Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-31T01:42:14.945Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Thresholds, incidence functions, and species-specific cues: responses of woodland birds to landscape structure in south-eastern Australia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Andrew F. Bennett  and
James Q. Radford
Edited by
Marc-André Villard  and
Bengt Gunnar Jonsson
Andrew F. Bennett
Affiliation:
Deakin University, Australia
James Q. Radford
Affiliation:
Deakin University, Australia
Marc-André Villard
Affiliation:
Université de Moncton, Canada
Bengt Gunnar Jonsson
Affiliation:
Mid-Sweden University, Sweden
Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Looking out from a vantage point across a large tract of forest gives a superficial impression of uniformity; the crowns of canopy trees follow the folds and contours of the landscape to provide a continuous cover of wooded vegetation. But this visual appearance belies the truth: forested landscapes are far from uniform. On closer examination, they comprise a complex mosaic of different vegetation types and stands of different age-classes, differing structural features, and modified to varying extent by human land-uses. Forests have a critical role in the conservation of biodiversity throughout the world (Peterken 1996; Laurance and Bierregard 1997; Lindenmayer and Franklin 2002), and a key feature contributing to their conservation value is the response of forest biota to the heterogeneity inherent in forested landscapes (Lindenmayer et al. 2006). Consequently, an understanding of the implications of landscape structure for the maintenance of species and ecological processes is an important foundation for forest management and biodiversity conservation.

How do forest biota respond to landscape structure?

Conservation of biodiversity in forested landscapes requires a multi-scaled approach to management, including measures at regional, landscape, and stand scales (Lindenmayer and Franklin 2002). Our focus here is the landscape scale and the opportunity to enhance conservation outcomes by managing and manipulating landscape structure. This spatial scale is important for several reasons. First, the landscape scale is that at which most land managers must operate and make decisions: for example, management decisions relating to the extent and spatial arrangement of logging areas; the location and extent of areas to be burned to reduce the risk of wildfire; the siting of recreation facilities to minimize adverse impacts; and the most effective location for restoration actions in modified landscapes.

Type
Chapter
Information
Setting Conservation Targets for Managed Forest Landscapes , pp. 161 - 184
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

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.)

References

Andrén, H. 1992. Corvid density and nest predation in relation to forest fragmentation: a landscape perspective. Ecology 73:794–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atauri, J. A. and Lucio, J. V.. 2001. The role of landscape structure in species richness distribution of birds, amphibians, reptiles and lepidopterans in Mediterranean landscapes. Landscape Ecology 16:147–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, S.-A., Haines-Young, R. H. and Watkins, C.. 2002. Species presence in fragmented landscapes: modelling of species requirements at the national level. Biological Conservation 108:307–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, A. F., Hinsley, S. A., Bellamy, P. E., Swetnam, R. and Nally, R. Mac. 2004. Do regional gradients in land use influence richness, composition and turnover of bird assemblages in woods? Biological Conservation 119:191–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, A. F., Radford, J. Q. and Haslem, A.. 2006. Properties of land mosaics: implications for nature conservation in agricultural environments. Biological Conservation 133:250–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohning-Gaese, K. 1997. Determinants of avian species richness at different spatial scales. Journal of Biogeography 24:49–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boulinier, T., Nichols, J. D., Hines, J. E.et al. 2001. Forest fragmentation and bird community dynamics: inference at regional scales. Ecology 82:1159–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bütler, R., Angelstam, P., Ekelund, P. and Schlaepfer, R.. 2004. Dead wood threshold values for the three-toed woodpecker presence in boreal and sub-Alpine forest. Biological Conservation 119:305–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapin, T. G., Harrison, D. J. and Katnik, D. D.. 1998. Influence of landscape pattern on habitat use by American marten in an industrial forest. Conservation Biology 12:1327–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chevan, A. and Sutherland, M.. 1991. Hierarchical partitioning. American Statistician 45:90–6.Google Scholar
Darveau, M., Beauchesne, P., Bélanger, L., Huot, J. and Larue, P.. 1995. Riparian forest strips as habitat for breeding birds in boreal forest. Journal of Wildlife Management 59:67–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drolet, B., Desrochers, A. and Fortin, M.-J.. 1999. Effects of landscape structure on nesting songbird distribution in a harvested boreal forest. Condor 101:699–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,Environment Conservation Council. 1997. Box-Ironbark Forests and Woodlands Investigation. Resources and Issues Report. Victoria, Australia: Environment Conservation Council.Google Scholar
Fahrig, L. 2003. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 34:487–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, H. A., Barrett, G. W., Saunders, D. A. and Recher, H. F.. 2001. Why have birds in the woodlands of Southern Australia declined? Biological Conservation 97:71–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forman, R. T. T. 1995. Land Mosaics. The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gjerde, I., Saetersdal, M. and Nilsen, T.. 2005. Abundance of two threatened woodpecker species in relation to the proportion of spruce plantations in native pine forests of western Norway. Biodiversity and Conservation 14:377–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobbs, R. J. 1993. Effects of landscape fragmentation on ecosystem processes in the Western Australian wheatbelt. Biological Conservation 64:193–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huggett, A. J. 2005. The concept and utility of “ecological thresholds” in biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation 124:301–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jansson, G. and Angelstam, P.. 1999. Threshold levels of habitat composition for the presence of the long-tailed tit (Aegithalos caudatus) in a boreal landscape. Landscape Ecology 14:283–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jokimäki, J. and Huhta, E.. 1996. Effects of landscape matrix and habitat structure on a bird community in northern Finland: a multi-scale approach. Ornis Fennica 73:97–113.Google Scholar
Laurance, W. F. and Bierregard, R. O. (eds.) 1997. Tropical Forest Remnants: Ecology, Management, and Conservation of Fragmented Communities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Laurance, W. F. and Vasconcelos, H. L.. 2004. Ecological effects of habitat fragmentation in the tropics. Pp. 33–49 in Schroth, G., Fonseca, G. A. B. da, Harvey, C. A.et al. (eds.) Agroforestry and Biodiversity Conservation in Tropical Landscapes. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.Google Scholar
Law, B. S. and Dickman, C. R.. 1998. The use of habitat mosaics by terrestrial vertebrate fauna: implications for conservation and management. Biodiversity and Conservation 7:323–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindenmayer, D. B. 2000. Factors at multiple scales affecting distribution patterns and its implications for animal conservation – Leadbeater's possum as a case study. Biodiversity and Conservation 9:15–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindenmayer, D. B. and Franklin, J. F.. 2002. Conserving Forest Biodiversity: A Comprehensive Multiscaled Approach. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.Google Scholar
Lindenmayer, D. B., Cunningham, R. B., Donnelly, C. F., Nix, H. and Lindenmayer, B. D.. 2002. Effects of forest fragmentation on bird assemblages in a novel landscape context. Ecological Monographs 72:1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindenmayer, D. B., Franklin, J. F. and Fischer, J.. 2006. General management principles and a checklist of strategies to guide forest biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation 131:433–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loyn, R. H. 1985. Bird populations in successional forests of Mountain Ash Eucalypt regnans in central Victoria. Emu 85:213–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loyn, R. H., McNabb, E. G., Volodina, L. and Willig, R.. 2001. Modelling landscape distributions of large forest owls as applied to managing forests in north-east Victoria, Australia. Biological Conservation 97:361–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lunt, I. and Bennett, A. F.. 2000. Temperate woodlands in Victoria: distribution, composition and conservation. Pp. 17–31 in Hobbs, J. and Yates, C. J. (eds.) Temperate Eucalypt Woodlands in Australia: Biology, Conservation, Management and Restoration. Chipping Norton, NSW: Surrey Beatty & Sons.Google Scholar
Luoto, M., Virkkala, R., Heikkinen, R. K. and Rainio, K.. 2004. Predicting bird species richness using remote sensing in boreal agricultural-forest mosaics. Ecological Applications 14:1946–62.CrossRefGoogle 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. Biodiversity and Conservation 9:655–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazerolle, M. J. and Villard, M.-A.. 1999. Patch characteristics and landscape context as predictors of species presence and abundance: a review. Ecoscience 6:117–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAlpine, C. A., Rhodes, J. R., Callaghan, J. G.et al. 2006. The importance of forest area and configuration relative to local habitat factors for conserving forest mammals: a case study of koalas in Queensland, Australia. Biological Conservation 132:153–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGarigal, K. and McComb, W. C.. 1995. Relationships between landscape structure and breeding birds in the Oregon Coast Range. Ecological Monographs 65:235–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, M. S., Rutzmoser, S. H., Wigley, T. B.et al. 2006. Relationships between avian richness and landscape structure at multiple scales using multiple landscapes. Forest Ecology and Management 221:155–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmark, W. D. 1991. Tropical forest fragmentation and the local extinction of understorey birds in the Eastern Usambara Mountains, Tanzania. Conservation Biology 5:67–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, G. C. and Bennett, A. F.. 2006. Riparian zones provide for distinct bird assemblages in forest mosaics of southeast Australia. Biological Conservation 130:447–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterken, G. F. 1996. Natural Woodland. Ecology and Conservation in Northern Temperate Regions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pino, J., Roda, F., Ribas, J. and Pons, X.. 2000. Landscape structure and bird species richness: implications for conservation in rural areas between natural parks. Landscape and Urban Planning 49:35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, J. Q. and Bennett, A. F.. 2007. The relative importance of landscape properties for woodland birds in agricultural environments. Journal of Applied Ecology 44:737–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, J. Q., Bennett, A. F. and McRaild, L.. 2004. How Much Habitat is Enough? Planning for Wildlife Conservation in Rural Landscapes. Burwood, Victoria, Australia: Deakin University.Google Scholar
Radford, J. Q., Bennett, A. F. and Cheers, G. J.. 2005. Landscape-level thresholds of habitat cover for woodland-dependent birds. Biological Conservation 124:317–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, J. R. W. 1999. Threatened and Declining Birds in the New South Wales Sheep-Wheat Belt. 1. Diagnosis, Characteristics and Management. Consultancy report to NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service. Canberra: CSIRO Wildlife and Ecology.Google Scholar
Renjifo, L. M. 2001. Effect of natural and anthropogenic landscape matrices on the abundance of subandean bird species. Ecological Applications 11:14–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, D. and Traill, B. J.. 1996. Conserving woodland birds in the wheat and sheep belts of southern Australia. RAOU Conservation Statement (Supplement to Wingspan Vol. 6 No. 2) 10:1–16.Google Scholar
Saunders, D. A. 1989. Changes in the avifauna of a region, district and remnant as a result of fragmentation of native vegetation: the wheatbelt of Western Australia. A case study. Biological Conservation 50:99–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A. A., Redpath, S. M., Campbell, S. T. and Thirgood, S. J.. 2001. Meadow pipits, red grouse and the habitat characteristics of managed grouse moors. Journal of Applied Ecology 38:390–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, P. 1985. Effects of intensive logging on birds in eucalypt forest near Bega, New South Wales. Emu 85:15–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suckling, G. C. 1982. Value of preserved habitat for mammal conservation in plantations. Australian Forestry 45:19–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toms, J. D. and Lesperance, M. L.. 2003. Piecewise regression: a tool for identifying ecological thresholds. Ecology 84:2034–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trzcinski, M. K., Fahrig, L. and Merriam, G.. 1999. Independent effects of forest cover and fragmentation on the distribution of forest breeding birds. Ecological Applications 9:586–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, M. G., Gardner, R. H. and O'Neill, R. V.. 2001. Landscape Ecology in Theory and Practice. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Vesk, P. A. and Nally, R. Mac. 2006. The clock is ticking – revegetation and habitat for birds and arboreal mammals in rural landscapes of southern Australia. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 112:356–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villard, M.-A., Trzcinski, M. K. and Merriam, G.. 1999. Fragmentation effects on forest birds: relative influence of woodland cover and configuration on landscape occupancy. Conservation Biology 13:774–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiens, J. A. 1995. Landscape mosaics and ecological theory. Pp. 1–26 in Hansson, L., Fahrig, L. and Merriam, G. (eds.) Mosaic Landscapes and Ecological Processes. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Wiens, J. A., Horne, B. and Noon, B. R.. 2002. Integrating landscape structure and scale into natural resource management. Pp. 23–67 in Liu, J. and Taylor, W. W. (eds.) Integrating Landscape Ecology into Natural Resource Management. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×