The compositional and configurational heterogeneity of matrix habitats shape woodland carabid communities in wooded-agricultural landscapes

Abstract

Context Landscape heterogeneity (the composition and configuration of matrix habitats) plays a major role in shaping species communities in woodedagricultural landscapes. However, few studies consider the influence of different types of semi-natural and linear habitats in the matrix, despite their known ecological value for biodiversity. Objective To investigate the importance of the composition and configuration of matrix habitats for woodland carabid communities and identify whether specific landscape features can help to maintain long-term populations in wooded-agricultural environments. Methods Carabids were sampled from woodlands in 36 tetrads of 4 km 2 across southern Britain. Landscape heterogeneity including an innovative representation of linear habitats was quantified for each tetrad. Carabid community response was analysed using ordination methods combined with variation partitioning and additional response trait analyses. Results Woodland carabid community response was trait-specific and better explained by simultaneously considering the composition and configuration of matrix habitats. Semi-natural and linear features provided significant refuge habitat and functional connectivity. Mature hedgerows were essential for slow-dispersing carabids in fragmented landscapes. Species commonly associated with heathland were correlated with inland water and woodland patches despite widespread heathland conversion to agricultural land, suggesting that species may persist for some decades when elements representative of the original habitat are retained following landscape modification. Conclusions Semi-natural and linear habitats have high biodiversity value. Landowners should identify features that can provide additional resources or functional connectivity for species relative to other habitat types in the landscape matrix. Agri-environment options should consider landscape heterogeneity to identify the most efficacious changes for biodiversity.

Species Diversity of Carabid Beetles and Ants of Two Reclaimed Tailing Ponds

“…According to Oliver et al, higher habitat heterogeneity provides more diverse resources and more differentiated niches that may meet the requirements of a much higher number of species than homogeneous habitats [25]. The heterogeneity-diversity relationship has been investigated in a number of studies, including beetles [26] and other insects [27][28]. However, not all trends are positive [29][30], which is hypothesized to be influenced by the differences in resource availability between the investigated communities [31].…”

The heterogeneity of wooded-agricultural landscape mosaics influences woodland bird community assemblages

“…Correlation coefficients among the final explanatory variables were all less than 0.6 (cf. Aviron et al 2005;Radford and Bennett 2007;Neumann et al 2015) and VIF were less than 6.5.…”

“…The date, time and weather conditions of each survey were not found to have a significant effect on the woodland bird community and so were not included 260 as covariates in any of the analyses. A selection of the landscape composition variables (those measured in ha (Table 1)) were log (x+1) transformed to maximise the linearity of their relation and to ensure that the ecological importance of all the landcover types was considered (Cleveland 1993;ter Braak and Šmilauer 2012;Neumann et al 2015). Analyses were restricted to 'woodland-dependent' species (Radford and Bennett 2007) (ter Braak and Šmilauer 2012).…”

“…notably those relating to movement and dispersal ability and habitat specialism (Schweiger et al 2005;Barbaro et al 2007;Barbaro and van Halder 2009;Neumann et al 2015).…”

Structural heterogeneity affects raptor assemblages and niche characteristics in mixed‐grass ecosystems

“…Prior to performing analyses, we log‐transformed a selection of the landscape composition variables to maximize the linearity of their relation and ensure that the ecological importance of all the land cover types was considered (Šmilauer and Lepš , Neumann et al. ).…”