Island theory, matrix effects and species richness patterns in habitat fragments

By W. Cook, Kurt T Lane, B. Foster, Robert D. Holt. 2002

260 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f873df42e1821f3ff6ab21e0eba59e879f578743

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Metapopulations and metacommunities: combining spatial and temporal perspectives in plant ecology (2012, background): “For instance, Cook et al. (2002) found that patch size effects on species richness were obscured at our site due to ‘spillover’ of matrix species (mainly weedy grasses and herbs) into small patches.”
Does the type of matrix matter? A quantitative review of the evidence (2010, background): “Therefore, it is necessary to take into account both patch-level variables and matrix type effects when studying fragmentation effects, as suggested previously by other authors (Cook et al. 2002; Jules and Shahani 2003; Radford and Bennett 2007; Wiens 2006).”
Biodiversity, species interactions and ecological networks in a fragmented world (2012, background): “fragment area and isolation (Cook et al., 2002; Ewers and Didham, 2006).”
Plant species richness and composition of heathland relics in north‐western Belgium: evidence for a rescue‐effect? (2004, background): “Because matrix species can obscure trends in species richness (Cook et al., 2002) only the 47 species characteristic for the investigated vegetation types were included in further analyses.”
Habitat fragmentation and the species–area relationship: a focus on total species richness obscures the impact of habitat loss on habitat specialists (2014, background): “If habitat generalists are less dependent on habitat area, it follows that their inclusion in ISAR or other SAR calculations must affect the resulting model parameters (cf. the species accumulation curve analyses of Cook et al., 2002).”
Paradox, presumption and pitfalls in conservation biology: The importance of habitat change for amphibians and reptiles. (2007, background): “In particular, samples from habitat fragments (of either native remnants or converted patches) that are surrounded by a contrasting landscape matrix can produce counterintuitive results due to confounding spill-over and edge effects (Cook et al., 2002).”
Meta‐analysis reveals the importance of matrix composition for animals in fragmented habitat (2011, background): “A ‘matrix composition’ perspective (Mazerolle & Villard, 1999; Tischendorf & Fahrig, 2001; Cook et al., 2002; Bender & Fahrig, 2005; Kupfer et al., 2006; Fitzgibbon et al., 2007) suggests that the land cover type(s) in which patches are embedded influences occupancy and abundance by differentially…”
Functional attributes change but functional richness is unchanged after fragmentation of Brazilian Atlantic forests (2014, background): “One possibility is that there is a lot of spillover of species into the interiors of small fragments, both from the non-forest matrix (Cook et al. 2002) and from large fragments or contiguous forest sources (Brudvig et al.”
Plant functional group composition and large-scale species richness in European agricultural landscapes (2008, background): “Several simple classifications of species into broad response groups have been proposed, such as habitat generalists or matrix species vs habitat specialists, weeds or ruderals vs species of conservation value and hemeroby classes of species (Cook et al. 2002; Brentrup et al. 2002; Dupré & Ehrlén 20”
Species richness of vascular plants, bryophytes and lichens in dry grasslands: The effects of environment, landscape structure and competition (2006, background): “Matrix effects may provide an additional explanation for the low effects of the size of individual dry grassland patches on vascular plant species richness (COOK et al. 2002).”
Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems (2015, background): “3 and 4), they spurred and tested new theories such as metacommunity theory ( 42 ) to account for variation in connectivity and habitat quality within and between fragments ( 33 , 43 – 45 ), spatial dynamics ( 14 , 46 ), and spatially varying interspecific interactions ( 47 ).”
Assessing the integrated effects of landscape fragmentation on plants and plant communities: the challenge of multiprocess–multiresponse dynamics (2014, background): “…and used to illustrate both the species–area relationship (larger areas host more species; Yaacobi, Ziv & Rosenzweig 2007; Stiles & Scheiner 2010) and the theory of island biogeography (number of species depends on the area and level of isolation; Cook et al. 2002; Collins, Holt & Foster 2009).”
Confounding factors in the detection of species responses to habitat fragmentation (2005, background): “In fact, there is often substantial overlap between species that inhabit fragments and matrix habitat (Cook et al., 2002).”
The potential ecological costs and cobenefits of REDD: a critical review and case study from the Amazon region (2009, background): “In general, the ratio of forest edge to forest interior is highest in small remnants and in large remnants that have long, narrow shapes (Turner, 1989; Cook et al., 2002; Fischer & Lindenmayer, 2006).”
The ecology of urban areas and their functions for species diversity (2011, unknown): “Cook et al. (2002) and Godefroid and Koedam (2003) established that matrix-occupying species also occupy patches and that, because of this, effects of patch size or distances between patches on species diversity may be concealed.”