Countryside Species–Area Relationship as a Valid Alternative to the Matrix‐Calibrated Species–Area Model

Pereira, Henrique M.; Ziv, Guy; Miranda, M. Cristina

doi:10.1111/cobi.12289

Cited by 61 publications

(79 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To determine whether the slope of bird extirpations in Menglun was significantly greater than expected in the absence of hunting (z = 0.35; Pereira et al, 2014), an approximate, one-tailed one-sample P-value was estimated as P = 1 À (x/n), where 'x' is the number of resamplings greater than the expected slope in the absence of hunting (0.35), and 'n' is the number of bootstrap resamples. To test whether the z values of forest frugivores were greater than forest understorey insectivores, we estimated one-tailed two-sample t-test as P = 1 À (x/n), where 'x' is the number of resamplings where the slope for frugivores was greater than the slope for understorey insectivores, and 'n' is the number of bootstrap resamples.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1), when the area was previously surveyed for birds between 1954 and 1983 (Yang, 1993;Yang et al, 1995;Xu et al, 2006; see 'Bird surveys' section for details). To separate the effect of hunting from that of forest loss, we used matrix-calibrated and countryside SAMs (Pereira & Daily, 2006; to estimate the slope (z) of forest bird extirpations in the landscape and compared it with the expected species-area slope for birds in the absence of hunting (z = 0.35; Pereira et al, 2014; see 'Species-area models' section for details). It should be noted that this expected species-area slope was derived from a review of fragmentation studies and, because it is likely that many landscapes studied were also exposed to hunting, use of this figure may still inflate the role of habitat loss.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The use of species–area relationships to partition the effects of hunting and deforestation on bird extirpations in a fragmented landscape

Sreekar

Huang

Zhao

et al. 2014

Diversity and Distributions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim Forest fragmentation is often accompanied by an increase in hunting intensity. Both factors are known drivers of species extirpations, but understanding of their independent effects is poor. Our goal was to partition the effects of hunting and fragmentation on bird species extirpations and to identify bird traits that make species more vulnerable to these two stressors. Location Menglun, Yunnan, SW ChinaMethods We studied the landscape within 10 km radius of Menglun town, where forests have become highly fragmented by monoculture rubber plantations. We compiled data on birds recorded between 1954 and 1983 before forest loss and compared it with a checklist prepared between 2011 and 2014. We used countryside and matrix-calibrated species-area models (SAMs) to estimate the observed slope of forest bird extirpations in Menglun and compared it with the slope expected in the absence of hunting. We also investigated six ecological traits to determine those that best explained bird extirpation probability (EP). ResultsWe found that 34% of the bird fauna had been extirpated from the study landscape, and the estimated slopes of countryside and matrix-calibrated SAMs for forest birds were around 1.4 and 1.7 times higher, respectively, than the 0.35 expected without hunting. Bird EP was strongly associated with size, and understorey insectivores that are known to be susceptible to fragmentation were less susceptible to hunting than frugivores. Given evidence of past and present hunting activity in the area, and the lack of support for alternative explanations, we suggest that hunting increased forest bird extirpations by around 1.3-to 1.6-fold.Conclusions This study highlights the importance of using species-area relationships to separate area effects from the impacts of hunting. Our results suggest that hunting substantially increases species extirpations in tropical fragmented landscapes and conservation interventions that only target deforestation will therefore be inadequate.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The use of species–area relationships to partition the effects of hunting and deforestation on bird extirpations in a fragmented landscape

Sreekar

Huang

Zhao

et al. 2014

Diversity and Distributions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For each year and scenario, we fed the estimated areas of each of 12 land use types into the countryside species-area relationship (SAR; [23]) to estimate the number of endemic species projected to go extinct (Slost) as a result of total human land use within a terrestrial ecoregion j as follows [22]:…”

Section: Projecting Species Extinctionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The affinity of taxonomic group g to the land use type i is then calculated as the proportion of all species that can survive in it (fractional richness), raised to the power 1/z j [22,23]. Therefore, the taxon affinity estimate (h g,i,j ) is high in ecoregions hosting a high number of species tolerant to human land uses, but low in ecoregions comprising of species that cannot tolerate human land uses.…”

Section: Projecting Species Extinctionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Terrestrial Vertebrate Biodiversity Loss under Future Global Land Use Change Scenarios

Chaudhary

Mooers

2018

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Efficient forward-looking mitigation measures are needed to halt the global biodiversity decline. These require spatially explicit scenarios of expected changes in multiple indicators of biodiversity under future socio-economic and environmental conditions. Here, we link six future (2050 and 2100) global gridded maps (0.25 • × 0.25 • resolution) available from the land use harmonization (LUH) database, representing alternative concentration pathways (RCP) and shared socio-economic pathways (SSPs), with the countryside species-area relationship model to project the future land use change driven rates of species extinctions and phylogenetic diversity loss (in million years) for mammals, birds, and amphibians in each of the 804 terrestrial ecoregions and 176 countries and compare them with the current and past (850-1900) rates of biodiversity loss. Future land-use changes are projected to commit an additional 209-818 endemic species and 1190-4402 million years of evolutionary history to extinction by 2100 depending upon the scenario. These estimates are driven by land use change only and would likely be higher once the direct effects of climate change on species are included. Among the three taxa, highest diversity loss is projected for amphibians. We found that the most aggressive climate mitigation scenario (RCP2.6 SSP-1), representing a world shifting towards a radically more sustainable path, including increasing crop yields, reduced meat production, and reduced tropical deforestation coupled with high trade, projects the lowest land use change driven global biodiversity loss. The results show that hotspots of future biodiversity loss differ depending upon the scenario, taxon, and metric considered. Future extinctions could potentially be reduced if habitat preservation is incorporated into national development plans, especially for biodiverse, low-income countries such as Indonesia, Madagascar, Tanzania, Philippines, and The Democratic Republic of Congo that are otherwise projected to suffer a high number of land use change driven extinctions under all scenarios.

show abstract

“…It follows that the matrix will influence the extent to which a given amount of habitat loss translates into negative impacts on biodiversity (Kupfer et al ). Indeed, several recent meta‐analyses have confirmed that the composition of the matrix plays a central role in determining the biodiversity of fragmented landscapes (Prugh et al , Prevedello and Vieira , Watling et al ), and methods now exist to predict the effects of habitat loss while accounting for matrix type (Koh and Ghazoul , Pereira et al ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The matrix matters, but how should we manage it? Estimating the amount of high‐quality matrix required to maintain biodiversity in fragmented landscapes

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Improving matrix quality may be a powerful strategy for conserving biodiversity in fragmented landscapes, but effectively implementing this strategy requires a better understanding of how much of the matrix needs to be converted to ‘high‐quality’ land uses to achieve conservation goals. Here, we use data on the distribution of forest birds across > 1000 landscapes throughout New Zealand to quantify how the impacts of habitat loss (declining native forest cover) change as the proportion of matrix that is a high‐quality land use (exotic plantation forest) increases. As expected, we found that the amount of plantation forest in the matrix strongly influenced the extent to which native forest loss impacted bird communities: a decline in native forest cover from 90 to 1% caused a 60% decrease in bird species richness when there was no plantation forest in the matrix, but only a 15% decrease when 99% of the matrix was plantation forest. However, this plantation forest effect was strongly nonlinear, with most of the benefits of increasing plantation forest cover occurring before plantations reached even 10% of the matrix. Conversely, increasing plantation forest cover had minimal effects when the matrix was already dominated by plantation forest, or when native forest cover was high. Previous research has confirmed that matrix quality can strongly influence the biodiversity of fragmented landscapes, but results from our study system suggest that managing the matrix to benefit biodiversity could be surprisingly straightforward. Most of these benefits may be achieved by maintaining a small proportion of the matrix as high‐quality land uses.

show abstract

Countryside Species–Area Relationship as a Valid Alternative to the Matrix‐Calibrated Species–Area Model

Cited by 61 publications

References 11 publications

The use of species–area relationships to partition the effects of hunting and deforestation on bird extirpations in a fragmented landscape

The use of species–area relationships to partition the effects of hunting and deforestation on bird extirpations in a fragmented landscape

Terrestrial Vertebrate Biodiversity Loss under Future Global Land Use Change Scenarios

The matrix matters, but how should we manage it? Estimating the amount of high‐quality matrix required to maintain biodiversity in fragmented landscapes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About