The Interaction of Habitat Fragmentation, Plant, and Small Mammal Succession in an Old Field

Abstract

Abstract. We compared the density and spatial distribution of four small mammal species (Microtus ochrogaster, Peromyscus maniculatus, Sigmodon hispidus, and P. leucopus) along with general measures of an old field plant community across two successional phases (1984-1986 and 1994-1996) of an experimental study of fragmentation in eastern Kansas. During the early phase the plant community was characterized by little spatial or temporal variance across patch size, consistent with spatially neutral models of succession. In contrast, there was a strong, species-specific effect of patch size on small mammal species distribution and abundance. The lack of variance in vegetation structure across patch size during the early seres suggests that small mammal distributions were responding in large part to features of the system other than variance in vegetation structure and composition across patch size.As succession proceeded, the colonization of the system by woody plant species precipitated a series of patch size effects on plant community composition. Differential habitat selection by small mammals at the patch scale tracked these changes in plant distribution. For example, M. ochrogaster and S. hispidus shifted their distributions away from less fragmented patches toward smaller patches, where retarded plant succession had maintained an earlier sere. P. leucopus successfully colonized and maintained high densities only on large patches, where plant succession had progressed most rapidly toward a woody-speciesdominated community.Our results highlight the role of landscape structure in long-term community dynamics and indicate that some of the complexity observed in successional systems may result from the structure and composition of the landscape mosaic. In general, our results suggest that to fully understand long-term change within communities, the influence of landscape structure on patterns of heterogeneity in both vegetation and consumer dynamics must be understood. Moreover, the long-term and landscape-scale perspectives afforded by our study provide insight into community dynamics that might otherwise be missed.

Spatial variability in oviposition damage by periodical cicadas in a fragmented landscape

“…In 1984, a long-term experiment examining impacts of patch size and landscape position on succession was initiated in northeast Kansas (Robinson et al 1992;Holt et al 1995;Schweiger et al 2000). The project comprises a mosaic of habitat patches (arranged to represent different degrees of habitat fragmentation) arrayed in a closely mown interstitial matrix (Fig.…”

Reptile responses to fire and the risk of post-disturbance sampling bias

“…For example, in North America, recolonisation of burnt old-field patches by plants was dependent on patch size (Schweiger et al 2000). This meant that larger patches developed late-successional characteristics while small patches remained in an early seral stage, with concomitant responses by small mammals (Schweiger et al 2000). Factors that influence the recovery of vegetation after fire may therefore alter the timing of peak abundance for particular animal species.…”

“…However, there may be circumstances where a consistent sequence or temporal pace is not observed. For example, in North America, recolonisation of burnt old-field patches by plants was dependent on patch size (Schweiger et al 2000). This meant that larger patches developed late-successional characteristics while small patches remained in an early seral stage, with concomitant responses by small mammals (Schweiger et al 2000).…”

Are the closed landfills recovered habitats for small rodents? A case study in a riparian site, Buenos Aires, Argentina

“…As plant succession proceeds, animal communities colonization depends on the local conditions generated by the landfill operation, the composition of the surrounding animal communities and their dispersal ability; all these variables act as a filter that determines the final species composition of the community and their relative abundance (Atkeson and Johnson 1979;Briani et al 2004;Churchfield et al 1997;Fox 1982Fox , 1990Fox et al 2003;Hirth 1959;MacMahon 1981;Pearson 1959;Schweiger et al 2000).…”