The matrix-tolerance hypothesis: An empirical test with frogs in the Atlantic Forest

Biodiversity and Conservation

Volumn 19, Issue 11, 2010, Pages 3059-3071

  Dixo, Marianna ^a   Metzger, Jean Paul ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SÃO PAULO   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Anura; Brazil; Fragmentation; Matrix; Patch size

Indexed keywords

ABUNDANCE; AGRICULTURAL LAND; ECOLOGICAL MODELING; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; FROG; HABITAT FRAGMENTATION; HABITAT SELECTION; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; LARVA; LEAF LITTER; MODEL TEST; PATCH SIZE; VULNERABILITY;

ATLANTIC FOREST;

ANURA;

EID: 84755160620     PISSN: 09603115     EISSN: 15729710     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10531-010-9878-x     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Antongiovanni M, Metzger JP (2005) Influence of the matrix habitats to the occurrence of insectivorous bird species in Amazonian Forest fragments. Biol Conserv 122: 441-451.
2. Argôlo AJS (2004) As serpentes dos Cacauais do Sudeste da Bahia. Editora da UESC, Ilhéus.
3. Becker CG, Fonseca CR, Haddad CFB et al (2007) Habitat split and the global decline of amphibians. Science 318: 1775-1777.
4. Blaustein AR, Wake D, Sousa WP (1994) Amphibians declines: judging stability, persistence, and susceptibility of populations to local and global extinctions. Conserv Biol 8: 60-71.
5. Cook WM, Anderson RM, Schweiger EW (2004) Is the matrix really inhospitable? Vole runway distribution in an experimentally fragmented landscape. OIKOS 104: 5-14.
6. Corn PS (1994) Standard techniques for inventory and monitoring-straight-line drift fences and pitfall traps. In: Heyer WR, Donnelly MA, McDiarmid RW et al (eds) Measuring and monitoring biological diversity, standard methods for amphibians. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, London, pp 118-124.
7. Daily GC, Ehrlich PR, Sanchez-Azofeifa GA (2001) Countryside biogeography: utilization of human dominated habitats by the avifauna of southern Costa Rica. Ecol Appl 11: 1-13.
8. Dixo M (2001) Efeito da fragmentação da floresta sobre a comunidade de sapos e lagartos de serrapilheira no sul da Bahia. MSc dissertation, Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil.
9. Dixo M (2005) Diversidade de sapos e lagartos de serrapilheira numa paisagem fragmentada do Planalto Atlântico de São Paulo. PhD dissertation, Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil.
10. Eterovick PC, Carnaval ACOQ, Borges-Nojosa DM et al (2005) Amphibian declines in Brazil: an overview. Biotropica 32: 166-179.
11. Ewers RM, Didham RK (2006) Confounding factors in the detection of species responses to habitat fragmentation. Biol Rev 81: 117-142.
12. Faria D, Paciencia MLB, Dixo M et al (2007) Ferns, frogs, lizards, birds and bats in forest fragments and shaded cacao plantations of two contrasting landscapes in the Atlantic forest, Brazil. Biodivers Conserv 16: 2335-2357.
13. Gardner TA, Barlow J, Peres CA (2007) Paradox, presumption and pitfalls in conservation biology: the importance of habitat change for amphibians and reptiles. Biol Conserv 138: 166-179.
14. Gascon C (1993) Breeding-habitat use by five Amazonian frogs at forest edge. Biodivers Conserv 2: 438-444.
15. Gascon C, Lovejoy TE, Bierregaard RO et al (1999) Matrix habitat and species persistence in tropical forest remnants. Biol Conserv 91: 223-229.
16. Haddad CFB, Prado CPA (2005) Reproductive modes in frogs and their unexpected diversity in the Atlantic Forest of Brazil. Bioscience 55: 207-217.
17. Henle K, Davies KF, Kleyer CM et al (2004) Predictors of species sensitivity to fragmentation. Biodivers Conserv 13: 207-251.
18. Hobbs RJ, Saunders DA, Arnold GW (1993) Integrated landscape ecology: a Western-Australian perspective. Biol Conserv 64: 231-238.
19. Laurance WF (1991) Ecological correlates of extinction proneness in Australian tropical rain forest mammals. Conserv Biol 5: 79-89.
20. Laurance WF, Bierregaard RO Jr (1997) Tropical forest remnants: ecology, management, and conservation of fragmented communities. University Chicago Press, Chicago.
21. Metzger JP (2009) Conservation issues in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Biol Conserv 142: 1138-1140.
22. Metzger JP, Martensen AC, Dixo M et al (2009) Time-lag in biological responses to landscape changes in a highly dynamic Atlantic forest region. Biol Conserv 142: 1166-1177.
23. Mittermeier RA, Meyers N, Gil PR et al (1999) Hotspots: earth's biologically richest and most endangered terrestrial ecoregions. CEMEX, México city, Mexico.
24. Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier GG et al (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853-858.
25. Pardini R (2004) Effects of forest fragmentation on small mammals in an Atlantic Forest landscape. Biodivers Conserv 13: 2567-2586.
26. Pough FHR, Andrews M, Cadle JE et al (1998) Herpetology. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.
27. Ribeiro MC, Metzger JP, Martensen AC et al (2009) The Brazilian Atlantic Forest: how much is left, and how is the remaining forest distributed? Implications for conservation. Biol Conserv 142: 1141-1153.
28. Ricketts TH (2001) The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. Am Nat 158: 87-99.
29. Ruckelshaus M, Hartway C, Kareiva P (1997) Assessing the data requirements of spatially explicit dispersal models. Conserv Biol 11: 1298-1306.
30. Seabra M (1971) Vargem Grande: organização e transformações de um setor do cinturão-verde paulistano. Instituto de Geografia, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo.
31. Silvano DL, Segalla MV (2005) Conservation of Brazilian Amphibians. Conserv Biol 19: 653-658.
32. Silvano DL, Colli G, Dixo M (2003) Anfíbios e Répteis. In: Rambaldi D, Oliveira DAS et al (eds) Fragmentação de ecossistemas: causas, efeitos sobre a biodiversidade e recomendações de políticas públicas. MMA/SBF, Brasília, pp 183-200.
33. SOS Mata Atlântica and Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (2008) Atlas dos remanescentes florestais da Mata Atlântica, período de 2000 a 2005. www. sosmatatlantica. org. br.
34. Statsoft Inc (2001) STATISTICA (data analysis software system), version 6. http://www. statsoft. com/.
35. Stevens VM, Polus E, Wesselingh RA et al (2004) Quantifying functional connectivity: experimental evidence for patch-specific resistance in the Natterjack frog (Bufo calamita). Landscape Ecol 19: 829-842.
36. Stuart SN, Chanson JS, Cox NA et al (2004) Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science 306: 1783-1786.
37. Teixeira AMG, Soares-Filho BS, Freitas SR et al (2009) Modeling landscape dynamics in an Atlantic Rainforest region: Implications for conservation. Forest Ecol Manag 257: 1219-1230.
38. Tocher MD, Gascon C, Zimmerman BL (1997) Fragmentation effects on a Central Amazonian frog community: a ten-year study. In: Laurance WF, Bierregaard RO (eds) Tropical forest remnants: ecology, management, and conservation of fragmented communities. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 124-137.
39. 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.
40. Urbina-Cardona JN, Olivares-Perez M, Reynoso VH (2006) Herpetofauna diversity and microenvironment correlates across a pasture-edge-interior ecotone in tropical Rainforest fragments in the Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve of Veracruz, Mexico. Biol Conserv 132: 61-75.
41. Vallan D (2000) Influence of forest fragmentation on amphibian diversity in the nature reserve of Ambohitantely, highland Madagascar. Biol Conserv 96: 31-43.
42. Wake D (1998) Action on amphibians. Trends Ecol Evol 13: 363-379.
43. Wiens JA (1995) Landscapes mosaics and ecological theory. In: Hansson L, Fahrig L, Merriam G (eds) Mosaic landscape and ecological process. Chaptam and Hall, London, pp 1-16.