4.7 Article

Predictors of forest fragmentation sensitivity in Neotropical vertebrates: a quantitative review

期刊

ECOGRAPHY
卷 34, 期 1, 页码 1-8

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2010.06453.x

关键词

-

资金

  1. German BMBF (Federal Ministry of Education and Research) [Forderkennzeichen 01LB0202C]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Species' responses to tropical forest fragmentation are variable and not well understood. Species' functional traits might help to reveal patterns of fragmentation sensitivity and provide valuable guidance to conservation practice. On the basis of 30 reviewed studies published between 1997 and 2008, we present a quantitative analysis of 730 responses of Neotropical vertebrates to forest fragmentation and habitat loss in terms of Species' presence, abundance or fitness. Our intention was to identify possible ecological predictors of sensitivity to fragmentation, such as vertebrate group, feeding guild, forest dependency, and body size. We also controlled for methodology and study site characteristics, i.e. parameters studied, study design, study ID, and site ID. These ecological and methodological variables are frequently hypothesized to have an influence on reported fragmentation sensitivity. We conducted Linear Mixed Model analyses in order to relate the potential predictor variables to reported fragmentation effects. Model performance was assessed on the basis of AIC values. The best models included feeding guild, feeding guild+study design and feeding guild+forest dependency, respectively. We found that study ID and site ID significantly improved the models. Post-hoc tests revealed that nectarivores, possibly herbivores, and species able to use open habitats were affected significantly less by forest fragmentation than others. We therefore conclude that Neotropical nectarivores that are able to use open habitats are less negatively affected by forest fragmentation. Furthermore, a study site's characteristics will always be crucial in explaining observed fragmentation effects.

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