Habitat fragmentation affects movement behavior of migrating juvenile common toads

Janin, Agnès; Léna, Jean‐Paul; Joly, Pierre

doi:10.1007/s00265-012-1390-8

Cited by 15 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…, Prevedello and Vieira , Janin et al. ). In reality, there may be a continuum of matrix conditions that vary as filters or conduits to movement, and the quality of these cover types may influence the probability of an animal entering the matrix, the efficiency of movement, and ultimate dispersal success (Kuefler et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our study provides field-based, mechanistic approximations of juvenile movement that can be useful for predicting how matrix composition and configuration might be managed to maintain or restore functional connectivity. they can only assume that the matrix is singularly inhospitable for even temporary settlement and that the size and spatial arrangement of the surrounding matrix will allow animals to access habitat patches (Kupfer et al 2006, Prevedello and Vieira 2010, Janin et al 2012a. In reality, there may be a continuum of matrix conditions that vary as filters or conduits to movement, and the quality of these cover types may influence the probability of an animal entering the matrix, the efficiency of movement, and ultimate dispersal success (Kuefler et al 2010, Cline andHunter 2014).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Movement in the matrix: substrates and distance‐to‐forest edge affect postmetamorphic movements of a forest amphibian

Cline

Hunter

2016

Ecosphere

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Population persistence often depends on functional connectivity for animals that transit multiple vegetation types to acquire resources, particularly for dispersers navigating a landscape matrix fragmented by agriculture, forestry, or urbanization. For many pool‐breeding amphibians, population viability depends on the ability of juveniles to locate and reach suitable habitat in the terrestrial matrix. Thus, identifying the scale and orientation of movements is necessary to predict the consequences of landscape configuration for populations. We conducted three experiments to evaluate if different vegetation types alter the behavior of post‐metamorphic wood frogs (Lithobates sylvaticus). We measured the: (1) fine‐scale movement (velocity, latency, path length, net displacement, path tortuosity, and orientation) of individuals (n = 150) released on five substrates (asphalt, corn, forest leaf litter, hay, lawn); (2) directionality of frogs (n = 168) released at different distances from forest in two open‐cover types (lawns, hayfields); and (3) willingness of frogs (n = 240) to enter three land‐cover types (asphalt, lawn, forest) when released within artificial refugia islands at different distances from forest. Using fluorescent powder, we mapped 318 movement paths and performance differed. Frogs demonstrated straighter paths, and greater net movements, path lengths, and velocities through treatments with lower structural complexity (asphalt > lawn > corn > forest leaf litter > hay). Frogs also exhibited forest‐oriented directionality in asphalt, lawn, and corn but random orientation in forest control and hay. The willingness of individuals to leave a refugia island was lowest on asphalt (12% of released frogs), moderate on lawn (40%), and very high in forest (90%). Overall, results indicate that the quality of nonforest matrix may influence the ability of frogs to traverse open cover and orient toward forest from distances of ≥40–55 m. Thus, it is inaccurate to assume movement performance is uniform across all open‐matrix types, an important distinction because many landscape‐population models use expert‐based values that are a one‐size‐fits‐all measure for open cover. Our study provides field‐based, mechanistic approximations of juvenile movement that can be useful for predicting how matrix composition and configuration might be managed to maintain or restore functional connectivity.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Movement in the matrix: substrates and distance‐to‐forest edge affect postmetamorphic movements of a forest amphibian

Cline

Hunter

2016

Ecosphere

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…, Janin et al. ), and the effectiveness of management actions (St. Mary et al , Starr et al. , Pérez‐Ruzafa et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Movement strongly influences the distribution of organisms across landscapes and therefore plays a critical role in determining a population's interactions with other species (Mccauley et al 1996, Hanski 1998, Morales and Ellner 2002, Leibold et al 2004, Jiao et al 2016, its response to environmental change (Damschen et al 2008, Kininmonth et al 2011, Janin et al 2012, and the effectiveness of management actions (St. Mary et al 2000, Starr et al 2004, P erez-Ruzafa et al 2008, Gr€ uss et al 2011. Although movement usually takes place in a heterogeneous landscape, and organisms are known to respond to a variety of landscape features (e.g., edges, habitat composition, and predation risk; Haynes and Cronin 2006, Nathan et al 2008, Reeve and Cronin 2010, Abrams et al 2012, the role of habitat-dependent movement (e.g., when the movement rate depends on the habitat; hereinafter referred to as differential movement) is not often considered in ecological models or management decisions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Habitat‐dependent movement rate can determine the efficacy of marine protected areas

Jiao

Pilyugin

Riotte‐Lambert

et al. 2018

Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Theoretical studies of marine protected areas (MPAs) suggest that more mobile species should exhibit reduced local effects (defined as the ratio of the density inside vs. outside of the MPA). However, empirical studies have not supported the expected negative relationship between the local effect and mobility. We propose that differential, habitat-dependent movement (i.e., a higher movement rate in the fishing grounds than in the MPA) might explain the disparity between theoretical expectations and empirical results. We evaluate this hypothesis by building two-patch box and stepping-stone models and show that increasing disparity in the habitat-specific movement rates shifts the relationship between the local effect and mobility from negative (the previous theoretical results) to neutral or positive (the empirical pattern). This shift from negative to positive occurs when differential movement offsets recruitment and mortality differences between the two habitats. Thus, local effects of MPAs might be caused by behavioral responses via differential movement rather than by, or in addition to, reductions in mortality. In addition, the benefits of MPAs, in terms of regional abundance and fishing yields, can be altered by the magnitude of differential movement. Thus, our study points to a need for empirical investigations that disentangle the interactions among mobility, differential movement, and protection.

show abstract

“…In this section, we demonstrate how altered resource availability can affect foraging decisions and home range movement, and how external factors influence decision-making during different stages of dispersal. movement path -tortuosity/directionality [12,44,45,46,52] -home range size and overlap [3,11,37] -foraging distance [17,36,37] -dispersal rate, timing and distance [3,4,5,14,56,57,58,78] motion capacity -habitat loss and fragmentation [3,20,58,61] -food availability [11] -physical barriers [8,19] -predation [3,78] navigation capacity -habitat loss and fragmentation [12,41,44,45,46,52,53] fitness [18,20,37,58] internal state -habitat loss and fragmentation [17,18,36,37,38,41] -competition/inbreeding [5,…”

Section: Internal Statementioning

confidence: 99%

Coupling movement and landscape ecology for animal conservation in production landscapes

Doherty¹,

Driscoll²

2018

Proc. R. Soc. B.

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Habitat conversion in production landscapes is among the greatest threats to biodiversity, not least because it can disrupt animal movement. Using the movement ecology framework, we review animal movement in production landscapes, including areas managed for agriculture and forestry. We consider internal and external drivers of altered animal movement and how this affects navigation and motion capacities and population dynamics. Conventional management approaches in fragmented landscapes focus on promoting connectivity using structural changes in the landscape. However, a movement ecology perspective emphasizes that manipulating the internal motivations or navigation capacity of animals represents untapped opportunities to improve movement and the effectiveness of structural connectivity investments. Integrating movement and landscape ecology opens new opportunities for conservation management in production landscapes.

show abstract

Habitat fragmentation affects movement behavior of migrating juvenile common toads

Cited by 15 publications

References 27 publications

Movement in the matrix: substrates and distance‐to‐forest edge affect postmetamorphic movements of a forest amphibian

Movement in the matrix: substrates and distance‐to‐forest edge affect postmetamorphic movements of a forest amphibian

Habitat‐dependent movement rate can determine the efficacy of marine protected areas

Coupling movement and landscape ecology for animal conservation in production landscapes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About