Vertebrates respond differently to human disturbance: implications for the use of a focal species approach

Focal species are surrogates assuming that all species under consideration respond similarly to the threatening processes. Focusing management only on a small number of species would improve conditions for other species. However, the across-taxa congruency of the response to threatening processes, and the subsequent efficiency of focal species as surrogates, has seldom been tested. In this study, we evaluated the effects of recreational disturbance and wood structure on the communities of terrestrial vertebrates in the wood patches of a large urban park. We measured two effects of recreation: direct disturbance (people presence) and litter disturbance (effect of trampling). We used multiple techniques to assess the distribution of small mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians in 44 wood patches. Disturbance and wood maturity influenced the distribution of some species and the species richness of amphibians and reptiles; however, the pattern was not consistent across species within classes or among classes. The performance of focal species as a multi species umbrella was poor. Our results suggest that species specific differences in the response to the same source of disturbance can be strong; these differences can hinder the usefulness of focal species as surrogates and as a management tool.

[1]  J. Wójcik,et al.  The daily activity rhythm of two competitive rodents: Clethrionomys glareolus and Apodemus flavicollis , 1985 .

[2]  G. Daily,et al.  Does butterfly diversity predict moth diversity? Testing a popular indicator taxon at local scales , 2002 .

[3]  E. Fernández-Juricic,et al.  Effects of human disturbance on spatial and temporal feeding patterns of Blackbird Turdus merula in urban parks in Madrid, Spain , 2000 .

[4]  A. Watson BIRD AND MAMMAL NUMBERS IN RELATION TO HUMAN IMPACT AT SKI LIFTS ON SCOTTISH HILLS , 1979 .

[5]  T. W. Barrett,et al.  Species distributions, surrogacy, and important conservation regions in Canada , 2004 .

[6]  T. Solhøy,et al.  Vascular plants as a surrogate species group in complementary site selection for bryophytes, macrolichens, spiders, carabids, staphylinids, snails, and wood living polypore fungi in a northern forest , 2004 .

[7]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Minimizing the cost of environmental management decisions by optimizing statistical thresholds , 2004 .

[8]  E. Fernández-Juricic,et al.  Effects of direct human disturbance on the endemic Iberian frog Rana iberica at individual and population levels , 2005 .

[9]  David B. Lindenmayer,et al.  Sound science or social hook—a response to Brooker’s application of the focal species approach , 2003 .

[10]  N. Sodhi,et al.  Effects of anthropogenic land use on forest birds and butterflies in Subic Bay, Philippines , 2006 .

[11]  J. Whittington,et al.  SPATIAL RESPONSES OF WOLVES TO ROADS AND TRAILS IN MOUNTAIN VALLEYS , 2005 .

[12]  Michael A. McCarthy,et al.  Clarifying the effect of toe clipping on frogs with Bayesian statistics , 2004 .

[13]  M. Moran Arguments for rejecting the sequential Bonferroni in ecological studies , 2003 .

[14]  N. Mawdsley,et al.  Biodiversity inventories, indicator taxa and effects of habitat modification in tropical forest , 1998, Nature.

[15]  Mathieu Denoël,et al.  Landscape-level thresholds, and newt conservation. , 2007, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[16]  F. Ecke,et al.  Population dynamics of small mammals in relation to forest age and structural habitat factors in northern Sweden , 2002 .

[17]  Jean-Michel Roberge,et al.  Usefulness of the Umbrella Species Concept as a Conservation Tool , 2004 .

[18]  S. Andelman,et al.  Umbrellas and flagships: efficient conservation surrogates or expensive mistakes? , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[19]  R. Cameron,et al.  The Effect of Trampling on a Chalk Grassland Ecosystem , 1971 .

[20]  Magne Sætersdal,et al.  Indicator species and the problem of spatial inconsistency in nestedness patterns , 2005 .

[21]  David N. Cole,et al.  Indirect effects of recreation on wildlife , 1995 .

[22]  William D. Berry,et al.  Multiple regression in practice , 1985 .

[23]  F. N. Blanchard,et al.  A Method of Marking Living Snakes for Future Recognition, with a Discussion of Some Problems and Results , 1933 .

[24]  Norbert Sauberer,et al.  Surrogate taxa for biodiversity in agricultural landscapes of eastern Austria , 2004 .

[25]  C. Christ,et al.  Tourism and biodiversity : mapping tourism's global footprint , 2003 .

[26]  N. Bayfield Some effects of trampling on Molophilus ater (Meigen) (Diptera, Tipulidae) , 1979 .

[27]  L. Bottoni,et al.  The Use of Focal Species in Designing a Habitat Network for a Lowland Area of Lombardy, Italy , 2002 .

[28]  P. Weatherhead,et al.  Behavioral and life history responses of eastern massasauga rattlesnakes (Sistrurus catenatus catenatus) to human disturbance , 2000, Oecologia.

[29]  Vassiliki Kati,et al.  Testing the Value of Six Taxonomic Groups as Biodiversity Indicators at a Local Scale , 2004 .

[30]  K. Rodgers,et al.  The effects of trampling on Hawaiian corals along a gradient of human use , 2003 .

[31]  L. Canova Resource partitioning between the bank vole Clethrionomys glareolus and the wood mouse Apodemus sylvaticus in woodland habitats , 1993 .

[32]  R. Lambeck,et al.  Focal Species and Restoration Ecology: Response to Lindenmayer et al. , 2002 .

[33]  J. Connell Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs. , 1978, Science.

[34]  R. Blair BIRDS AND BUTTERFLIES ALONG AN URBAN GRADIENT: SURROGATE TAXA FOR ASSESSING BIODIVERSITY? , 1999 .

[35]  J. Prendergast,et al.  Species richness covariance in higher taxa: empirical tests of the biodiversity indicator concept , 1997 .

[36]  R. Sacchi,et al.  Fluctuating Asymmetry in Body Traits Increases Predation Risks: Tawny Owl Selection Against Asymmetric Woodmice , 2005, Evolutionary Ecology.

[37]  M. Anand,et al.  Diversity Relationships among Taxonomic Groups in Recovering and Restored Forests , 2005 .

[38]  R. Lambeck,et al.  Focal Species: a Multi-species Umbrella for Nature Conservation Focal Species for Nature Conservation Lambeck , 2022 .

[39]  T. Caro,et al.  On the Use of Surrogate Species in Conservation Biology , 1999 .

[40]  W. Rice ANALYZING TABLES OF STATISTICAL TESTS , 1989, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[41]  G. Ficetola,et al.  Amphibians in a human-dominated landscape: the community structure is related to habitat features and isolation , 2004 .

[42]  W. Heyer,et al.  Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity: Standard Methods for Amphibians. , 1995 .

[43]  E. Duffey The effects of human trampling on the fauna of grassland litter , 1975 .

[44]  James H. Stapleton,et al.  Linear Statistical Models , 1995 .

[45]  David B. Lindenmayer,et al.  THE RESPONSE OF ARBOREAL MARSUPIALS TO LANDSCAPE CONTEXT: A LARGE-SCALE FRAGMENTATION STUDY , 1999 .

[46]  R. L. Knight,et al.  Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research , 1997 .

[47]  D. Lindenmayer,et al.  Lizard distribution patterns in the Tumut fragmentation “Natural Experiment” in south-eastern Australia , 2005 .

[48]  M. L. Morrison,et al.  Habitat Relationships of Amphibians and Reptiles in California Oak Woodlands , 1998 .

[49]  J. Lawton,et al.  Rare species, the coincidence of diversity hotspots and conservation strategies , 1993, Nature.