To counteract the negative effects of forest fragmentation on wildlife, it is crucial to maintain functional ecological networks. We identified the ecological networks for 2 mammals with very different degrees of forest specialization, the European badger Meles meles and the Roe deer Capreolus capreolus, by differentiating 4 agroforestry elements as either nodes or connectivity elements, and by defining the distance that provides the functional connectivity between fragments. Species occurrence data were collected in a wide agroecosystem in northern Italy. To test the role of hedgerows, traditional poplar cultivations, short rotation coppices, and reforestations as ecological network elements for the 2 species we applied the method of simulated species perceptions of the landscape (SSPL), comparing the ability of different SSPLs to explain the observed species distribution. All analyses were repeated considering different scenarios of species movement ability through the matrix. Model outputs seem to show that the specialist and highly mobile Roe deer has the same movement ability throughout the matrix (2 km) as the European badger, a smaller, but generalist species. The ecological network identified for the European badger was widespread throughout the area and was composed of woodlands, poplar cultivations and hedgerows as nodes and short rotation coppices as connectivity elements. Conversely, the ecological network of the Roe deer was mostly limited to the main forest areas and was composed of woodlands, poplar cultivations and reforestations as nodes and short rotation coppices and hedgerows as connectivity elements. The degree of forest specialization strongly affects both species perception of habitat and movement ability throughout the matrix, regardless of species size. This has important implications for species conservation.

Species specialization limits movement ability and shapes ecological networks: the case study of 2 forest mammals

Chiatante, Gianpasquale;Meriggi, Alberto
Investigation
;
2019-01-01

Abstract

To counteract the negative effects of forest fragmentation on wildlife, it is crucial to maintain functional ecological networks. We identified the ecological networks for 2 mammals with very different degrees of forest specialization, the European badger Meles meles and the Roe deer Capreolus capreolus, by differentiating 4 agroforestry elements as either nodes or connectivity elements, and by defining the distance that provides the functional connectivity between fragments. Species occurrence data were collected in a wide agroecosystem in northern Italy. To test the role of hedgerows, traditional poplar cultivations, short rotation coppices, and reforestations as ecological network elements for the 2 species we applied the method of simulated species perceptions of the landscape (SSPL), comparing the ability of different SSPLs to explain the observed species distribution. All analyses were repeated considering different scenarios of species movement ability through the matrix. Model outputs seem to show that the specialist and highly mobile Roe deer has the same movement ability throughout the matrix (2 km) as the European badger, a smaller, but generalist species. The ecological network identified for the European badger was widespread throughout the area and was composed of woodlands, poplar cultivations and hedgerows as nodes and short rotation coppices as connectivity elements. Conversely, the ecological network of the Roe deer was mostly limited to the main forest areas and was composed of woodlands, poplar cultivations and reforestations as nodes and short rotation coppices and hedgerows as connectivity elements. The degree of forest specialization strongly affects both species perception of habitat and movement ability throughout the matrix, regardless of species size. This has important implications for species conservation.
2019
Environment/Ecology is a broad category covering interrelated disciplines. It includes resources dealing with pure and applied ecology, ecological modelling and engineering, ecotoxicology, and evolutionary ecology. In environmental science, some of the many areas covered are environmental contamination and toxicology, environmental health, monitoring, technology, geology, and management. Other fields covered are soil science and conservation, water resources research and engineering, climate change, and biodiversity conservation. Regional naturalist resources are also covered here.
Esperti anonimi
Inglese
Internazionale
STAMPA
65
3
237
249
13
Capreolus capreolus, connectivity elements, forest fragmentation, Meles meles, nodes, wildlife conservation
5
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
262
Dondina, Olivia; Orioli, Valerio; Chiatante, Gianpasquale; Meriggi, Alberto; Bani, Luciano
1 Contributo su Rivista::1.1 Articolo in rivista
none
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11571/1270106
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 20
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 17
social impact