How may agricultural matrix intensification affect understory birds in an Atlantic Forest landscape? A qualitative model on stochasticity and immigration

Goulart, Fernando Figueiredo; Salles, Paulo; Machado, Ricardo B.

doi:10.1016/j.ecoinf.2013.06.010

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 74 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This high compositional turnover is expected to result from small local population sizes, which increase the effect of demographic or environmental stochasticity (Gaublomme et al, 2014). On the other hand, stochastic events tend to be less important in contiguous landscapes because independent individual events tend to average out in populations of larger sizes (Lande, 1993;Goulart et al, 2013). Thus, in unfragmented habitats, deterministic processes such as changes in climatic conditions are expected to be a major contributor to turnover in community composition.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Landscape fragmentation affects responses of avian communities to climate change

Jarzyna

Porter

Maurer

et al. 2015

Global Change Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forecasting the consequences of climate change is contingent upon our understanding of the relationship between biodiversity patterns and climatic variability. While the impacts of climate change on individual species have been well-documented, there is a paucity of studies on climate-mediated changes in community dynamics. Our objectives were to investigate the relationship between temporal turnover in avian biodiversity and changes in climatic conditions and to assess the role of landscape fragmentation in affecting this relationship. We hypothesized that community turnover would be highest in regions experiencing the most pronounced changes in climate and that these patterns would be reduced in human-dominated landscapes. To test this hypothesis, we quantified temporal turnover in avian communities over a 20-year period using data from the New York State Breeding Atlases collected during 1980-1985 and 2000-2005. We applied Bayesian spatially varying intercept models to evaluate the relationship between temporal turnover and temporal trends in climatic conditions and landscape fragmentation. We found that models including interaction terms between climate change and landscape fragmentation were superior to models without the interaction terms, suggesting that the relationship between avian community turnover and changes in climatic conditions was affected by the level of landscape fragmentation. Specifically, we found weaker associations between temporal turnover and climatic change in regions with prevalent habitat fragmentation. We suggest that avian communities in fragmented landscapes are more robust to climate change than communities found in contiguous habitats because they are comprised of species with wider thermal niches and thus are less susceptible to shifts in climatic variability. We conclude that highly fragmented regions are likely to undergo less pronounced changes in composition and structure of faunal communities as a result of climate change, whereas those changes are likely to be greater in contiguous and unfragmented habitats.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Landscape fragmentation affects responses of avian communities to climate change

Jarzyna

Porter

Maurer

et al. 2015

Global Change Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast, making inferences on species’ movement in alternative landscapes is often not possible, since either the data lack the overall landscape context or the analysis model does not estimate the overall decision-making logic of the individuals studied. Movement researchers have expressed a need for a larger variety of methods that enable predicting species’ movement patterns in structurally different landscapes based on observed data [ 32 , 36 ] besides the existing potential methods and studies [ 36 - 39 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The dual role of rivers in facilitating or hindering movements of the false heath fritillary butterfly

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundSpecies movement responses to landscape structures have been studied using a variety of methods, but movement research is still in need of simple methods that help predicting and comparing movements across structurally different landscapes. We demonstrate how habitat-specific movement models can be used to disentangle causes of differentiated movement patterns in structurally different landscapes and to predict movement patterns in altered and artificial landscapes. In our case study, we studied the role of riparian landscapes to the persistence of the endangered false heath fritillary butterfly (Melitaea diamina) in its newly discovered coastal distribution region in Finland. We compared the movement parameters of the riparian population to two reference populations by using capture-recapture data and habitat-specific diffusion modelling, and analysed the role of the river and riverbank buffer zones in facilitating or hindering false heath fritillary movement with movement simulations.ResultsThe riparian population of the false heath fritillary did not show major differences to reference populations in terms of movement parameters within breeding habitat, high-quality matrix and low-quality matrix. However, movement simulations showed that the habitat-specific movement parameters estimated for the false heath fritillary can lead into markedly different movement patterns in structurally different landscapes. An artificial riparian landscape mimicking those of the coastal distribution resulted into more directional, longitudinal movements both parallel and perpendicular to the river than a more mosaic-like landscape, but the existence of the river in the landscape reduced movements across the river.ConclusionsOur study demonstrates how habitat-specific movement models enable comparisons of movement patterns across structurally different real, altered and artificial landscapes. As such, they can be used to compare movement parameters across populations, to study the effects of management interventions to endangered species and to identify areas that have high sensitivity to individual movement. In our case study, the river is shown to perform a dual role for the movements of the riparian false heath fritillary population. Whereas the river acts as a moderate movement barrier for the false heath fritillary, the longitudinal configuration of riverbank habitats provides a means especially for the male false heath fritillaries to move across the landscape.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40462-015-0031-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…Arrow represents habitat supplementation (utilization of the adjacent matrix outside "habitat patch" by individuals that inhabit the patch, sensu [88]) and arrow size represent the intensity of this provision. Also, at intermediate levels of agriculture intensification, the matrix may act as a population source by serving as a feeding and reproductive site [87]. Because permeability of intensive farming is low in C and D landscapes, natural capital may be only provided nearby the natural habitat border (smaller and fewer arrows).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the other hand, if intermediate levels of agriculture are maintained (B', C', D' and E') as assumed by LSH hypothesis, and habitat loss is controlled, significant amount of biodiversity is maintained although at lower levels then the "original" non-managed landscape (A). Hence, low to intermediate levels of intensification may induce less habitat loss maintaining biodiversity at both farmlands and natural remnants, as well as maintain matrix permeability functionally connecting population inhabiting the habitat patches [87].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Farming-Biodiversity Segregation or Integration? Revisiting Land Sparing versus Land Sharing Debate

Goulart¹,

Ribeiro²,

Soares‐Filho³

2016

JEP

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Land Sparing (LSP) was proposed to spatially segregate biodiversity and production in order to maximize both, while Land Sharing (LSH) defenders posit that farming and nature integration is preferable, through eco-agriculture and low-input systems. Based on a multidisciplinary review on historical land-use data, ecological aspects, agricultural production potential, economic and food security topics, we summarize LSP/LSH major findings and caveats. Although LSH still has to address some issues, LSP relies on a series of assumptions that are not supported by data, particularly regarding the positive effects of intensification on agriculture expansion. Furthermore, we developed conceptual models to theoretically predict the responses of biodiversity and ecosystems services in dynamic landscapes with different natural habitat proportions and different intensification levels on the farmed areas. Agriculture intensification may expand farmland reducing habitat area fostering population declines at the "natural" patches (via habitat reduction and decreasing species intra patch flux through the matrix), as well as at the farm site by direct effect of intensification (heterogeneity reduction and pesticide use), leading to a species extinction and ecosystems services loss. This multiple negative effect of agriculture intensification is worsening in regions where habitat proportion is below 30%, such as in many tropical biodiversity hotspots, making LSH a much safer strategy for conservation and food security.

show abstract

How may agricultural matrix intensification affect understory birds in an Atlantic Forest landscape? A qualitative model on stochasticity and immigration

Cited by 8 publications

References 74 publications

Landscape fragmentation affects responses of avian communities to climate change

Landscape fragmentation affects responses of avian communities to climate change

The dual role of rivers in facilitating or hindering movements of the false heath fritillary butterfly

Farming-Biodiversity Segregation or Integration? Revisiting Land Sparing versus Land Sharing Debate

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About