Conceptual domain of the matrix in fragmented landscapes

Trends in Ecology and Evolution

Volumn 28, Issue 10, 2013, Pages 605-613

  Driscoll, Don A ^a   Banks, Sam C ^a   Barton, Philip S ^a   Lindenmayer, David B ^a   Smith, Annabel L ^a  

^a AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADAPTATION; CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; DISPERSAL; LANDSCAPE; MATRIX; MOVEMENT; RESOURCE AVAILABILITY; TEMPORAL VARIATION;

BIODIVERSITY; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; ENVIRONMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; EVALUATION STUDY; METHODOLOGY; REVIEW;

BIODIVERSITY; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; ENVIRONMENT; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL;

EID: 84884351344     PISSN: 01695347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2013.06.010     Document Type: Review

References (100)

1. Lindenmayer D.B., Fischer J. Habitat Fragmentation and Landscape Change. An Ecological and Conservation Synthesis 2006, Island Press.
2. Saunders D.A., et al. Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conserv. Biol. 1991, 5:18-32.
3. Forman R.T.T. Land Mosaics. The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions 1995, Cambridge University Press.
4. Fahrig L., Merriam G. Conservation of fragmented populations. Conserv. Biol. 1994, 8:50-59.
5. McIntyre S., Hobbs R. A framework for conceptualizing human effects on landscapes and its relevance to management and research models. Conserv. Biol. 1999, 13:1282-1292.
6. Driscoll D.A. Extinction and outbreaks accompany fragmentation of a reptile community. Ecol. Appl. 2004, 14:220-240.
7. Hanski I. Metapopulation Ecology 1999, Oxford University Press.
8. Kupfer J.A., et al. Not seeing the ocean for the islands: the mediating influence of matrix-based processes on forest fragmentation effects. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 2006, 15:8-20.
9. Didham R.K., et al. Rethinking the conceptual foundations of habitat fragmentation research. Oikos 2012, 121:161-170.
10. Pita R., et al. Spatial population structure of the Cabrera vole in Mediterranean farmland: the relative role of patch and matrix effects. Biol. Conserv. 2007, 134:383-392.
11. Bender D.J., Fahrig L. Matrix structure obscures the relationship between interpatch movement and patch size and isolation. Ecology 2005, 86:1023-1033.
12. Prugh L.R., et al. Effect of habitat area and isolation on fragmented animal populations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2008, 105:20770-20775.
13. Franklin J.F., Lindenmayer D.B. Importance of matrix habitats in maintaining biological diversity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2009, 106:349-350.
14. Franklin J.F. Preserving biodiversity: species, ecosystems, or landscapes. Ecol. Appl. 1993, 3:202-205.
15. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 2010, CBD.
16. Kyle G., Duncan D.H. Arresting the rate of land clearing: change in woody native vegetation cover in a changing agricultural landscape. Landscape Urban Plann. 2012, 106:165-173.
17. Bradshaw C.J.A. Little left to lose: deforestation and forest degradation in Australia since European colonization. J. Plant Ecol. 2012, 5:109-120.
18. Ewers R.M., Didham R.K. Confounding factors in the detection of species responses to habitat fragmentation. Biol. Rev. 2006, 81:117-142.
19. Jules E.S., Shahani P. A broader ecological context to habitat fragmentation: why matrix habitat is more important than we thought. J. Veg. Sci. 2003, 14:459-464.
20. Murphy H.T., Lovett-Doust J. Context and connectivity in plant metapopulations and landscape mosaics: does the matrix matter?. Oikos 2004, 105:3-14.
21. Ries L., et al. Ecological responses to habitat edges: mechanisms, models, and variability explained. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2004, 35:491-522.
22. Campbell R.E., et al. Production land use alters edge response functions in remnant forest invertebrate communities. Ecol. Appl. 2011, 21:3147-3161.
23. Kennedy C.M., et al. Landscape matrix and species traits mediate responses of Neotropical resident birds to forest fragmentation in Jamaica. Ecol. Monogr. 2010, 80:651-669.
24. Eycott A.E. Do Landscape Matrix Features Affect Species Movement? Systematic Review CEE 08-006 2010, Collaboration for Environmental Evidence.
25. Prevedello J.A., Vieira M.V. Does the type of matrix matter? A quantitative review of the evidence. Biodivers. Conserv. 2010, 19:1205-1223.
26. Lindenmayer D.B., et al. Temporal changes in vertebrates during landscape transformation: a large-scale 'natural experiment'. Ecol. Monogr. 2008, 78:567-590.
27. Schtickzelle N., Baguette M. Behavioural responses to habitat patch boundaries restrict dispersal and generate emigration-patch area relationships in fragmented landscapes. J. Anim. Ecol. 2003, 72:533-545.
28. Kuefler D., et al. The conflicting role of matrix habitats as conduits and barriers for dispersal. Ecology 2010, 91:944-950.
29. Schwab A.C., Zandbergen P.A. Vehicle-related mortality and road crossing behavior of the Florida panther. Appl. Geogr. 2011, 31:859-870.
30. Schooley R.L., Wiens J.A. Movements of cactus bugs: patch transfers, matrix resistance, and edge permeability. Landscape Ecol. 2004, 19:801-810.
31. Hovestadt T., Poethke H.J. The control of emigration and its consequences for the survival of populations. Ecol. Model. 2006, 190:443-453.
32. Poulin J-F., Villard M-A. Edge effect and matrix influence on the nest survival of an old forest specialist, the Brown Creeper (Certhia americana). Landscape Ecol. 2011, 26:911-922.
33. Karp D.S., et al. Resilience and stability in bird guilds across tropical countryside. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2011, 108:21134-21139.
34. Hinners S.J., et al. Roles of scale, matrix, and native habitat in supporting a diverse suburban pollinator assemblage. Ecol. Appl. 2012, 22:1923-1935.
35. Öckinger E., et al. Landscape matrix modifies richness of plants and insects in grassland fragments. Ecography 2012, 35:259-267.
36. Lehtinen R.M., et al. Edge effects and extinction proneness in a herpetofauna from Madagascar. Biodivers. Conserv. 2003, 12:1357-1370.
37. Ewers R.M., Didham R.K. Pervasive impact of large-scale edge effects on a beetle community. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2008, 105:5426-5429.
38. Watling J.I., et al. Invasive shrub alters native forest amphibian communities. Biol. Conserv. 2011, 144:2597-2601.
39. Cochrane M.A., Barber C.P. Climate change, human land use and future fires in the Amazon. Global Change Biol. 2009, 15:601-612.
40. Lindenmayer B.D., et al. Effects of logging on fire regimes in moist forests. Conserv. Lett. 2009, 2:271-277.
41. D'Antonio C.M., Vitousek P.M. Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass fire cycle, and global change. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1992, 23:63-87.
42. Templeton A.R., et al. The transition from isolated patches to a metapopulation in the eastern collared lizard in response to prescribed fires. Ecology 2011, 92:1736-1747.
43. Keeley J.E. Fire management impacts on invasive plants in the western United States. Conserv. Biol. 2006, 20:375-384.
44. Urbina-Cardona J.N., et al. 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. 2006, 132:61-75.
45. Williams N.S.G., et al. Local extinction of grassland plants: the landscape matrix is more important than patch attributes. Ecology 2006, 87:3000-3006.
46. Kennedy C.M., et al. Landscape matrix mediates occupancy dynamics of Neotropical avian insectivores. Ecol. Appl. 2011, 21:1837-1850.
47. Ramalho C.E., Hobbs R.J. Time for a change: dynamic urban ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2012, 27:179-188.
48. Gustafson E.J., Gardner R.H. The effect of landscape heterogeneity on the probability of patch colonization. Ecology 1996, 77:94-107.
49. Hudgens B.R., et al. How complex do models need to be to predict dispersal of threatened species through matrix habitats?. Ecol. Appl. 2012, 22:1701-1710.
50. Zeller K.A., et al. Estimating landscape resistance to movement: a review. Landscape Ecol. 2012, 27:777-797.
51. Pinto S.R.R., et al. Landscape attributes drive complex spatial microclimate configuration of Brazilian Atlantic forest fragments. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 2010, 3:389-402.
52. Hill J.K., et al. Effects of habitat patch size and isolation on dispersal by Hesperia comma butterflies: implications for metapopulation structure. J. Anim. Ecol. 1996, 65:725-735.
53. Driscoll D.A., et al. Spatial dynamics of the knob-tailed gecko Nephrurus stellatus in a fragmented agricultural landscape. Landscape Ecol. 2012, 27:829-841.
54. Rand T.A., et al. Spillover edge effects: the dispersal of agriculturally subsidized insect natural enemies into adjacent natural habitats. Ecol. Lett. 2006, 9:603-614.
55. Delgado J.D., et al. Edge effects of roads on temperature, light, canopy cover, and canopy height in laurel and pine forests (Tenerife, Canary Islands). Landscape Urban Plann. 2007, 81:328-340.
56. Powney G.D., et al. Measuring functional connectivity using long-term monitoring data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2011, 2:527-533.
57. Revilla E., et al. Effects of matrix heterogeneity on animal dispersal: from individual behavior to metapopulation-level parameters. Am. Nat. 2004, 164:E130-E153.
58. Tremblay M.A., St Clair C.C. Permeability of a heterogeneous urban landscape to the movements of forest songbirds. J. Appl. Ecol. 2011, 48:679-688.
59. Manning A.D., et al. Scattered trees are keystone structures: implications for conservation. Biol. Conserv. 2006, 132:311-321.
60. Cosentino B.J., et al. Connectivity of agroecosystems: dispersal costs can vary among crops. Landscape Ecol. 2011, 26:371-379.
61. Blaum N., Wichmann M.C. Short-term transformation of matrix into hospitable habitat facilitates gene flow and mitigates fragmentation. J. Anim. Ecol. 2007, 76:1116-1127.
62. Blaum N., et al. Climate induced changes in matrix suitability explain gene flow in a fragmented landscape: the effect of interannual rainfall variability. Ecography 2012, 35:650-660.
63. Magrach A., et al. Effects of matrix characteristics and interpatch distance on functional connectivity in fragmented temperate rainforests. Conserv. Biol. 2012, 26:238-247.
64. Laurance W.F., et al. The fate of Amazonian forest fragments: a 32-year investigation. Biol. Conserv. 2011, 144:56-67.
65. Hennenberg K.J., et al. Detection of seasonal variability in microclimatic borders and ecotones between forest and savanna. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2008, 9:275-285.
66. Asbjornsen H., et al. Synergistic responses of oak, pine and shrub seedlings to edge environments and drought in a fragmented tropical highland oak forest, Oaxaca, Mexico. For. Ecol. Manage. 2004, 192:313-334.
67. D'Antonio C.M., et al. Long-term impacts of invasive grasses and subsequent fire in seasonally dry Hawaiian woodlands. Ecol. Appl. 2011, 21:1617-1628.
68. Donald P.F., Evans A.D. Habitat connectivity and matrix restoration: the wider implications of agri-environment schemes. J. Appl. Ecol. 2006, 43:209-218.
69. Boudreault C., et al. Epiphytic lichen colonization in regenerating black spruce forest stands of clearcut origin. For. Ecol. Manage. 2012, 276:247-258.
70. Wilcock H.R., et al. Landscape, habitat characteristics and the genetic population structure of two caddisflies. Freshwater. Biol. 2007, 52:1907-1929.
71. Ostfeld R.S., Keesing F. Pulsed resources and community dynamics of consumers in terrestrial ecosystems. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2000, 15:232-237.
72. Alanen E-L., et al. Differential responses of bumblebees and diurnal Lepidoptera to vegetation succession in long-term set-aside. J. Appl. Ecol. 2011, 48:1251-1259.
73. Barbosa O., Marquet P.A. Effects of forest fragmentation on the beetle assemblage at the relict forest of Fray Jorge, Chile. Oecologia 2002, 132:296-306.
74. Hanski I. Eco-evolutionary dynamics in a changing world. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2012, 1249:1-17.
75. Heidinger I.M.M., et al. Patch connectivity and sand dynamics affect dispersal-related morphology of the blue-winged grasshopper Oedipoda caerulescens in coastal grey dunes. Insect Conserv. Divers. 2010, 3:205-212.
76. Merckx T., Van Dyck H. Landscape structure and phenotypic plasticity in flight morphology in the butterfly Pararge aegeria. Oikos 2006, 113:226-232.
77. Tuomainen U., Candolin U. Behavioural responses to human-induced environmental change. Biol. Rev. 2011, 86:640-657.
78. Sih A., et al. Evolution and behavioural responses to human-induced rapid environmental change. Evol. Appl. 2011, 4:367-387.
79. Heterogeneity of selection and the evolution of resistance. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2013, 28:110-118. REX Consortium.
80. Shreeve T.G., Dennis R.L.H. Landscape scale conservation: resources, behaviour, the matrix and opportunities. J. Insect Conserv. 2011, 15:179-188.
81. Driscoll D.A., Lindenmayer B.D. Framework to improve the application of theory in ecology and conservation. Ecol. Monogr. 2012, 82:129-147.
82. Fahrig L. How much habitat is enough?. Biol. Conserv. 2001, 100:65-74.
83. Vellend M. Conceptual synthesis in community ecology. Q. Rev. Biol. 2010, 85:183-206.
84. Herrera J.M., et al. Matrix effects on plant-frugivore and plant-predator interactions in forest fragments. Landscape Ecol. 2011, 26:125-135.
85. Leibold M.A., et al. The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-scale community ecology. Ecol. Lett. 2004, 7:601-613.
86. Rodriguez A., et al. Composition of an avian guild in spatially structured habitats supports a competition-colonization trade-off. Proc. R. Soc. B 2007, 274:1403-1411.
87. Taki H., et al. Plantation vs. natural forest: matrix quality determines pollinator abundance in crop fields. Sci. Rep. 2011, 1:132. 10.1038/srep00132.
88. Seddon P.J., et al. Dynamics of an endangered New Zealand skink: accounting for incomplete detectability in estimating patch occupancy. N. Z. J. Ecol. 2011, 35:247-253.
89. Bridgman L.J., et al. Short perceptual range and yet successful invasion of a fragmented landscape: the case of the red-bellied tree squirrel (Callosciurus erythraeus) in Argentina. Landscape Ecol. 2012, 27:633-640.
90. Philpott S.M., et al. Biodiversity loss in Latin American coffee landscapes: review of the evidence on ants, birds, and trees. Conserv. Biol. 2008, 22:1093-1105.
91. Kaiser C.N., et al. Exotic pest insects: another perspective on coffee and conservation. Oryx 2008, 42:143-146.
92. Watling J.I., Orrock J.L. Measuring edge contrast using biotic criteria helps define edge effects on the density of an invasive plant. Landscape Ecol. 2010, 25:69-78.
93. McNeish R.E., et al. Riparian forest invasion by a terrestrial shrub (Lonicera maackii) impacts aquatic biota and organic matter processing in headwater streams. Biol. Invasions 2012, 14:1881-1893.
94. Lindenmayer D.B., et al. A prospective longitudinal study of landscape matrix effects on fauna in woodland remnants: experimental design and baseline data. Biol. Conserv. 2001, 101:157-169.
95. Sanderlin J.S., et al. On valuing patches: estimating contributions to metapopulation growth with reverse-time capture-recapture modelling. Proc. R. Soc. B 2012, 279:480-488.
96. Pavlacky D.C., et al. Anthropogenic landscape change promotes asymmetric dispersal and limits regional patch occupancy in a spatially structured bird population. J. Anim. Ecol. 2012, 81:940-952.
97. Nams V.O. Shape of patch edges affects edge permeability for meadow voles. Ecol. Appl. 2012, 22:1827-1837.
98. Gonzalez-Moreno P., et al. Is spatial structure the key to promote plant diversity in Mediterranean forest plantations?. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2011, 12:251-259.
99. Mortelliti A., et al. The role of habitat quality in fragmented landscapes: a conceptual overview and prospectus for future research. Oecologia 2010, 163:535-547.
100. Williams D.A., et al. Genetic diversity and spatial structure of a keystone species in fragmented pine rockland habitat. Biol. Conserv. 2007, 138:256-268.