| Literature DB >> 24621967 |
Hania Lada1, James R Thomson1, Shaun C Cunningham1, Ralph Mac Nally1.
Abstract
Many ecological systems around the world are changing rapidly in response to direct (land-use change) and indirect (climate change) human actions. We need tools to assess dynamically, and over appropriate management scales, condition of ecosystems and their responses to potential mitigation of pressures. Using a validated model, we determined whether stand condition of floodplain forests is related to densities of a small mammal (a carnivorous marsupial, Antechinus flavipes) in 60,000 ha of extant river red gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) forests in south-eastern Australia in 2004, 2005 and 2011. Stand condition was assessed remotely using models built from ground assessments of stand condition and satellite-derived reflectance. Other covariates, such as volumes of fallen timber, distances to floods, rainfall and life stages were included in the model. Trapping of animals was conducted at 272 plots (0.25 ha) across the region. Densities of second-year females (i.e. females that had survived to a second breeding year) and of second-year females with suckled teats (i.e. inferred to have been successful mothers) were higher in stands with the highest condition. There was no evidence of a relationship with stand condition for males or all females. These outcomes show that remotely-sensed estimates of stand condition (here floodplain forests) are relatable to some demographic characteristics of a small mammal species, and may provide useful information about the capacity of ecosystems to support animal populations. Over-regulation of large, lowland rivers has led to declines in many facets of floodplain function. If management of water resources continues as it has in recent decades, then our results suggest that there will be further deterioration in stand condition and a decreased capacity for female yellow-footed antechinuses to breed multiple times.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24621967 PMCID: PMC3951454 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0091731
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Location of study sites on the middle Murray River floodplain, south-eastern Australia.
Grey areas represent extant forests. Black dots represent locations of 1–27 study sites. Extensive forest areas are labeled, with Gt indicating Guttrum forest. Gunbower and Barmah were surveyed in 2004, 2005 and 2011; Campbells, Guttrum, Koondrook, Millewa and Ovens – in 2004 and 2005.
Predictor variables used in the analysis of capture rates of the yellow-footed antechinus Antechinus flavipes in river red gum woodlands in 2004, 2005 and 2011 in south-eastern Australia.
| Year 2004 | Year 2005 | Year 2011 | ||
| Predictor variable | Mean ± SD (in | Mean ± SD (in | Mean ± SD (in | Data source |
| Stand-condition score | 7.23 ± 0.72 (7) | 7.22 ± 0.74 (7) | 6.93 ± 0.97 (2) | GIS rasters of modeled stand condition; 2006 model |
| Volume of fallen timber (m3/ha) | 65.41 ± 36.11 (7) | 66.69 ± 36.01 (7) | 44.74 ± 29.82 (2) | All logs with diameters ≥ 10 cm on 0.25 ha sites |
| Distance to floodwaters (km) | 3.16 ± 4.14 (7) | 3.03 ± 4.11 (7) | 0 ± 0 (2) | Maps of inundations and field observations in 2003–2011 |
| Number of orb-weaving spider webs | NA | NA | 4 ± 5.1 (2) | Webs counted within 2 m of each trap line |
| Annual rainfall in previous year (mm) | 535.2 ± 114.5 | 407.7 ± 73.4 | 657 ± 20.4 | Data from three weather stations in 2004 and 2005, two stations in 2011 |
| Juvenile dispersal | Categorical variable; whether trapping was in January (juvenile dispersal) or in June and July (breeding season) | |||
| Post-juvenile dispersal | Categorical variable; whether trapping was in March to May (post-juvenile dispersal) or in June and July (breeding season) |
NA = not collected.
Results of Bayesian regression analyses [posterior mean regression coefficient, β, and probability of non-zero coefficient, Pr(β≠ 0)] of capture rates of the yellow-footed antechinus Antechinus flavipes in river red gum woodlands in 2004, 2005 and 2011 in south-eastern Australia with respect to environmental variables and stage of life cycle.
| Total | Males | Females | F2 | F2 with teats | ||||||
| Variable | Mean ±SD | Pr | Mean±SD | Pr | Mean±SD | Pr | Mean±SD | Pr | Mean±SD | Pr |
|
| −2.97±0.25 | −3.43±0.25 | −3.96 ±0.29 | −5.99±0.76 | −6.88±0.77 | |||||
|
| −2.31±0.24 | −2.71±0.30 | −3.47±0.29 | −5.14±0.59 | −5.59±0.66 | |||||
|
| −2.16±0.41 | −2.56±0.51 | −3.61±0.46 | −5.52±1.01 | −6.03±1.01 | |||||
| Condition | −0.01±0.03 | 0.22 | −0.12±0.11 | 0.69 | 0.07±0.10 | 0.54 |
|
|
|
|
| FloodDist | −0.01±0.04 | 0.27 | 0.00±0.03 | 0.17 | 0.00±0.04 | 0.34 | 0.00±0.03 | 0.14 | 0.00±0.05 | 0.20 |
| Logs (m3h−1) |
|
| 0.05±0.07 | 0.49 | 0.08±0.09 | 0.65 | 0.01±0.04 | 0.16 | 0.00±0.03 | 0.17 |
| RainPrevYr | −0.03±0.09 | 0.39 | 0.00±0.16 | 0.51 | −0.04±0.09 | 0.42 | −0.17±0.21 | 0.63 | −0.02±0.09 | 0.26 |
| Webs | 0.00±0.02 | 0.19 | 0.00±0.01 | 0.10 | 0.00±0.02 | 0.26 | 0.00±0.01 | 0.09 | 0.00±0.01 | 0.09 |
| JD | 0.06±0.22 | 0.46 | −0.12±0.28 | 0.46 | 0.13±0.35 | 0.56 | 0.07±0.33 | 0.34 | 0.26±0.68 | 0.51 |
| PostJD | −0.14±0.18 | 0.61 |
|
| 0.01±0.07 | 0.41 | −0.39±0.57 | 0.53 | 0.00±0.08 | 0.27 |
| Pseudo- | 0.56 (0.09) | 0.42 (0.10) | 0.43 (0.05) | 0.28 (0.07) | 0.33 (0.07) | |||||
Pr(β≠ 0) values in parenthesis are averages of cross-validation fits [shown only for variables with Pr(β≠ 0) > 0.75]. Response variables: F2 = second-year females, F2 with teats = second-year females with suckled teats. Covariates: Condition = modeled stand condition at 100 m resolution, Webs = number of webs of golden orb-weaving spiders, FallenTimber = volume of fallen timber, FloodDist = Euclidean distance to flood waters, RainPrev6mon = rainfall over 6 months preceding the month of trapping, RainPrevYr = annual rainfall previous year, JD = whether trapping occurred during juvenile dispersal phase, postJD = whether trapping occurred between juvenile dispersal and breeding stages. Pr = probability that the covariate is a predictor of the response. Mean = regression coefficient. SD = standard deviation of regression coefficient. Pseudo-R is the proportion of the binomial deviance [–2log(likelihood)] explained by the fitted model divided by the maximum possible value, values in parentheses are the corresponding values for 10-fold cross validation.
Figure 2Proportion of floodplain forest in different stand-condition categories along the mid-Murray River between 1990 and 2010.
Stand condition was predicted from maps that were built from ground surveys and Landsat imagery [4], [23], [26]. Key: (1) good, dark green; (2) declined, light green; (3) poor, orange; (4) degraded, brown; (5) severe, red. Redrawn from [10].