| Literature DB >> 23119096 |
Ainhoa Magrach1, Asier R Larrinaga, Luis Santamaría.
Abstract
Habitat fragmentation has become one of the major threats to biodiversity worldwide, particularly in the case of forests, which have suffered enormous losses during the past decades. We analyzed how changes in patch configuration and habitat quality derived from the fragmentation of austral temperate rainforests affect the distribution of six species of forest-dwelling climbing and epiphytic angiosperms. Epiphyte and vine abundance is primarily affected by the internal characteristics of patches (such as tree size, the presence of logging gaps or the proximity to patch edges) rather than patch and landscape features (such as patch size, shape or connectivity). These responses were intimately related to species-specific characteristics such as drought- or shade-tolerance. Our study therefore suggests that plant responses to fragmentation are contingent on both the species' ecology and the specific pathways through which the study area is being fragmented, (i.e. extensive logging that shaped the boundaries of current forest patches plus recent, unregulated logging that creates gaps within patches). Management practices in fragmented landscapes should therefore consider habitat quality within patches together with other spatial attributes at landscape or patch scales.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23119096 PMCID: PMC3485344 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0048743
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Results of General Lineal Mixed Models describing the effect of patch- and transect-level environmental variables on the abundance of six epiphytes and vines present in 18 forest fragments at Chiloé Island (S Chile).
| Patch-level | Transect-level | |||||||
| P/A RATIO | D-EDGE | D-EDGE2 | LogDBH | LogDBH2 | GAP | TREES | LogDBH* TREES | |
|
| 11.3±4.7* | (6.9±5.2)e−2 NS | ||||||
|
| 0.40±5.47 NS | (9.7±1.7)e−3 *** | (−8±2)e−5 *** | −0.91±0.33 ** | 0.56±0.14 *** | |||
|
| 5.56±3.95 NS | 0.20±0.09 * | (−3.6±1−1)e−2 ** | (7.4±1.4)e−2 *** | ||||
|
| 3.31±0.59 *** | |||||||
|
| 1.20±0.31 ** | |||||||
|
| 5.46±14.85 NS | −1.27±0.33 ** | ||||||
| DBH | 0.67±1.80 NS | (4.5±1.8)e−4 * | ||||||
Results of a model describing the effect of all other independent variables on tree DBH, the best predictor of epiphyte abundance, are also provided. Figures represent parameter estimates (estimate ± standard error) and significance levels for the variables retained in the best (reduced) model. Variables excluded from the reduced models in all cases (i.e. for all species) are not shown in the table. ∫ Epiphyte abundance = number of ramets per tree (N = 2467 at transect level).§Epiphyte abundance = number of ramets per 10-m transect. † Epiphyte presence = proportion of trees occupied per 10-m of transect (30 m for A. ovata; N = 680 and N = 197 at transect level, respectively). Patch level: N = 18. NS P>0.10, * P<0.05, ** P<0.01, *** P<0.001.
Figure 1Partial residual plots showing the effects of patch shape on the patch-level abundance of Luzuriaga radicans.
Filled circles represent the sum of average predicted and residual values per patch.
Figure 2Partial residual plots showing the effects of within-patch habitat characteristics on the abundance of different species.
(a) and (b) Luzuriaga polyphylla, (c) Mitraria coccinea, and (d) Sarmienta repens. Graph (c) shows the relationship between epiphyte abundance and Log(tree DBH) for several values of tree density.
Figure 3Effect of gaps created by unregulated logging within forest patches on the abundance of two species.
(a) Campsidium valdivianum and (b) Asteranthera ovata.
Figure 4Study area and sampling design.
Shaded areas indicate forest fragments, black areas indicate the 18 fragments included in the survey. Inset (lower-right corner) shows one of these fragments with a schematic representation of transects and segments used for the survey.