Riparian reserves help protect forest bird communities in oil palm dominated landscapes

Mitchell, Simon L.; Edwards, David P.; Bernard, Henry; Coomes, David A.; Jucker, Tommaso; Davies, Zoe G.; Struebig, Matthew J.

doi:10.1111/1365-2664.13233

Cited by 54 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Riparian forest strip widths <10 m showed changes in algae, macroinvertebrates and fish in streams, while widths >30 m were found to be effective in buffering streams from such changes in the short term (macroinvertebrates, fish and algae, Davies & Nelson, ; macroinvertebrates, Newbold et al, ). In addition, widths of riparian habitats have been shown to affect terrestrial species (birds, Hagar, , Mitchell et al, ; dung beetles, Gray et al, ; but see Darveau et al, , small mammals). A study in the Brazilian Amazon showed that most of the variation in bat composition occurs up to 114 m from the streams (Pereira et al, ), thus riparian forest strips of ~25 m wide would conserve just a fraction of the bat assemblage.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Agricultural practices lead to losses of natural resources and biodiversity (Godfray & Garnett, ). One mechanism to minimize the impact of clearing for agriculture and other production activities on biodiversity is to maintain riparian forest strips (insects: Barlow et al, , Brito et al, , Gray, Lewis, Chung, & Fayle, , Gray, Slade, Mann, & Lewis, ; macroinvertebrates: McClain, ; fish: Giam et al, ; birds: Machtans, Villard, & Hannon, , Mitchell et al, , Whitaker & Montevecchi, ; bats: Lloyd, Law, & Goldingay, , Mullin, ; small mammals: Al‐Khudhairy Gutierrez, ; Chapman & Ribic, ; Cockle & Richardson, ; Darveau, Labbe, Beauchesne, Belanger, & Huot, ; large and medium‐sized mammals: Paolino et al, , Phoebus, Segelbacher, & Stenhouse, , Zimbres, Peres, & Machado, ). These strips may become prominent features in agricultural landscapes and may assume disproportionate roles in protecting biodiversity outside protected areas (Arriaga‐Flores, Castro‐Arellano, Moreno‐Valdez, & Correa‐Sandoval, ; Mendenhall, Karp, Meyer, Hadly, & Daily, ; Naiman, Decamps, & Pollock, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Within agricultural landscapes, riparian forest strips may help conserve water resources, improve water quality, harbor animals that serve as bio‐control agents, provide connections between forest fragments, and act as physical barriers to destructive fires, radiation fluxes, winds, and pests (Muscutt, Harris, Bailey, & Davies, ; Saunders, Hobbs, & Margules, ; Zanuncio, Mezzomo, Guedes, & Oliveira, ). In recognition of these benefits, the maintenance of riparian forest strips is supported by legislation in several tropical countries (Barlow et al, ; McClain & Cossio, ; Pereira et al, ) and, in the case of Peru, by Law 29,338 “Hydric Resources Law.” However, the efficacy of riparian forest strips in maintaining biodiversity in cleared agricultural landscapes has been primarily examined in temperate areas (Chapman & Ribic, ; Cockle & Richardson, ; Darveau et al, ; Hagar, ; Machtans et al, ; but see de la Pena‐Cuellar, Benitez‐Malvido, Avila‐Cabadilla, Martinez‐Ramos, & Estrada, ; Lees & Peres, ; Lourenco, Gomes, Pinheiro, Patricio, & Famadas, ; Mitchell et al, ; Paolino et al, ). Given the biodiversity richness of tropical forests, especially lowland wet forests, and the rapid expansion of large‐scale agriculture in these areas, we need additional work to demonstrate the conservation value, if any, of riparian forest strips in tropical regions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Agricultural practices lead to losses of natural resources and biodiversity (Godfray & Garnett, 2014). One mechanism to minimize the impact of clearing for agriculture and other production activities on biodiversity is to maintain riparian forest strips (insects: Barlow et al, 2010, Brito et al, 2017, Gray, Lewis, Chung, & Fayle, 2015, Gray, Slade, Mann, & Lewis, 2014macroinvertebrates: McClain, 2002; fish: Giam et al, 2015;birds: Machtans, Villard, & Hannon, 1996, Mitchell et al, 2018, Whitaker & Montevecchi, 1999bats: Lloyd, Law, & Goldingay, 2006, Mullin, 2015 small mammals:…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In recognition of these benefits, the maintenance of riparian forest strips is supported by legislation in several tropical countries (Barlow et al, 2010;McClain & Cossio, 2003;Pereira et al, 2018) and, in the case of Peru, by Law 29,338 "Hydric Resources Law." However, the efficacy of riparian forest strips in maintaining biodiversity in cleared agricultural landscapes has been primarily examined in temperate areas (Chapman & Ribic, 2002;Cockle & Richardson, 2003;Darveau et al, 2001;Hagar, 1999;Machtans et al, 1996; but see de la Pena-Cuellar, Benitez-Malvido, Avila-Cabadilla, Martinez-Ramos, & Estrada, 2015;Lees & Peres, 2008;Lourenco, Gomes, Pinheiro, Patricio, & Famadas, 2014;Mitchell et al, 2018;Paolino et al, 2018). Given the biodiversity richness of tropical forests, especially lowland wet forests, and the rapid expansion of large-scale agriculture in these areas, we need additional work to demonstrate the conservation value, if any, of riparian forest strips in tropical regions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Do riparian forest strips in modified forest landscapes aid in conserving bat diversity?

Carrasco‐Rueda

Loiselle

2019

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agricultural practices lead to losses of natural resources and biodiversity. Maintaining forests alongside streams (riparian forest strips) has been used as a mechanism to minimize the impact of clearing for agriculture on biodiversity. To test the contribution of riparian forest strips to conserve biodiversity in production landscapes, we selected bats as a biodiversity model system and examined two dimensions of diversity: taxonomic and functional. We compared bat diversity and composition in forest, with and without stream habitat, and in narrow forest riparian strips surrounded by areas cleared for agriculture. We tested the hypothesis that riparian forest strips provide potential conservation value by providing habitat and serving as movement corridors for forest bat species. Riparian forest strips maintained 75% of the bat species registered in forested habitats. We found assemblage in sites with riparian forest strips were dominated by a few species with high abundance and included several species with low abundance. Bat species assemblage was more similar between sites with streams than between those sites to forests without stream habitat. These results highlight the importance of stream habitat in predicting presence of bat species. We registered similar number of guilds between forest sites and riparian forest strips sites. Relative to matrix habitats, stream and edge habitats in riparian forest strips sites were functionally more diverse, supporting our hypothesis about the potential conservation value of riparian forest strips. Results from this study suggest that maintaining riparian forest strips within cleared areas for agricultural areas helps conserve the taxonomic and functional diversity of bats. Also, it provides basic data to evaluate the efficacy of maintaining these landscape features for mitigating impacts of agricultural development on biodiversity. However, we caution that riparian forest strips alone are not sufficient for biodiversity maintenance; their value depends on maintenance of larger forest areas in their vicinity.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Do riparian forest strips in modified forest landscapes aid in conserving bat diversity?

Carrasco‐Rueda

Loiselle

2019

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Densities of Bornean orang‐utans (Pongo pygmaeus morio) in heavily degraded forest and oil palm plantations in Sabah, Borneo

Seaman

Bernard

Ancrenaz

et al. 2019

American J Primatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The conversion of forest to agriculture continues to contribute to the loss and fragmentation of remaining orang‐utan habitat. There are still few published estimates of orang‐utan densities in these heavily modified agricultural areas to inform range‐wide population assessments and conservation strategies. In addition, little is known about what landscape features promote orang‐utan habitat use. Using indirect nest count methods, we implemented surveys and estimated population densities of the Northeast Bornean orang‐utan (Pongo pygmaeus morio) across the continuous logged forest and forest remnants in a recently salvage‐logged area and oil palm plantations in Sabah, Malaysian Borneo. We then assessed the influence of landscape features and forest structural metrics obtained from LiDAR data on estimates of orang‐utan density. Recent salvage logging appeared to have a little short‐term effect on orang‐utan density (2.35 ind/km 2), which remained similar to recovering logged forest nearby (2.32 ind/km 2). Orang‐utans were also present in remnant forest patches in oil palm plantations, but at significantly lower numbers (0.82 ind/km 2) than nearby logged forest and salvage‐logged areas. Densities were strongly influenced by variation in canopy height but were not associated with other potential covariates. Our findings suggest that orang‐utans currently exist, at least in the short‐term, within human‐modified landscapes, providing that remnant forest patches remain. We urge greater recognition of the role that these degraded habitats can have in supporting orang‐utan populations, and that future range‐wide analyses and conservation strategies better incorporate data from human‐modified landscapes.

show abstract

Riparian buffers made of mature oil palms have inconsistent impacts on oil palm ecosystems

Pashkevich

Luke

Aryawan

et al. 2022

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Expansion of oil palm has caused widespread declines in biodiversity and changes in ecosystem functioning across the tropics. A major driver of these changes is loss of habitat heterogeneity as forests are converted into oil palm plantations. Therefore, one strategy to help support biodiversity and functioning in oil palm is to increase habitat heterogeneity, for instance, by retaining forested buffers around rivers when new plantations are established, or maintaining buffers made of mature oil palms (“mature palm buffers”) when old plantations are replanted. While forested buffers are known to benefit oil palm systems, the impacts of mature palm buffers are less certain. In this study, we assessed the benefits of mature palm buffers, which were being passively restored (in this case, meaning that buffers were treated with no herbicides, pesticides, or fertilizers) by sampling environmental conditions and arthropods within buffers and in surrounding non‐buffer areas (i.e., areas that were 25 and 125 m from buffers, and receiving normal business‐as‐usual management) across an 8‐year chronosequence in industrial oil palm plantations (Sumatra, Indonesia). We ask (1) Do environmental conditions and biodiversity differ between buffer and non‐buffer areas? (2) Do buffers affect environmental conditions and biodiversity in adjacent non‐buffer areas (i.e., areas that were 25 m from buffers)? (3) Do buffers become more environmentally complex and biodiverse over time? We found that buffers can have environmental conditions (canopy openness, variation in openness, vegetation height, ground cover, and soil temperature) and levels of arthropod biodiversity (total arthropod abundance and spider abundance in the understory and spider species‐level community composition in all microhabitats) that are different from those in non‐buffer areas, but that these differences are inconsistent across the oil palm commercial life cycle. We also found that buffers might contribute to small increases in vegetation height and changes in ground cover in adjacent non‐buffer areas, but do not increase levels of arthropod biodiversity in these areas. Finally, we found that canopy openness, variation in openness, and ground cover, but no aspects of arthropod biodiversity, change within buffers over time. Collectively, our findings indicate that mature palm buffers that are being passively restored can have greater environmental complexity and higher levels of arthropod biodiversity than non‐buffer areas, particularly in comparison to recently replanted oil palm, but these benefits are not consistent across the crop commercial life cycle. If the goal of maintaining riparian buffers is to consistently increase habitat heterogeneity and improve biodiversity, an alternative to mature palm buffers or a move toward more active restoration of these areas is, therefore, probably required.

show abstract

Riparian reserves help protect forest bird communities in oil palm dominated landscapes

Cited by 54 publications

References 41 publications

Do riparian forest strips in modified forest landscapes aid in conserving bat diversity?

Do riparian forest strips in modified forest landscapes aid in conserving bat diversity?

Densities of Bornean orang‐utans (Pongo pygmaeus morio) in heavily degraded forest and oil palm plantations in Sabah, Borneo

Riparian buffers made of mature oil palms have inconsistent impacts on oil palm ecosystems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About