Single large or several small? Applying biogeographic principles to tree-level conservation and biodiversity offsets

Single large or several small? Applying biogeographic principles to tree-level conservation and... Land development contributes to the clearance of large trees that are sometimes offset with many smaller trees as compensatory wildlife habitat. But are many smaller trees a valid biodiversity offset for the loss of a single large tree? To answer this question, we tested predictions underpinned by island biogeography theory. Targeting birds, we investigated size and landscape context effects at 72 trees of three sizes (small, medium, and large) located in four landscape contexts (reserves, pasture, urban parklands, and urban built-up areas). Significant positive relationships occurred between tree basal area and bird abundance and species richness in all landscape contexts. SLOSS (single large or several small) analysis revealed that in modified landscapes, several small and medium trees supported an equivalent number of individuals and species as a single large tree, but the same pattern was weaker in reserves. Extrapolated rarefaction curves revealed that in reserves and urban built-up areas, many small or medium trees accumulated the same number or more species than large trees. However, in pasture and urban parklands, many small or medium trees accumulated fewer species than large trees. Overall, 29% of bird species were recorded only at large trees, highlighting that many smaller trees will not be suitable habitat compensation for all species. Complementary approaches to biodiversity offsets are needed, balancing large tree preservation and revegetation. Response patterns for birds at trees conformed to some biogeographic predictions (species–area relationship), but not others (habitat–isolation relationship), underscoring the need for novel conceptual frameworks for habitat structures in modified landscapes. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Biological Conservation Elsevier

Single large or several small? Applying biogeographic principles to tree-level conservation and biodiversity offsets

Loading next page...
 
/lp/elsevier/single-large-or-several-small-applying-biogeographic-principles-to-PUb05eWgA0
Publisher
Elsevier
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd
ISSN
0006-3207
D.O.I.
10.1016/j.biocon.2015.08.011
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Land development contributes to the clearance of large trees that are sometimes offset with many smaller trees as compensatory wildlife habitat. But are many smaller trees a valid biodiversity offset for the loss of a single large tree? To answer this question, we tested predictions underpinned by island biogeography theory. Targeting birds, we investigated size and landscape context effects at 72 trees of three sizes (small, medium, and large) located in four landscape contexts (reserves, pasture, urban parklands, and urban built-up areas). Significant positive relationships occurred between tree basal area and bird abundance and species richness in all landscape contexts. SLOSS (single large or several small) analysis revealed that in modified landscapes, several small and medium trees supported an equivalent number of individuals and species as a single large tree, but the same pattern was weaker in reserves. Extrapolated rarefaction curves revealed that in reserves and urban built-up areas, many small or medium trees accumulated the same number or more species than large trees. However, in pasture and urban parklands, many small or medium trees accumulated fewer species than large trees. Overall, 29% of bird species were recorded only at large trees, highlighting that many smaller trees will not be suitable habitat compensation for all species. Complementary approaches to biodiversity offsets are needed, balancing large tree preservation and revegetation. Response patterns for birds at trees conformed to some biogeographic predictions (species–area relationship), but not others (habitat–isolation relationship), underscoring the need for novel conceptual frameworks for habitat structures in modified landscapes.

Journal

Biological ConservationElsevier

Published: Nov 1, 2015

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off