4.7 Article

Effect of adjacent agricultural habitat on the distribution of passerines in natural grasslands

期刊

BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION
卷 124, 期 3, 页码 407-414

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2005.01.046

关键词

Mediterranean avifauna; crau; habitat mosaics; resource complementation; context; habitat conservation; steppe fragmentation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Habitat heterogeneity has often been acknowledged as a key factor determining which species occur in a landscape, but we still know little on the nature and relative importance of the processes controlling species distribution and abundance within complex landscape mosaics. We used a framework defined by the compensation, supplementation and complementation models to study the distribution of four species of passerines typical of steppe habitats and identify the degree to which landscape context accounts for their distribution in the steppe-agriculture mosaic of the Crau, southern France. Steppe habitat was the best predictor of species distribution in all cases and that densities were highest in steppe. One of these species, the Calandra lark, is strictly tied to the natural steppe habitats independently of its context. For another species, the Tawny pipit, we document a significant positive effect of the presence, near steppe habitat, of extensive pastoral habitats, such as fallows and grazed crops. Finally, the abundance of the two remaining species, Skylark and Short-toed lark, was negatively affected by the presence of non-herbaceous habitats in the vicinity of steppe habitat. This suggests that the quality of the steppe habitat, as perceived by these species is conditional to the nature of adjacent habitats. Our results suggest that the management of the context in which steppe habitat is imbedded will significantly affect the distribution and abundance of this group of passerines and determine both habitat quality and conservation value at a landscape scale. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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