4.7 Article

Independent effects of habitat loss, habitat fragmentation and structural connectivity on the distribution of two arboreal rodents

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED ECOLOGY
卷 48, 期 1, 页码 153-162

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01918.x

关键词

corridors; forest cover; fragmentation; hedgerows; Italy; landscape; Muscardinus avellanarius; Sciurus vulgaris; spatial configuration

向作者/读者索取更多资源

P>1. Habitat loss must be distinguished from habitat fragmentation so that appropriate conservation management can be applied. Few studies have evaluated the independent effects of habitat loss and habitat fragmentation on the distribution of vertebrates, and none has evaluated the independent effect of changes in structural connectivity. We carried out a landscape-scale experiment to assess the independent contribution of these three processes and to examine what landscape scale factors affect the distribution of two forest-dependent arboreal rodents: the hazel dormouse Muscardinus avellanarius and the red squirrel Sciurus vulgaris. 2. Habitat loss, rather than habitat fragmentation per se, was the major driver of distribution patterns for both species. As predicted, structural connectivity (hedgerow networks) played an important role in determining the distribution of the hazel dormouse, but not of the red squirrel. 3. Our models predict that long lengths of hedgerows (> 30 km) are unlikely to increase the probability of occurrence of hazel dormouse in landscapes where there are low levels of forest cover (< 5%-10%). 4. Synthesis and applications. Our empirical findings indicate that structural connectivity and habitat loss may have additive effects on vertebrate distribution. For the hazel dormouse, improving structural connectivity will be ineffective if the amount of forest cover in the landscape is less than 5-10%. The key message from this study is that resources should not be invested in landscape linkages until their efficacy for the given level of suitable habitat has been assessed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据