Skip to main content
Log in

The influence of landscape, patch, and within-patch factors on species presence and abundance: a review of focal patch studies

  • Landscape Ecology in Review
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Understanding the influence of large and small-scale heterogeneity on species distribution and abundance is one of the major foci of landscape ecology research in fragmented environments. Although a large number of studies have addressed this issue individually, little effort has been made to synthesize the vast amount of literature published in the last decade. We reviewed 122 focal patch studies on 954 species published between 1998 and 2009 to determine the probability of species responding significantly to landscape, patch, and within-patch variables. We assessed the influence of taxonomic, life history, and methodological variables on probability of response to these 3 levels. Species in diverse taxa responded at high rates to factors at all three levels, suggesting that a multi-level approach is often necessary for understanding species response in patchy systems. Mammals responded at particularly high rates to landscape variables and therefore may benefit more than other taxa from landscape-level conservation efforts in fragmented environments. The probability of detecting a species response to landscape context, patch, and within-patch factors was influenced by a variety of methodological aspects of the studies such as type of landscape metric used, type of response variable, and sample size. Study design issues rarely are discussed by authors as reasons why a particular study did not find an effect of a variable, but should be given more consideration in future studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Banks SC, Finlayson GR, Lawson SJ, Lindenmayer DB, Paetkau D, Ward SJ, Taylor AC (2005) The effects of habitat fragmentation due to forestry plantation establishment on the demography and genetic variation of a marsupial carnivore, Antechinus agilis. Biol Conserv 122:581–597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belisle M, Desrochers A (2002) Gap-crossing decisions by forest birds: an empirical basis for parameterizing spatially-explicit, individual-based models. Landscape Ecol 17:219–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bender D, Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2003) Using patch isolation metrics to predict animal movement in binary landscapes. Landscape Ecol 18:17–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolker BM, Brooks ME, Clark CJ, Geange SW, Poulsen JR, Stevens MHH, White JS (2008) Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 24(3):127–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boscolo D, Metzger JP (2009) Is bird incidence in Atlantic forest fragments influenced by landscape patterns at multiple scales? Landscape Ecol 24:907–918

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carbone C, Cowlishaw G, Isaac NJB, Rowcliffe JM (2005) How far do animals go? Determinants of day range in mammals. Am Nat 165(2):290–297

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Christman MC (2008) Statistical modeling of observation data with spatial dependencies. J Wildl Manag 72:22–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchill JL, Hannon SJ (2010) Off-territory movement of male American Redstarts (Setophaga ruticilla) in a fragmented agricultural landscape is related to song rate, mating status and access to females. J Ornithol 151:33–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper CB, Walters JR (2002) Independent effects of woodland loss and fragmentation on Brown Treecreeper distribution. Biol Conserv 105:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cushman SA, McGarigal K (2002) Hierarchical, multi-scale decomposition of species–environment relationships. Landscape Ecol 17:637–646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cushman SA, McGarigal K (2004a) Hierarchical analysis of forest bird species–environment relationships in the Oregon coast range. Ecol Appl 14:1090–1105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cushman SA, McGarigal K (2004b) Patterns in the species–environment relationship depend on both scale and choice of response variables. Oikos 105:117–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cushman SA, McGarigal K, Neel MC (2008a) Parsimony in landscape metrics: strength, universality, and consistency. Ecol Indic 8:691–703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cushman SA, McKelvey KS, Flather CH, McGarigal K (2008b) Do forest community types provide a sufficient basis to evaluate biological diversity? Front Ecol Environ 6(1):13–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunning JB (2007) CRC handbook of avian body masses, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher RJ, Hutto RL (2008) Partitioning the multi-scale effects of human activity on the occurrence of riparian forest birds. Landscape Ecol 23:727–739

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser GS, Stutchbury BJM (2004) Area-sensitive forest birds move extensively among forest patches. Biol Conserv 118:377–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grand J, Cushman SA (2003) A multi-scale analysis of species–environment relationships: breeding birds in a pitch pine–scrub oak (Pinus rigidaQuercus ilicifolia) community. Biol Conserv 112:307–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grand J, Mello MJ (2004) A multi-scale analysis of species–environment relationships: rare moths in a pitch pine-scrub oak (Pinus rigidaQuercus ilicifolia) community. Biol Conserv 119:495–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannah D, Woinarski JCZ, Catterall CP, Mccosker JC, Thurgate NY, Fensham RJ (2007) Impacts of clearing, fragmentation and disturbance on the bird fauna of Eucalypt savanna woodlands in central Queensland, Australia. Austral Ecol 32:261–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haskell JP, Ritchie ME, Olff H (2002) Fractal geometry predicts varying body size scaling relationships for mammal and bird home ranges. Nature 418:527–530

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hedges LV, Olkin I (1980) Vote-counting methods in research synthesis. Psychol Bull 88:359–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedges LV, Olkin I (1985) Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinsley SA, Bellamy PE, Newton I, Sparks TH (1995) Habitat and landscape factors influencing the presence of individual breeding bird species in woodland fragments. J Avian Biol 26(2):94–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holland GJ, Bennett AF (2009) Differing responses to landscape change: implications for small mammal assemblages in forest fragments. Biodivers Conserv 18:2997–3016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kadoya T, Suda S, Tsubaki Y, Washitani I (2008) The sensitivity of dragonflies to landscape structure differs between life-history groups. Landscape Ecol 23:149–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klingbeil BT, Willig MR (2009) Guild-specific responses of bats to landscape composition and configuration in fragmented Amazonian rainforest. J Appl Ecol 46:203–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolozsvary MB, Swihart RK (1999) Habitat fragmentation and the distribution of amphibians: patch and landscape correlates in farmland. Can J Zool 77:1288–1299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legendre P (1993) Spatial autocorrelation: trouble or new paradigm? Ecology 74:1659–1673

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin SA (1992) The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73:1943–1967

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichstein JW, Simons TR, Shriner SA, Franzreb KE (2002) Spatial autocorrelation and autoregressive models in ecology. Ecol Monogr 72:445–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer DB, Fischer J (2006) Habitat fragmentation and landscape change. Island Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinger RD, Schabenberber O (2006) SAS for mixed models. SAS Institute, Cary, NC

    Google Scholar 

  • Mac Nally R (2000) Regression and model-building in conservation biology, biogeography and ecology: the distinction between—and reconciliation of—“predictive” and explanatory models. Biodivers and Conserv 9:655–671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazerolle MJ, Villard M (1999) Patch characteristics and landscape context as predictors of species presence and abundance: a review. Ecoscience 6:117–124

    Google Scholar 

  • McGarigal K, Cushman SA (2002) Comparative evaluation of experimental approaches to the study of habitat fragmentation effects. Ecol Appl 12:335–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michalski F, Peres CA (2007) Disturbance-mediated mammal persistence and abundance–area relationships in Amazonian forest fragments. Conserv Biol 21:1626–1640

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moilanen A, Nieminen M (2002) Simple connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Ecology 83:1131–1145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mortelliti A (2010) Experimental design and taxonomic scope of fragmentation studies on European mammals: current status and future priorities. Mammal Rev 40(2):125–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen SE, Haughland DL, Bayne E, Schieck J (2009) Capacity of large-scale, long-term biodiversity monitoring programmes to detect trends in species prevalence. Biodivers and Conserv 18:2961–2978

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowak RM (1999) Walker’s mammals of the world. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  • Osenberg CW, Sarnelle O, Cooper SD, Holt RD (1999a) Resolving ecological questions through meta-analysis: goals, metrics, and models. Ecology 80:1105–1117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osenberg CW, Sarnelle O, Goldberg DE (1999b) Meta-analysis in ecology: concepts, statistics, and applications. Ecology 80:1103–1104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ottaviani D, Cairns SC, Oliverio M, Boitani L (2006) Body mass as a predictive variable of home-range size among Italian mammals and birds. J Zool 269:317–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prugh LR, Hodges KE, Sinclair ARE, Brashares JS (2008) Effect of habitat area and isolation on fragmented animal populations. PNAS 105:20770–20775

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn GP, Keough MJ (2002) Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Reid FA (1997) A field guide to the mammals of Central America and Southeast Mexico. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Renfrew RB, Ribic CA (2008) Multi-scale models of grassland passerine abundance in a fragmented system in Wisconsin. Landscape Ecol 23:181–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson OJ, Radford JQ (2009) Gap-crossing decisions of forest birds in a fragmented landscape. Austral Ecol 34:435–446

    Google Scholar 

  • Sallabanks R, Riggs RA, Cobb LE, Dodson SW (2006) Bird-habitat relationships in grand fir forests of the Blue Mountains, Oregon. For Sci 52:489–502

    Google Scholar 

  • SAS (2008) SAS for Windows, Version 9.2. SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Schooley RL, Branch LC (2009) Enhancing the area-isolation paradigm: habitat heterogenetiy and metapopulation dynamics of a rare wetland mammal. Ecol Appl 19:1708–1722

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sunquist M, Sunquist F (2002) Wild cats of the world. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson CM, McGarigal K (2002) The influence of research scale on bald eagle habitat selection along the lower Hudson River, New York (USA). Landscape Ecol 17:569–586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton DH, Branch LC, Sunquist ME (2011) Passive sampling effects and landscape location alter the relationship between species traits and vulnerability to fragmentation. Ecol Appl 21(3). doi:10.1890/10-0549.1

  • Tischendorf L, Bender D, Fahrig L (2003) Evaluation of patch isolation metrics in mosaic landscapes for specialist vs. generalist dispersers. Landscape Ecol 18:41–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner MG (2005) Landscape ecology in North America: past, present, and future. Ecology 86:1967–1974

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward D, Pepler D, Botha R (2008) The influence of sample size on the determination of population trends in the vulnerable Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni overwintering in South Africa. Ostrich 79:199–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watling JI, Donnelly MA (2006) Fragments as islands: a synthesis of faunal responses to habitat patchiness. Conserv Biol 20:1016–1025

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wisz MS, Hijmans RJ, Li J, Peterson AT, Graham CH, Guisan A (2008) Effects of sample size on the performance of species distribution models. Divers Distrib 14:763–773

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank A. Thornton for assistance with literature searches and data collection. We thank Mary Christman for assistance with statistical analyses.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel H. Thornton.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 363 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Thornton, D.H., Branch, L.C. & Sunquist, M.E. The influence of landscape, patch, and within-patch factors on species presence and abundance: a review of focal patch studies. Landscape Ecol 26, 7–18 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-010-9549-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-010-9549-z

Keywords

Navigation