Inter-habitat moviment for atlantic forest species and the dificulty to build ecoprofiles;Deslocamento na matriz para espécies da mata atlântica e a dificuldade da construção de perfis ecológicos

Oecologia Australis

Volumn 14, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 875-903

  Crouzeilles, Renato ^a   Lorini, Maria Lucia ^a   Grelle, Carlos Eduardo Viveiros ^a  

^a FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF RIO DE JANEIRO   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Functional connectivity; Gap crossing; Landscape Ecology; Perceptual range; Scientometrics

Indexed keywords

ANIMALIA; AVES; MAMMALIA;

EID: 78951476409     PISSN: None     EISSN: 21776199     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4257/oeco.2010.1404.06     Document Type: Article

References (108)

1. ADRIAENSEN, F.; CHARDON, J.P.; De BLUST, G.; SWINNEN, E.; VILLALBA, S.; GULINCK, H. & MATTHYSEN, E. 2003. The application of 'least-cost' modelling as a functional landscape model. Landscape and Urban Planning, 64: 233-247.
2. 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.
3. AWADE, M. & METZGER, J.P. 2008. Using gap-crossing capacity to evaluate functional connectivity of two Atlantic Rainforest birds and their response to fragmentation. Austral Ecology, 33: 863-871.
4. BANI, L.; BAIETTO, M.; BOTTONI, L. & MASSA, R. 2002. The use of focal species in designing a habitat network for a Lowland Area of Lombardy, Italy. Conservation Biology, 16: 826-831.
5. BARRET, G.W. & PELES, J.D. 1999. Landscape ecology of small mammals. Springer, New York, NY.
6. BÉLISLE, M. 2005. Measuring landscape connectivity: the challenge of behavioral Landscape Ecology. Ecology, 86: 1988-1995.
7. BIANCONI, G.V.; MIKICH, S.B. & PEDRO, W.A. 2006. Movements of bats (Mammalia, Chiroptera) in Atlantic Forest remnants in southern Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Zoologia, 23: 1199-1206.
8. BIANCONI, G.V.; MIKICH, S.B.; TEIXEIRA, S.D. & MAIA, B.H.L.N.S. 2007. Attraction of fruit-eating bats with essential oils of fruits: A potential tool for Forest Restoration. Biotropica, 39: 136-140.
9. BOSCOLO, D.; CANDIA-GALLARDO, C.; AWADE, M. & METZGER, J.P. 2008. Importance of interhabitat gaps and stepping-stones for Lesser Woodcreepers (Xiphorhynchus fuscus) in the Atlantic Forest, Brazil. Biotropica, 40: 273-276.
10. BOSCOLO, D.; METZGER, J.P. & VIELLIARD, J.M.E. 2006. Efficiency of playback for assessing the occurrence of five bird species in Brazilian Atlantic Forest fragments. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências, 78: 629-44.
11. BOWNE, D.R. & BOWERS, M.A. 2004. Interpach movements in spatially structured populations: a literature review. Landscape Ecology, 19: 1-20.
12. BRITO, D. 2009. Análise de viabilidade de populações: uma ferramenta para a conservação da biodiversidade no Brasil. Oecologia Brasiliensis, 13: 452-469.
13. BRITO, D. & FONSECA, G.A.B. 2006. Evaluation of minimum viable population size and conservation status of the long-furred woolly mouse opossum Micoureus paraguayanus: an endemic marsupial of the Atlantic Forest. Biodiversity and Conservation, 15: 1713-1728.
14. BRITO, D. & FONSECA, G.A.B. 2007. Demographic consequences of population subdivision on the long-furred woolly mouse opossum (Micoureus paraguayanus) from the Atlantic Forest. Acta Oecologica, 31: 60-68.
15. BRITO, D. & GRELLE, C.E.V. 2004. Effectiveness of a reserve network for the conservation of the endemic marsupial Micoureus travassosi in Atlantic Forest remnants in southeastern Brazil. Biodversity and Conservation, 13: 2519-2536.
16. CÁCERES, N.C. 2003. Use of the space by the opossum Didelphis aurita Wied-Newied (Mammalia, Marsupialia) in a mixed forest fragment of southern Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Zoologia, 20: 315-322.
17. CARO, T.M. & ÓDOHERTY, G. 1999. On the use of surrogate species in conservation biology. Conservation Biology, 13: 805-814.
18. COSTA, L.M.; PRATA, A.F.D.; MORAES, D.; CONDE, C.F.V.; JORDÃO-NOGUEIRA, T. & ESBÉRARD, C.E.L. 2006. Deslocamento de Artibeus fimbriatus sobre o mar. Chiropta Neotropica, 12: 289-290.
19. CROOKS, K.R. & SANJAYAN, M.A. 2006. Connectivity conservation: maintaining connections for nature. Pp. 1-19. In: K. Crooks & M.A. Sanjayan (eds.). Connectivity Conservation. Cambrige University Press, Cambridge, NY. 448 p.
20. DEVELEY, P.F. & MARTENSEN, A.C. 2006. As aves da reserva florestal do Morro Grande (Cotia, SP). Biota Neotropica, 6: 1-16.
21. EVANS, B.E.I.; ASHLEY, J. & MARSDEN, S.J. 2005. Abundance, habitat use, and movements of Blue-Winged Macaws (Primolius maracana) and other parrots in and around an Atlantic Forest Reserve. The Wilson Bulletin, 117: 154-164.
22. FALAGAS, M.E.; PITSOUNI, E.I.; MALIETZIS, G.A.; & PAPPAS, G. 2008. Comparison of pubmed, Scopus, Web of Sicence, and Google Scholar: strengths and weakness. The FASEB Journal, 22: 338-342.
23. FORERO-MEDINA; G. & VIEIRA; M.V. 2007. Conectividade funcional e a importância da interação organismo-paisagem. Oecologia Brasiliensis, 11: 493-502.
24. FORERO-MEDINA, G. & VIEIRA, M.V. 2009. Perception of a fragmented landscape by Neotropical marsupials: effects of body mass and environmental variables. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 25: 53-62.
25. FORMAN, R.T.T. & GODRON, M. 1986. Landscape ecology. Willey & Sons, New York, NY.
26. GASCON, C. & LOVEJOY, T.E. 1998. Ecological impacts of forest fragmentation in central Amazonia. Zoology: Analysis of Complex Systems, 101: 273-280.
27. FRANKHAM, R. 2006. Genetic and landscape connectivity. Pp. 72-96. In: K. Crooks & M.A. Sanjayan (eds.). Connectivity Conservation. Cambrige University Press, Cambridge, NY. 448p.
28. GAVEL, Y. & ISELID, L. 2008. Web of Sicence and Scopus: a journal title overlap study. Online Information Review, 32: 475-484.
29. GENTILE, R. & CERQUEIRA, R. 1995. Movement patterns of five species of small mammals in a Brazilian restinga. Journal of tropical Ecology, 11: 671-677.
30. GENTILE, R.; D'ANDREA, P.S. & CERQUEIRA, R. 1997. Home ranges of Philander frenata and Akodon cursor in a Brazilian Restinga (Coastal Shrubland). Mastozoologia Neotropical, 4: 105-112.
31. GILPIN, M.E. & SOULÉ, M.E. 1986. Minimum viable populations: processes of species extinction. Pp. 19-34. In: M.E. Soulé & J. Terborgh (eds.). Conservation Biology: The Science of Scarcity and Diversity. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.
32. GOODWIN, B.J. 2003. Is landscape connectivity a dependent or independent variable? Landcape Ecology, 18: 687-699.
33. GOODWIN, B.J. & FAHRIG, L. 2002. Effect of landscape structure on the movement behavior of a specialized goldenrod beetle, Trihabda borealis. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 80: 24-35.
34. GRELLE, C.E.V.; FONSECA, G.A.B.; FONSECA, M.T. & COSTA, L.P. 1999. The question of scale in threat analysis: A case study with Brazilian mammals. Animal Conservation, 2: 149-152.
35. GRELLE, C.E.V.; LORINI, M.L. & PINTO, M.P. 2010. Reserve Selection Based on Vegetation in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Natureza & Conservação, 8: 46-53.
36. GRELLE, C.E.V.; PINTO, M.P.; MONTEIRO, J. & FIGUEIREDO, M.S.L. 2009. Uma década de Biologia da Conservação no Brasil. Oecologia Brasiliensis, 13: 418-434.
37. HANSBAUER, M.M.; STORCH, I.; LEU, S.; NIETOHOLGUIN, J.P.; PIMENTEL, R.G.; KNAUER, F. & METZGER, J.P. 2008a. Movements of Neotropical understory passerines affected by anthropogenic forest edges in the Brazilian Atlantic Rainforest. Biological Conservation, 141: 782-791.
38. HANSBAUER, M.M.; STORCH, I.; PIMENTEL, R.G. & METZGER, J.P. 2008b. Comparative range use by three Atlantic Forest understorey bird species in relation to forest fragmentation. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 24: 291-299.
39. HANSKI, I. 1998. Metapopulation dynamics. Nature, 396: 41-49.
40. HANSKI, I. & SIMBERLOFF, D. 1997. The metapopulation approach, its history, conceptual domain, and application to conservation. Pp. 5-26. In: I. Hanski & M.E. Gilpin (eds.). Metapopulation Biology: Ecology, Genetics and Evolution. Academic Press, San Diego-London. 696p.
41. HARRISON S. 1991. Local extinction in a metapopulation context: an empirical evaluation. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 42: 73-88.
42. HUMPHREY, J.; RAY, D.; BROWN, T.; STONE, D.; WATTS, K. & ANDERSON, R. 2008. Using focal species modelling to evaluate the impact of land use change on forest and other habitat networks in western oceanic landscapes. Forestry Advance Acsess, 16: 1-16.
43. KINDLMANN, P. & BUREL, F. 2008. Connectivity measures: a review. Landscape Ecology, 23: 879-890.
44. LAMBECK, R.J. 1997. A multi-species umbrella for nature conservation. Conservation Biology, 11: 849-856.
45. LAURANCE, W.F. 2009. Conserving the hottest of the hotspots. Biological Conservation, 142: 1137.
46. LAURANCE, W.F. & VASCONCELOS, H.L. 2009. Consequências ecológicas da fragmentação florestalo na Amazônia. Oecologia Brasiliensis, 13: 434-451.
47. LEVINS, R. 1969. Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental heterogeneity for biological control. Bulletin of Entomological Society America, 15: 237-240.
48. LIMA, S.L. & ZOLLNER, P.A. 1996. Towards a behavioral ecology of ecological landscapes. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 11: 131-135.
49. LIRA, P.K.; FERNANDEZ, F.A.S.; CARLOS, H.S.A. & CURZIO, P.L. 2007. Use of a fragmented landscape by three species of opossum in Southeastern Brazil. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 23: 427-435.
50. LOVEJOY, T.E. & BIERREGAARD, R. O. 1990. Central Amazonian forest and the Minimum Critical Size of Ecosystems Project. Pp. 60-71. In: A.H. Gentry (ed.). Four Neotropical Rainforest. New Haven: Yale University Press.617p.
51. MACARTHUR, R.H. & WILSON, E.O. 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton University Press, Ney Jersey. 201p.
52. MANNING, A.D.; LINDENMAYER, D.B. & NIX, H.A. 2004. Continua and Umwelt: Novel perspectives on viewing landscapes. Oikos, 104: 621-628.
53. MARTENSEN, A.C.; PIMENTEL, R.G. & METZGER, J.P. 2008. Relative effects of fragment size and connectivity on bird community in the Atlantic Rain Forest: Implications for conservation. Biological Conservation, 141: 2184-2192.
54. MCRAE, B.H. 2006. Isolation by resistance. Evolution, 60: 1551-1561.
55. MEA (MILLENNIUM ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT). 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. 86p.
56. MECH, S.G. & ZOLLNER, P.A. 2002. Using body size to predict perceptual range. Oikos, 98: 47-52.
57. MENEZES-JR, L.F.; DUARTE, A.C.; NOVAES, R.L.M.; FAÇANHA, A.C.; PERACCHI, A.L.; COSTA, L.M.; FERNANDES, A.F.P. & ESBÉRARD, C.E.L. 2008. Deslocamento de Artibeus lituratus (Olfers, 1818) (Mammalia, Chiroptera) entre ilha e continente no Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. Biota Neotropica, 8: 243-245.
58. METZGER, J.P. 1999. Estrutura da Paisagem e Fragmentação: análise Bibliográfica. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciência, 71: 445-463.
59. METZGER, J.P. 2001. O que é ecologia de paisagens. Biota Neotropica, 1: 1-9.
60. METZGER, J.P. & DÉCAMPS, H. 1997. The structural connectivity threshold: an hypothesis in conservation biology at the landscape scale. Acta Ecologica, 18: 1-12.
61. METZGER, J.P.; MARTENSEN, A.C.; DIXO, M.; BERNACCI, L.C.; RIBEIRO, M.C.; TEIXEIRA, A.M.G. & PARDINI, R. 2009. Time-lag in biological responses to landscape changes in a highly dynamic Atlantic forest region. Biological Conservation, 142: 1166-1177.
62. MOILANEN, A. & HANSKI, I. 1998. Metapopulation dynamics: effects of habitat quality and landscape structure. Ecology, 79: 2503-2515.
63. MOILANEN, A. & HANSKI, I. 2006. Connectivity and metapopulation dynamics in highly fragmented landscapes. Pp. 44-71. In: K.R. Crooks & M. Sanjayan (eds.). Connectivity Conservation. Cambrige University Press, Cambridge, NY. 448p.
64. MURPHY, D.D. & WILCOX, B.A. 1986. Butterfly diversity in natural habitat fragments: a test of the validity of vertebrate-based mangment. Pp. 287-292. In: J. Verner, M.L. Morrison & C.J. Ralph (eds.). Wildlife 2000: modeling habitat relationships of terrestrial vertebrates. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. 470p.
65. OPDAM, P.; POUWELS, R.; ROOIJ, S.V.; STEINGROVER, E. & VOS, C.C. 2008. Setting biodiversity targets in participatory regional planning: introducing ecoprofiles. Ecology and Society, 13: 1-20.
66. OPDAM, P.; STEINGROVER, E. & ROOIJ, S.V. 2006. Ecological networks: A spatial concept for multi-actor planning of sustainable landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 75: 322-332.
67. PELLENS, R. & GRANDCOLAS, P. 2002. Are successful colonizers necessarily invasive species? The case of the socalled "invading parthenogenetic cockroach", Pycnoscelus surinamensis, in the Brazilian Atlantic forest. Revue d'Ecologie: La Terre et la Vie, 57: 253-261.
68. PASSAMANI, M. & RIBEIRO, D. 2009. Small mammals in a fragment and adjacent matrix in southeastern Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Biology, 69: 305-309.
69. PINTO, M.P. & GRELLE, C.E.V. 2009. Seleção de reservas: estudos da América do Sul e revisão de conceitos. Oecologia Brasiliensis, 13: 498-517.
70. PINTO, N. & KEITT T. H. 2009. Beyond the least cost path: evaluating corridor robustness using a Graph-theoretic approach. Landscape Ecology, 24:253-266
71. PIRES, A.S. & FERNANDEZ, F.A.S. 1999. Use of space by the marsupial Micoureus demerarae in small Atlantic Forest fragments in south-eastern Brazil. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 15: 279-290.
72. PIRES, A.S., LIRA, P.K.; FERNANDEZ, F.A.S.; SCHITTINI, G.M. & OLIVEIRA, L.C. 2002. Frequency of movements of small mammals among Atlantic Coastal Forest fragments in Brazil. Biological Conservation, 108: 229-237.
73. PIVELLO, V.R. & METZGER, J.P. 2007. Diagnóstico da pesquisa em ecologia de paisagens no Brasil (2000-2005). Biota neotropica, 7: 21:29.
74. PREVEDELLO, J.A.; DELCIELLOS, A.C. & VIEIRA, M.V. 2009. Homing behavior of Philander frenatus (Didelphimorphia, didelphidae) across a fragmented landscape in the Atlantic Forest of Brazil. Mastozoologia Neotropical, 16: 475-480.
75. PREVEDELLO, J.A. & VIEIRA, M.V. 2010a. Plantation rows as dispersal routes for small mammals: a test with didelphid marsulpials in the Atlantic Forest, Brazil. Biological Conservation, 143: 131-135.
76. PREVEDELLO, J.A. & VIEIRA, M.V. 2010b. Does the type of matrix matter? A quantitative review of the evidence. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19:1205-1223.
77. PREVEDELLO, J.A.; FORERO-MEDINA, G. & VIEIRA, M.V. 2010. Movement behaviour within and beyond perceptual ranges in three small mammals: effects of matrix type and body mass. Journal of Animal Ecology, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2010.01736.x.
78. PYSEK, P.; RICHARDSON, D.M.; PERGL, J.; JAROSIK, V.; SIXTOVA, Z. & WEBER, E. 2008. Geographical and taxonomic biases in invasion ecology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 23: 237-244.
79. RIBEIRO, M.C.; METZGER, J.P.; MARTENSEN, A.C.; PONZONI, F.J. & HIROTA, M.M. 2009. Brazilian Atlantic Forest: How much is left and how is the remaining forest distributed? Implications for conservation. Biological Conservation, 142: 1141-1153.
80. RICKETSS, T.H. 2001. The matriz matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. American Naturalist, 158: 87-99.
81. SANDERSON, E.W.; REDFORD, K.H.; VEDDER, A.; COPPOLILLO, P.B. & WARD, S.E. 2002. A conceptual model forconservation planning based on landscape species requeriments. Landscape and Urban Planning, 58: 41-56.
82. SCHOOLEY, R.L. & WIENS, J.A. 2004. Movements of cactus bugs: patch transfers, matrix resistance, and edge permeability. Landscape Ecology, 19: 801-810.
83. SIMBERLOFF, D. 1998. Flaships, umbrellas, and keystones: is single-species management passe in the landscape era? Biological Conservation, 83: 247-257.
84. TABARELLI, M.; PINTO, L.P.; SILVA, J.M.C.; HIROTA, M. & BEDÊ, L. 2005. Challenges and opportunities for biodiversity conservation in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Biological Conservation, 3: 695-700.
85. TAYLOR, P.D.; FAHRIG, L.; KRINGEN, H. & MERRIAM, G. 1993. Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos, 68: 571-573.
86. TAYLOR, P.D.; FAHRIG, L. & WITH, K.A. 2006. Landscape Connectivity: A return to the basics. Pp. 29-46. In: K. Crooks & M.A. Sanjayan (eds.). Connectivity Conservation. Cambrige University Press, Cambridge, NY. 448p.
87. THEOBALD, D.M. 2006. Exploring the functional connectivity of landscapes using landscape networks. Pp. 417-443. In: K. Crooks & M.A. Sanjayan (eds.). Connectivity Conservation. Cambrige University Press, Cambridge, NY. 448p.
88. TISCHENDORF, L. & FAHRIG, L. 2000. On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos, 90: 7-19.
89. TONHASCA-JR, A.; ALBUQUERQUE G.S. & BLACKMER, J.L. 2003. Dispersal of euglossine bees between fragments of the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 19: 99-102.
90. TRACEY, J.A. 2006. Individual-based modeling as a tool for conserving connectivity. Pp. 343-368. In: K. Crooks & M.A. Sanjayan (eds.). Connectivity Conservation. Cambrige University Press, Cambridge, NY. 448p.
91. TURNER, M.G. 2005. Landscape Ecology: what is the state of the science? Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 36: 319-344.
92. UEZU, A.; BEYER, D.D. & METZGER, J.P. 2008. Can agroforest woodlots work as stepping stones for birds in the Atlantic Forest region? Biodiversity and Conservation, 17: 1907-1922.
93. UEZU, A.; METZGER, J.P. & VIELLIARD, J.M.E. 2005. Effects of structural and functional connectivity and patch size on the abundance of seven Atlantic Forest bird species. Biological Conservation, 123: 507-519.
94. UMETSU, F. & PARDINI, R. 2007. Small mammals in a mosaic of forest remnants and anthropogenic habitats-evaluating matrix quality in an Atlantic forest landscape. Landscape Ecology, 22: 517-530.
95. URBAN, D.L. & KEITT, T.H. 2001. Landscape connectivity: A Graph-theoretic perspective. Ecology, 82: 1205-1218.
96. URBAN, D.L.; MINOR, E.S.; TREML, E.A. & SCHICK, R.S. 2009. Graph models of habitat mosaics. Ecology Letters, 12: 260-273.
97. VERBEEK, A.; DEBACKERE, K.; LUWEL, M. & ZIMMERMANN, E. 2002. Measuring the process and evolution in science and technology-I: The mulpile uses of bibliometric indicators. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4: 179-211.
98. VERBOOM, J.; FOPPEN, R.; CHARDON, P.; OPDAM, P. & LUTTIKHUIZEN, P. 2001. Introducting the key patch approach for habitat networks whit persistent populations: an example for marshland birds. Biological Conservation, 100: 89-101.
99. VOGT P., FERRARI J. R., LOOKINGBILL T. R., GARDNER R. H., RIITTERS K. H. & OSTAPOWICZ K. 2009. Mapping functional connectivity. Ecological Indicators 9:64-71
100. VOS, C.C.; VERBOOM, J.; OPDAM, P.F.M. & TER BRAAK, C.J.F. 2001. Toward ecologically scaled landscape indices. American Naturalist,183: 24-41.
101. WIENS, J.A. & MOSS, M.R. 2005. Studies in Landscape ecology: issues and perspectives in landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, MA. 276p.
102. WIENS, J.A. 1976. Population responses to patchy environments. Annual Review Ecology and Systematics, 7: 81-120.
103. WILCOVE, D.S.; ROTHSTEIN, D.; DUBOW, J.; PHILLIPS, A. & LOSOS, E. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. Bioscience, 48: 607-615.
104. WILSON, J.R.U.; PROCHES, S.; BRASCHLER, B.; DIXON, E.S. & RICHARDSON, D.M. 2007. The (bio)diversity of science reflects the interests of society. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 5: 409-414.
105. WITH, K.A. 1994. Using fractal analysis to assess how species perceive landscape structure. Landscape Ecology, 9: 25-36.
106. WITH, K.A. 1997. The application of neutral landscapes models in conservation biology. Conservation Biology, 11: 1069-1080.
107. ZOLLNER, P.A. & LIMA, L.S. 1999. Search strategies for landscape-level interpatch movements. Ecology, 80: 1019-1030.
108. ZOLLNER, P.A. & LIMA, S.L. 2005. Behavioral trade-offs when dispersing across a patchy landscape. Oikos, 108: 219-230.