Metacommunity diversity depends on connectivity and patch arrangement in heterogeneous habitat networks

Ecography

Volumn 34, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 415-424

  Chisholm, Chelsea ^a   Lindo, Zoë ^a   Gonzalez, Andrew ^a  

^a MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ABUNDANCE; BIODIVERSITY; BIOMASS; COMMUNITY STRUCTURE; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; EXTINCTION; HABITAT CONSERVATION; HABITAT FRAGMENTATION; HABITAT LOSS; HABITAT TYPE; HETEROGENEITY; LANDSCAPE; LINEARITY; MOISTURE; POPULATION DISTRIBUTION; SPECIES DIVERSITY; SPECIES RICHNESS;

BRYOPHYTA;

EID: 79957878623     PISSN: 09067590     EISSN: 16000587     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2010.06588.x     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Anderson, G. S. and Danielson, B. J. 1997. The effects of landscape composition and physiognomy on metapopulation size: the role of corridors. Landscape Ecol. 12: 261-271.
2. Binzenhöfer, B. et al. 2008. Connectivity compensates for low habitat quality and small patch size in the butterfly Cupido minimus. Ecol. Res. 23: 259-269.
3. Bruinderink, G. G. et al. 2003. Designing a coherent ecological network for large mammals in northwestern Europe. Conserv. Biol. 17: 549-557.
4. Cabeza, M. and Moilanen, A. 2003. Site-selection algorithms and habitat loss. Conserv. Biol. 17: 1402-1413.
5. Cadenasso, M. L. et al. 1997. Functional location of forest edges: gradients of multiple physical factors. Can. J. For. Res. 27: 774-782.
6. Cagnolo, L. et al. 2009. Habitat fragmentation and species loss across three interacting trophic levels: effects of life-history and food-web traits. Conserv. Biol. 23: 1167-1175.
7. Davies, K. F. et al. 2009. Factors controlling community structure in heterogeneous metacommunities. J. Anim. Ecol. 78: 937-944.
8. Didham, R. K. et al. 1998. Beetle species responses to tropical forest fragmentation. Ecol. Monogr. 68: 295-323.
9. Ewers, R. M. and Didham, R. K. 2006. Confounding factors in the detection of species responses to habitat fragmentation. Biol. Rev. 81: 117-142.
10. Ewers, R. M. et al. 2007. Synergistic interactions between edge and area effects in a heavily fragmented landscape. Ecology 88: 96-106.
11. Fahrig, L. 2003. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 34: 487-515.
12. Fleishman, E. et al. 2002. Assessing the roles of patch quality, area, and isolation in predicting metapopulation dynamics. Conserv. Biol. 16: 706-716.
13. Forbes, A. E. and Chase, J. M. 2002. The role of habitat connectivity and landscape geometry in experimental zooplankton metacommunities. Oikos 96: 433-440.
14. Frank, K. and Wissel, C. 1998. Spatial aspects of metapopulation survival: from model results to rules of thumb for landscape management. Landscape Ecol. 13: 363-379.
15. Gilbert, F. et al. 1998. Corridors maintain species richness in the fragmented landscapes of a microecosystem. Proc. R. Soc. B 265: 577-582.
16. Gonzalez, A. 2005. Local and regional community dynamics in fragmented landscapes: insights from a bryophyte-based microcosm. - In: Holyoak, M. A. et al (eds), Metacommunities: spatial dynamics and ecological communities. Univ. Chicago Press, pp. 146-170.
17. Gonzalez, A. and Chaneton, E. J. 2002. Heterotrophic species extinction, abundance and biomass dynamics in an experimentally fragmented microecosystem. J. Anim. Ecol. 71: 594-602.
18. Gonzalez, A. et al. 1998. Metapopulation dynamics, abundance, and distribution in a microecosystem. Science 281: 2045-2047.
19. Griffen, B. D. and Drake, J. M. 2008. Effects of habitat quality and size on extinction in experimental populations. Proc. R. Soc. B 275: 2251-2256.
20. Haddad, N. M. et al. 2003. Corridor use by diverse taxa. Ecology 84: 609-615.
21. Hanski, I. 1998. Metapopulation dynamics. Nature 369: 41-49.
22. Hanski, I. et al. 1995. Metapopulation persistence of an endangered butterfly in a fragmented landscape. Oikos 72: 21-28.
23. Heikkinen, R. K. et al. 2004. Effects of habitat cover, landscape structure and spatial variables on the abundance of birds in an agricultural-forest mosaic. J. Appl. Ecol. 41: 824-835.
24. Heller, N. E. and Zavaleta, E. S. 2009. Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: a review of 22 years of recommendations. Biol. Conserv. 142: 14-32.
25. Jordan, F. et al. 2003. Characterizing the importance of habitat patches and corridors in maintaining the landscape connectivity of a Pholidoptera transsylvanica (Orthoptera) metapopulation. Landscape Ecol. 18: 83-92.
26. Lande, R. 1996. Statistics and partitioning of species diversity, and similarity among multiple communities. Oikos 76: 5-13.
27. Layman, C. A. et al. 2007. Niche width collapse in a resilient top predator following ecosystem fragmentation. Ecol. Lett. 10: 937-944.
28. Lefkovitch, L. P. and Fahrig, L. 1985. Spatial characteristics of habitat patches and population survival. Ecol. Model. 30: 297-308.
29. Leibold, M. A. et al. 2004. The metacommunity concept: a framework for multiscale community ecology. Ecol. Lett. 7: 601-613.
30. Lindo, Z. and Winchester, N. N. 2008. Scale dependent patterns in arboreal and terrestrial oribatid mite (Acari: Oribatida) communities. Ecography 31: 53-60.
31. Lindo, Z. and Gonzalez, G. 2010. The bryosphere: an integral and influential component of the Earth's biosphere. Ecosystems 13: 612-627.
32. Lindo, Z. et al. 2008. Nested patterns of community assembly in the colonisation of artificial canopy habitats by oribatid mites. Oikos 117: 1856-1864.
33. Loreau, M. et al. 2003. Biodiversity as spatial insurance in heterogeneous landscapes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100: 12765-12770.
34. Matisziw, T. C. and Murray, A. T. 2009. Connectivity change in habitat networks. Landscape Ecol. 24: 89-100.
35. Matthews, D. P. and Gonzalez, A. 2007. The inflationary effects of environmental fluctuations ensure the persistence of sink metapopulations. Ecology 88: 2848-2856.
36. Minor, E. S. and Urban, D. L. 2007. Graph theory as a proxy for spatially explicit population models in conservation planning. Ecol. Appl. 17: 1771-1782.
37. Mortelliti, A. et al. 2010. The role of habitat quality in fragmented landscapes: a conceptual overview and prospectus for future research. Oecologia 163: 535-547.
38. Mouquet, N. and Loreau, M. 2003. Community patterns in source-sink metacommunities. Am. Nat. 162: 544-557.
39. Murcia, C. 1995. Edge effects in fragmented forests: implications for conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19: 58-62.
40. Pulliam, H. R. and Danielson, B. J. 1991. Sources, sinks, and habitat selection: a landscape perspective on population dynamics. Am. Nat. 137: S50-S66.
41. Reddy, M. V. 1984. Seasonal fluctuation of different edaphic microarthropod population densities in relation to soil moisture and temperature in a pine, Pinus kesiya Royle plantation ecosystem. Int. J. Biometeorol. 28: 55-59.
42. Ries, L. and Sisk, T. D. 2004. A predictive model of edge effects. Ecology 85: 2917-2926.
43. Root, K. V. 1998. Evaluating the effects of habitat quality, connectivity, and catastrophes on a threatened species. Ecol. Appl. 8: 854-865.
44. Schmida, A. and Wilson, M. V. 1985. Biological determinants of species diversity. J. Biogeogr. 12: 1-20.
45. Shulman, R. S. and Chase, J. M. 2007. Increased isolation reduced predator:prey species richness ratios in aquatic food webs. Oikos 116: 1581-1587.
46. Siepel, H. 1996. The importance of unpredictable and short-term environmental extremes for biodiversity in oribatid mites. Biodivers. Lett. 3: 26-34.
47. Staddon, P. et al. 2010. Connectivity, non-random extinction, and ecosystem function in experimental metacommunities. Ecol. Lett. 13: 543-552.
48. StatSoft. 2004. STATISTICA (data analysis software system), version 7. .
49. Thomas, J. A. et al. 2001. The quality and isolation of habitat patches both determine where butterflies persist in fragmented landscapes. Proc. R. Soc. B 268: 1791-1796.
50. Trzcinski, M. K. et al. 1999. Independent effects of forest cover and fragmentation on the distribution of forest breeding birds. Ecol. Appl. 9: 586-593.
51. Visconti, P. and Elkin, C. 2009. Using connectivity metrics in conservation planning - when does habitat quality matter?. Divers. Distrib. 15: 602-612.
52. Vreeken-Buijs, M. J. et al. 1998. Relationships of soil microarthropod biomass with organic matter and pore size distribution in soils under different land use. Soil Biol. Biochem. 30: 97-106.