Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-c8zdz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T00:11:58.726Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Landscape and patch attributes impacting medium- and large-sized terrestrial mammals in a fragmented rain forest

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2013

Adriana Garmendia ,
Víctor Arroyo-Rodríguez ,
Alejandro Estrada ,
Eduardo J. Naranjo  and
Kathryn E. Stoner
Adriana Garmendia
Affiliation:
Centro de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), Antigua carretera a Pátzcuaro No.8701, Ex Hacienda de San José de la Huerta, Morelia 58190, Michoacán, México
Víctor Arroyo-Rodríguez*
Affiliation:
Centro de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), Antigua carretera a Pátzcuaro No.8701, Ex Hacienda de San José de la Huerta, Morelia 58190, Michoacán, México
Alejandro Estrada
Affiliation:
Estación de Biología Tropical Los Tuxtlas, Instituto de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, San Andrés Tuxtla 95700, Veracruz, México
Eduardo J. Naranjo
Affiliation:
Departamento de Conservación de la Biodiversidad, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, San Cristóbal de Las Casas 29290, Chiapas, México
Kathryn E. Stoner
Affiliation:
Department of Biological and Health Sciences, Texas A & M University-Kingsville, Kingsville, Texas 78363-8202, USA
*
1Corresponding author. E-mail: victorarroyo_rodriguez@hotmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Understanding the response of biodiversity to land-use changes is an important challenge for ecologists. We assessed the effects of five landscape metrics (forest cover, number of patches, edge density, mean inter-patch isolation distance and matrix quality) and three patch metrics (patch size, shape and isolation) on the number of species and patch occupancy of medium- and large-sized terrestrial mammals in the fragmented Lacandona rain forest, Mexico. We sampled mammal assemblages in 24 forest patches and four control areas within a continuous forest. The landscape metrics were measured within a 100-ha buffer, and within a 500-ha buffer from the centre of each sampling site. A total of 21 species from 13 families was recorded. The number of species increased with shape complexity and patch size at the patch scale, and with matrix quality within 100-ha landscapes. When considering 500-ha landscapes, only the number of patches (i.e. forest fragmentation level) tended to have a negative influence at the community level. Different landscape and patch metrics predicted the occurrence of each species within the sites. Our results indicate that there is a gradient of tolerance to forest cover change, from highly sensitive species to those tolerant of, or even benefited by, forest-cover change.

Keywords

forest fragmentationLacandonaland-use changematrix qualitypatch sizeshape complexity

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Tropical Ecology , Volume 29 , Issue 4 , July 2013 , pp. 331 - 344
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

LITERATURE CITED

ANTONGIOVANNI, M. & METZGER, J. 2005. Influence of matrix habitats on the occurrence of insectivorous bird species in Amazonian forest fragments. Biological Conservation 122:441–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ARANDA, M. 2000. Huellas y otros rastros de los mamíferos medianos y grandes de México. Instituto de Ecología A.C.-CONABIO, Mexico City. 212 pp.Google Scholar
ARROYO-RODRÍGUEZ, V. & DIAS, P. A. D. 2009. Effects of habitat fragmentation and disturbance on howler monkeys: a review. American Journal of Primatology 71:1–16.Google Scholar
ARROYO-RODRÍGUEZ, V. & MANDUJANO, S. 2006. Forest fragmentation modifies habitat quality for Alouatta palliata. International Journal of Primatology 27:1079–1096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ARROYO-RODRÍGUEZ, V., PINEDA, E., ESCOBAR, F. & BENÍTEZ-MALVIDO, J. 2009. Value of small patches in the conservation of plant-species diversity in highly fragmented rainforest. Conservation Biology 23:729–739.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ASENSIO, N., ARROYO-RODRÍGUEZ, V., DUNN, J. & CRISTÓBAL-AZKARATE, J. 2009. Conservation value of landscape supplementation for howler monkeys living in forest patches. Biotropica 41:768–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BÁLDI, A. 2008. Habitat heterogeneity overrides the species–area relationship. Journal of Biogeography 35:675–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BAWA, K. S. & SEIDLER, R. 2008. Natural forest management and conservation of biodiversity in tropical forests. Conservation Biology 12:46–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BENDER, D. J. & FAHRIG, L. 2005. Matrix structure obscures the relationship between interpatch movement and patch size and isolation. Ecology 86:1023–1033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BEZAURY-CREEL, J. & GUITIÉRREZ-CARBONELL, D. 2009. Áreas naturales protegidas y desarrollo social en México. Pp. 385–431 in Capital Natural de México, Vol. II: Estado de conservación y tendencias de cambio. CONABIO, Mexico City.Google Scholar
BOWMAN, J., JAEGER, J. & FAHRIG, L. 2002. Dispersal distance of mammals is proportional to home range size. Ecology 83:2049–2055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CAMARA, G., SOUZA, R. C. M., FREITAS, U. M. & GARRIDO, J. 1996. Spring: integrating remote sensing and GIS by object-oriented data modelling. Computers & Graphics 20:395–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CHAPMAN, C. A. & PERES, C. A. 2001. Primate conservation in the new millennium: the role of scientists. Evolutionary Anthropology 10:16–33.3.0.CO;2-O>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CHATTERJEE, S., HADI, A. S. & PRICE, B. 2000. Regression analysis by example. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 393 pp.Google Scholar
CHIARELLO, A. G. 1999. Effects of fragmentation of the Atlantic forest on mammal communities in south-eastern Brazil. Biological Conservation 89:71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CRAWLEY, M. 2007. The R book. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester. 942 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CUARÓN, A. D. 2005. Cabassous centralis. Pp. 116–117 in Ceballos, G. & Oliva, G. (eds.). Los Mamíferos Silvestres de México. CONABIO y Fondo de Cultura Económica, Mexico City.Google Scholar
DAILY, G. C., CEBALLOS, G., PACHECO, J., SUZAN, G. & SÁNCHEZ-AZOFEIFA, A. 2003. Countryside biogeography of Neotropical mammals: conservation opportunities in agricultural landscapes of Costa Rica. Conservation Biology 17:1814–1826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DAVIDSON, A., HAMILTON, M., BOYER, A. & CEBALLOS, G. 2009. Multiple ecological pathways to extinction in mammals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 106:10702–10705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DUNNING, J. B., DANIELSON, B. J. & PULLIAM, H. R. 1992. Ecological processes that affect populations in complex landscapes. Oikos 65:169–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EIGENBROD, F., HECNAR, S. J. & FAHRIG, L. 2011. Sub-optimal study design has major impacts on landscape-scale inference. Biological Conservation 144:298–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ESTRADA, A. & COATES-ESTRADA, R. 1996. Tropical rain forest fragmentation and wild populations of primates at Los Tuxtlas, Mexico. International Journal of Primatology 17:759–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ETHIER, K. & FAHRIG, L. 2011. Positive effects of forest fragmentation, independent of forest amount, on bat abundance in eastern Ontario, Canada. Landscape Ecology 26:865–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EWERS, R. M. & DIDHAM, R. K. 2006. Confounding factors in the detection of species responses to habitat fragmentation. Biological Reviews 81:117–142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
FAHRIG, L. 2003. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 34:487–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FAHRIG, L., BAUDRY, J., BROTONS, L., BUREL, F. G., CRIST, T. O., FULLER, R. J., SIRAMI, C., SIRIWARDENA, G. M. & JEAN-LOUIS, M. 2011. Functional landscape heterogeneity and animal biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Ecology Letters 14:101–112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
FISCHER, J. & LINDENMAYER, D. B. 2007. Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: a synthesis. Global Ecology and Biogeography 16:265–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FORMAN, R. T. T. & GODRON, M. 1986. Landscape ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 620 pp.Google Scholar
GARDNER, T. A., BARLOW, J., CHAZDON, R., EWERS, R. M., HARVEY, C. A., PERES, C. A. & SODHI, N. S. 2009. Prospects for tropical forest biodiversity in a human-modified world. Ecology Letters 12:561–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GIBSON, L., LEE, T. M., KOH, L. P., BROOK, B. W., GARDNER, T. A., BARLOW, J., PERES, C. A., BRADSHAW, C. J. A., LAURANCE, W. F., LOVEJOY, T. E. & SODHI, N. S. 2011. Primary forests are irreplaceable for sustaining tropical biodiversity. Nature 478:378–381.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
GOMPPER, M. E. 1995. Nasua narica. Mammalian Species 487:1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GONZÁLEZ-ZAMORA, A., ARROYO-RODRÍGUEZ, V., GONZÁLEZ, A. M., LOMBERA, R., PEÑA, E., PEÑA, J. L., HERNÁNDEZ-ORDOÑEZ, O., MUENCH, C. & STONER, K. E. 2011. The northern naked-tailed armadillo in the Lacandona rainforest, Mexico: new records and potential threats. Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad 82:581–586.Google Scholar
HANSKI, I. 1999. Metapopulation ecology. Oxford University Press, New York. 313 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HILL, J. K. & HAMER, K. C. 2004. Determining impacts of habitat modification on diversity of tropical forest fauna: the importance of spatial scale. Journal of Applied Ecology 41:744–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
JACKSON, H. B. & FAHRIG, F. 2012. What size is a biologically relevant landscape? Landscape Ecology 27:929–941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
JACKSON, V. L., LAACK, L. L. & ZIMMERMAN, E. G. 2005. Landscape metrics associated with habitat use by ocelots in south Texas. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:733–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KARP, D. S. & GUEVARA, R. 2011. Conversational noise reduction as a win–win for ecotourists and rain forest birds in Peru. Biotropica 43:122–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KEUROGHLIAN, A. & EATON, D. P. 2008. Importance of rare habitats and riparian zones in a tropical forest fragment: preferential use by Tayassu pecari, a wide-ranging frugivore. Journal of Zoology 275:283–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LAURANCE, W. F., LOVEJOY, T. E., VASCONCELOS, H. L., BRUNA, E. M., DIDHAM, R. K., STOUFFER, P. C., GASCON, C., BIERREGAARD, R. O., LAURANCE, S. G. & SAMPAIO, E. 2002. Ecosystem decay of Amazonian forest fragments: a 22-year investigation. Conservation Biology 3:605–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LIRA-TORRES, I., GALINDO-LEAL, C. & BRIONES-SALAS, M. 2012. Mamíferos de la Selva Zoque, México: riqueza, uso y conservación. Revista de Biología Tropical 60:781–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MACARTHUR, R. & WILSON, E. 1967. The theory of island biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton. 203 pp.Google Scholar
MARTÍNEZ-MORALES, M. A. 2005. Landscape patterns influencing bird assemblages in a fragmented Neotropical cloud forest. Biological Conservation 121:117–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MCGARIGAL, K. & CUSHMAN, S. A. 2002. Comparative evaluation of experimental approaches to the study of habitat fragmentation. Ecological Applications 12:335–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MCSHEA, W. J., STEWART, C., PETERSON, L., ERB, P., STUEBING, R. & GIMAN, B. 2009. The importance of secondary forest blocks for terrestrial mammals within an Acacia/secondary forest matrix in Sarawak, Malaysia. Biological Conservation 142:3108–3119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MEDELLÍN, R. A. 1994. Mammal diversity and conservation in the Selva Lacandona, Chiapas, Mexico. Conservation Biology 8:780–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MEDELLÍN, R. A. & EQUIHUA, M. 1998. Mammal species richness and habitat use in rainforest and abandoned agricultural fields in Chiapas, Mexico. Journal of Applied Ecology 35:13–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MELO, F. P. L., ARROYO-RODRÍGUEZ, V., FAHRIG, L., MARTÍNEZ-RAMOS, M. & TABARELLI, M. 2013. On the hope for biodiversity-friendly tropical landscapes. Trends in Ecology and Evolution (early view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2013.01.001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MENDOZA, E. & DIRZO, R. 1999. Deforestation in Lacandonia (southeast Mexico): evidence for the declaration of the northernmost tropical hot-spot. Biodiversity and Conservation 8:1621–1641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MORA, F. 2008. Caracterización de la cobertura forestal en el Corredos Biológico Mesoamericano-México: patrones espaciales en la pérdida y fragmentación de los bosques. Pp. 55–84 in Importancia del capital ecológico de la región del Corredor Biológico Mesoamericano-México: evaluación de la biodiversidad, ciclo hidrológico y dinámica de la cobertura forestal. CONABIO-CBBMx, Mexico City.Google Scholar
MURCIA, M. 1995. Edge effects in fragmented forests: implications for conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10:58–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MYERS, N., MITTERMEIER, R. A., MITTERMEIER, C. G., DA FONSECA, G. A. & KENT, J. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
NARANJO, E. 2009. Ecology and conservation of Baird's Tapir in Mexico. Tropical Conservation Science 2:140–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NETER, J., KUTNER, M. H., NACHTSHEIM, C. J. & WASSERMAN, W. 1996. Applied linear statistical models. Fourth edition. Irwin, Chicago. 1408 pp.Google Scholar
PALMER, M. W. 1993. Putting things in even better order: the advantages of Canonical Correspondence Analysis. Ecology 74:2215–2230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PARDINI, R., DE ARRUDA BUENO, A., GARDNER, T. A., PRADO, P. I. & METZGER, J. P. 2010. Beyond the fragmentation threshold hypothesis: regime shifts in biodiversity across fragmented landscapes. PLoS ONE 5:e13666.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
PARRY, L., BARLOW, J. & PERES, C. A. 2007. Large-vertebrate assemblages of primary and secondary forests in the Brazilian Amazon. Journal of Tropical Ecology 23:653–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PERFECTO, I. & VANDERMEER, J. 2010. The agroecological matrix as alternative to the land-sparing/agriculture intensification model. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 107:5786–5791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PRUGH, L. R., HODGES, K. E., SINCLAIR, A. R. E. & BRASHARES, J. S. 2008. Effect of habitat area and isolation on fragmented animal populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 105:20770–20775.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
REID, F. 2009. A field guide to the mammals of Central America and Southeast Mexico. Oxford University Press, New York. 334 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
RICKLEFS, R. E. 1987. Community diversity: relative roles of local and regional processes. Science 235:167–171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
SANTOS-FILHO, M., PERES, C. A., DA SILVA, D. J. & SANAIOTTI, T. M. 2012. Habitat patch and matrix effects on small-mammal persistence in Amazonian forest fragments. Biodiversity and Conservation 21:1127–1147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SCHOEREDER, J., GALBIATI, C., RIBAS, C., SOBRINHO, T., SPERBER, C., DESOUZA, O. & LOPES-ANDRADE, C. 2004. Should we use proportional sampling for species–area studies? Journal of Biogeography 31:1219–1226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SILVEIRA, L., JÁCOMO, A. T. & DINIZ-FILHO, J. A. 2003. Camera trap, line transect census and track surveys: a comparative evaluation. Biological Conservation 114:351–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SMITH, A. C., FAHRIG, L. & FRANCIS, C. M. 2011. Landscape size affects the relative importance of habitat amount, habitat fragmentation, and matrix quality on forest birds. Ecography 34:103–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
STONER, K. E., RIBA-HERNÁNDEZ, P., VULINEC, K. & LAMBERT, J. E. 2007. The role of mammals in creating and modifying seedshadows in tropical forests and some possible consequences of their elimination. Biotropica 39:316–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SUTHERLAND, G. D., HARESTAD, A. S., PRICE, K. & LERTZMAN, K. P. 2000. Scaling of natal dispersal distances in terrestrial birds and mammals. Conservation Ecology 4:16. (online, URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol4/iss1/art16/)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
TAYLOR, P. D., FAHRIG, L., HENEIN, K. & MERRIAM, G. 1993. Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68:571–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
TEJEDA-CRUZ, C., NARANJO, E. J., CUARÓN, A. D., PERALES, H. & CRUZ-BURGUETE, J. L. 2009. Habitat use of wild ungulates in fragmented landscapes of the Lacandon forest, Southern Mexico. Mammalia 73:211–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
TERBORGH, J., LÓPEZ, L., NUÑEZ, P., RAO, M., SHAHABUDDIN, G., ORIHUELA, G., RIVEROS, M., ASCANIO, R., ADLER, G. H., LAMBERT, T. D. & BALBAS, L. 2001. Ecological meltdown in predator-free forest fragments. Science 294:1923–1926.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
THORNTON, D. H., BRANCH, L. C. & SUNQUIST, M. E. 2011a. The relative influence of habitat loss and fragmentation: do tropical mammals meet the temperate paradigm? Ecological Applications 21:2324–2333.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
THORNTON, D. H., BRANCH, L. C. & SUNQUIST, M. E. 2011b. Passive sampling effects and landscape location alter associations between species traits and response to fragmentation. Ecological Applications 21:817–829.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
UMETSU, F. & PARDINI, R. 2007. Small mammals in a mosaic of forest remnants and anthropogenic habitats – evaluating matrix quality in an Atlantic forest landscape. Landscape Ecology 22:517–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
URQUIZA-HAAS, T., PERES, C. A. & DOLMAN, P. M. 2009. Regional scale effects of human density and forest disturbance on large-bodied vertebrates throughout the Yucatán Peninsula, Mexico. Biological Conservation 142:134–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VERBEYLEN, G., BRUYN, L. D. & MATTHYSEN, E. 2003. Patch occupancy, population density and dynamics in a fragmented red squirrel Sciurus vulgaris population. Ecography 26:118–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VILLARD, M. A., TRZCINSKI, M. K. & MERRIAM, G. 1999. Fragmentation effects on forest birds: relative influence of woodland cover and configuration on landscape occupancy. Conservation Biology 13:774–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ZANETTE, L., DOYLE, P. & TREMONT, S. M. 2000. Food shortage in small fragments: evidence from an area-sensitive passerine. Ecology 81:1654–1666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar