales. Landsc Urban Plan 76:23–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and inference—a practical information-theorical approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchfield S (1982) Food availability and the diet of the common shrew, Sorex araneus, in Britain. J Anim Ecol 51:15–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Churchfield S (1990) The natural history of shrews. Helm/A and C Black, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Clergeau P, Savard J-PL, Mennechez G, Falardeau G (1998) Bird abundance and diversity along an urban-rural gradient: a comparative study between two cities on different continents. Condor 100:413–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clergeau P, Croci S, Jokimaki J (2004) How useful are urban island ecosystems for defining invader patterns? Environ Conserv 31:181–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clergeau P, Croci S, Jokimäki J, Kaisanlahti-Jokimäki M-L, Dinetti M (2006) Avifauna homogenisation by urbanisation: analysis at different European latitudes. Biol Conserv 127:336–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clobert J (2001) Dispersal. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Coffin AW (2007) From roadkill to road ecology: a review of the ecological effects of roads. J Transp Geogr 15:396–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collinge SK (1996) Ecological consequences of habitat fragmentation: implications for landscape architecture and planning. Landsc Urban Plan 36:59–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • COMOP (2009) Trame verte et bleue: orientations nationales pour la préservation et la restauration des continuités écologiques. Choix stratégiques. Grenelle de l’Environnement, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Constantine NL, Campbell TA, Baughman WM, Harrington TB, Chapman BR, Miller KV (2005) Small mammal distributions relative to corridor edges within intensively managed southern pine plantations. South J Appl For 29:148–151

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawley MJ (2009) The R book. Wiley-Blackwell, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Croci S, Butet A, Georges A, Aguejdad R, Clergeau P (2008) Small urban woodlands as biodiversity conservation hot-spot: a multi-taxon approach. Landsc Ecol 23:1171–1186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies ZG, Fuller RA, Loram A, Irvine KN, Sims V, Gaston KJ (2009) A national scale inventory of resource provision for biodiversity within domestic gardens. Biol Conserv 142:761–771

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis AM, Glick TF (1978) Urban ecosystems and island biogeography. Environ Conserv 5:299–304. doi:10.1017/S037689290000638X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Redon L, Machon N, Kerbiriou C, Jiguet F (2010) Possible effects of roadside verges on vole outbreaks in an intensive agrarian landscape. Mamm Biol 75:92–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Dearborn DC, Kark S (2010) Motivations for conserving urban biodiversity. Conserv Biol 24:432–440

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dickman CR (1987) Habitat fragmentation and vertebrate species richness in an urban environment. J Appl Ecol 24:337–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickman CR (1988) Body size, prey size, and community structure in insectivorous mammals. Ecology 69:569–580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickman CR, Doncaster CP (1987) The ecology of small mammals in urban habitats. I. Populations in a patchy environment. J Anim Ecol 56:629–640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doody B, Sullivan J, Meurk C, Stewart G, Perkins H (2010) Urban realities: the contribution of residential gardens to the conservation of urban forest remnants. Biodivers Conserv 19:1385–1400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellenbroek FJM (1980) Interspecific competition in the shrews Sorex araneus and Sorex minutus (Soricidae, Insectivora): a population study of the Irish pygmy shrew. J Zool 192:119–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Environment Agency (2011) Landscape fragmentation in Europe. vol http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/landscape-fragmentation-in-europe

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felson AJ, Pickett STA (2005) Designed experiments: new approaches to studying urban ecosystems. Front Ecol Environ 3:549–556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2007) Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: a synthesis. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 16:265–280. doi:10.1111/j.1466-8238.2007.00287.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Forman RTT, Godron M (1981) Patches and structural components for a landscape ecology. Bioscience 31:733–740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert-Norton L, Wilson R, Stevens JR, Beard KH (2010) A meta-analytic review of corridor effectiveness. Conserv Biol 24:660–668

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gill SE, Handley JF, Ennos AR, Pauleit S, Theuray N, Lindley SJ (2008) Characterising the urban environment of UK cities and towns: a template for landscape planning. Landsc Urban Plan 87:210–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goddard MA, Dougill AJ, Benton TG (2010) Scaling up from gardens: biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends Ecol Evol 25:90–98. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.07.016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hanski I (1986) Population dynamics of shrews on small islands accord with the equilibrium model. Biol J Linn Soc 28:23–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanski I (1989) Habitat selection in a patchy environment: individual differences in common shrews. Anim Behav 38:414–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanski I (1998) Metapopulation dynamics. Nature 396:41–49

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Henein K, Merriam G (1990) The elements of connectivity where corridor quality is variable. Landsc Ecol 4

  • Hess GR, Fischer RA (2001) Communicating clearly about conservation corridors. Landsc Urban Plan 55:195–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horskins K, Mather PB, Wilson JC (2006) Corridors and connectivity: when use and function do not equate. Landsc Ecol 21:641–655

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson B, Peres-Neto P (2010) Quantifying and disentangling dispersal in metacommunities: how close have we come? How far is there to go? Landsc Ecol 25:495–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jongman RHG, Külvik M, Kristiansen I (2004) European ecological networks and greenways. Landsc Urban Plan 68:305–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loram A, Tratalos J, Warren P, Gaston K (2007) Urban domestic gardens (X): the extent & structure of the resource in five major cities. Landsc Ecol 22:601–615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massol F, Gravel D, Mouquet N, Cadotte MW, Fukami T, Leibold MA (2011) Linking community and ecosystem dynamics through spatial ecology. Ecol Lett 14:313–323

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mathieu R, Freeman C, Aryal J (2007) Mapping private gardens in urban areas using object-oriented techniques and very high-resolution satellite imagery. Landsc Urban Plan 81:179–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonnell MJ, Pickett STA, Groffman P, Bohlen P, Pouyat RV, Zipperer WC, Parmelee RW, Carreiro MM, Medley K (1997) Ecosystem processes along an urban-to-rural gradient. Urban Ecosyst 1:21–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGarigal K, Cushman SA (2002) Comparative evaluation of experimental approaches to the study of habitat fragmentation effects. Ecol Appl 12:335–345. doi:doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2002)012%5B0335:CEOEAT%5D2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKinney M (2008) Effects of urbanization on species richness: a review of plants and animals. Urban Ecosyst 11:161–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michel N, Burel F, Butet A (2006) How does landscape use influence small mammal diversity, abundance and biomass in hedgerow networks of farming landscapes? Acta Oecol 30:11–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michel N, Burel F, Legendre P, Butet A (2007) Role of habitat and landscape in structuring small mammal assemblages in hedgerow networks of contrasted farming landscapes in Brittany, France. Landsc Ecol 22:1241–1253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller JR, Hobbs RJ (2002) Conservation where people live and work; Conservación donde la Gente Vive y Trabaja da planeación eficaz de la conservación. Conserv Biol 16:330–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell-Jones AJ, Amori G, Bogdanowicz W, Krystufek B, Reijinders PJH, Spitzenberger F, Stubbe M, Thissen JBM, Vohralik V, Zima J (1999) The atlas of European mammals. T. & A.D. Poyser, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Mortelliti A, Boitani L (2009) Distribution and coexistence of shrews in patchy landscapes: a field test of multiple hypotheses. Acta Oecol 35:797–804

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mortelliti A, Amori G, Capizzi D, Rondinini C, Boitani L (2010) Experimental design and taxonomic scope of fragmentation studies on European mammals: current status and future priorities. Mamm Rev 40:125–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pauchard A, Aguayo M, Peña E, Urrutia R (2006) Multiple effects of urbanization on the biodiversity of developing countries: the case of a fast-growing metropolitan area (Concepcion, Chile). Biol Conserv 127:272–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce J, Venier L (2005) Small mammals as bioindicators of sustainable boreal forest management. For Ecol Manage 208:153–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pellissier V, Cohen M, Boulay A, Clergeau P (2012) Birds are also sensitive to landscape composition and configuration within the city centre. Landscape Urban Plann 104:181–188. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.10.011

    Google Scholar 

  • Peltonen A, Hanski I (1991) Patterns of island occupancy explained by colonization and extinction rates in shrews. Ecology 72:1698–1708

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML (2008) Linking ecological and built components of urban mosaics: an open cycle of ecological design. J Ecol 96:8–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter E, Forschner B, Blair R (2001) Woody vegetation and canopy fragmentation along a forest-to-urban gradient. Urban Ecosyst 5:131–151. doi:10.1023/a:1022391721622

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Development Core Team (2011) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rico A, Kindlmann P, Sedlacek F (2007) Barrier effects of roads on movements of small mammals. Folia Zool 56:1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Saunders DA, Hobbs RJ, Margules CR (1991) Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conserv Biol 5:18–32. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.1991.tb00384.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheu S (2002) The soil food web: structure and perspectives. Eur J Soil Biol 38:11–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shchipanov NA, Kuptsov AV, Demidova TB, Kalinin AA, Aleksandrov DY, Pavlova SV (2008) Nonresidence and dispersal of common shrews (Sorex araneus, Insectivora). Zool Zhurnal 87:331–343

    Google Scholar 

  • Shchipanov NA, Tumas’yan FA, Raspopova AA, Kouptsov AV (2011) Two types of using of space in the resident common shrews Sorex araneus L. Biol Bull 38:92–97. doi:10.1134/s1062359010061020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith R, Gaston K, Warren P, Thompson K (2006) Urban domestic gardens (VIII): environmental correlates of invertebrate abundance. Biodivers Conserv 15:2515–2545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Storfer A, Murphy MA, Spear SF, Holderegger R, Waits LP (2010) Landscape genetics: where are we now? Mol Ecol 19:3496–3514

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tigas LA, Van Vuren DH, Sauvajot RM (2002) Behavioral responses of bobcats and coyotes to habitat fragmentation and corridors in an urban environment. Biol Conserv 108:299–306

    Google Scholar 

  • Tikhonova G, Tikhonov I, Surov A, Bogomolov P (2009) Structure of small mammal communities in Moscow parks and public gardens. Russ J Ecol 40:213–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler G (2008) Differences in abundance, species richness, and body size of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) between beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) forests on Podzol and Cambisol. For Ecol Manage 256:2154–2159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vergnes A, Le Viol I, Clergeau P (2012) Green corridors in urban landscapes affect the arthropod communities of domestic gardens. Biol Conserv 145:171–178. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2011.11.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogel P (1999) Colonisation capacity of the greater white-toothed shrew Crocidura russula: an experimental study. Säugetierkunde Mitt 44:37–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Vuilleumier S, Fontanillas P (2007) Landscape structure affects dispersal in the greater white-toothed shrew: Inference between genetic and simulated ecological distances. Ecol Model 201:369–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang M, Grimm V (2007) Home range dynamics and population regulation: an individual-based model of the common shrew Sorex araneus. Ecol Model 205:397–409. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2007.03.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woods M, McDonald RA, Harris S (2003) Predation of wildlife by domestic cats Felis catus in Great Britain. Mamm Rev 33:174–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank (2009) The World Bank Urban & Local Governement Strategy. Concept & Issues Note. http://wwwwburbanstrategyorg/urbanstrategy/sites/wburbanstrategyorg/files/Urban%20Strategy%20Concept%20Note%20FINALpdf

  • Yalden DW, Morris PA, Harper J (1973) Studies on the comparative ecology of some french small mammals. Mammalia 37:257–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Ms Fiona Pujalte-Johnson for the language revision. We also thank François Chiron for his help in determination. The Study was supported by the French ministry of the environment and by the ANR “Trame Verte Urbaine”.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Département d’Ecologie, UMR CERSP, 55 rue Buffon, 75005, Paris, France

    Alan Vergnes, Christian Kerbiriou & Philippe Clergeau

Authors
  1. Alan Vergnes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christian Kerbiriou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Philippe Clergeau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alan Vergnes.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

Details of the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) computed on the local and landscape variables (DOCX 77.0 KB)

ESM 2

Table of correlations between environmental variables (DOC 67.0 KB)

ESM 3

List and details of all the Generalized Liner Models computed on the occurrence of all shrews and on each species separately (XLS 39.0 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vergnes, A., Kerbiriou, C. & Clergeau, P. Ecological corridors also operate in an urban matrix: A test case with garden shrews. Urban Ecosyst 16, 511–525 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-013-0289-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-013-0289-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation