Do disturbance-sensitive and habitat-specialized species have a smaller range size? Evidence for a set of common mammals at regional scale

REFERENCES

• Amici V, Battisti C. 2009. Selecting focal species in ecological network planning following an expert-based approach: a case study and a conceptual framework. Landsc Res. 34:545–561.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amori G, Battisti C, De Felici S. 2009. I mammiferi della Provincia di Roma. Dallo stato delle conoscenze alla gestione e conservazione delle specie [The mammals of the Province of Rome. From the state of knowledge to the species management and conservation]. Roma: Provincia di Roma, Assessorato alle politiche dell’agricoltura, Stilgrafica. Italian.
   Google Scholar
• Battisti C, Dodaro G, Franco D. 2014. The data reliability in ecological research: a proposal for a quick self-assessment tool. Nat Hist Sci. 1:75–79.
   Google Scholar
• Battisti C, Fanelli G. 2016. Applying indicators of disturbance from plant ecology to vertebrates: the hemeroby of bird species. Ecol Indic. 61:799–805.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Battisti C, Fanelli G. 2018. Comparing disturbance and generalism in birds and mammals: a hump shaped pattern. Basic Appl Ecol. 30:96–99.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Battisti C, Fanelli G, Mariani L, Capizzi D. 2017. Assessing disturbance-sensitivity and generalism in mammals: corroborating a hump-shaped relationship using a hemerobiotic approach. Ecol Indic. 76:178–183.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Battisti C, Poeta G, Fanelli G. 2016. An introduction of disturbance ecology: A road map for wildlife management and conservation. Netherlands: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Blondel J, Aronson J. 1999. Biology and wildlife of the Mediterranean region. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Böhning-Gaese K, Caprano T, van Ewijk K, Veith M. 2006. Range size: disentangling current traits and phylogenetic and biogeographic factors. Am Nat. 167:555–567.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonier F, Martin PRJ, Wingfield JC. 2007. Urban birds have broader environmental tolerance. Biol Lett. 22:670–673.
   Google Scholar
• Botts EA, Erasmus BF, Alexander GJ. 2013. Small range size and narrow niche breadth predict range contractions in South African frogs. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 22:567–576.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown JH. 1984. On the relationship between abundance and distribution of species. Am Nat. 124:255–279.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Capizzi D, Mortelliti A, Amori G, Colangelo P, Rondinini C. 2012. I Mammiferi del Lazio [Mammals of Latium]. Roma: Agenzia Regionale Parchi. Italian.
   Google Scholar
• Carignan V, Villard MA. 2002. Selecting indicator species to monitor ecological integrity. Environ Monit Assess. 78:45–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Celesti Grapow L, Fanelli G. 1993. The vanishing landscape of the Campagna Romana. Landsc Urban Plann. 24:69–76.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chace JF, Walsh JJ. 2006. Urban effects on native avifauna: a review. Landsc Urban Plann. 74:46–69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clavel J, Julliard R, Devictor V. 2011. Worldwide decline of specialist species: toward a global functional homogenization? Front Ecol Environ. 9:222–228.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dellicour S, Michez D, Mardulyn P. 2015. Comparative phylogeography of five bumblebees: impact of range fragmentation, range size and diet specialization. Biol J Linn Soc. 116:926–939.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devictor V, Clavel J, Julliard R, Lavergne S, Mouillot D, Thuiller W, Venail P, Villéger S, Mouquet N. 2010. Defining and measuring ecological specialization. J Appl Ecol. 47:15–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devictor V, Julliard R, Jiguet F. 2008. Distribution of specialist and generalist species along spatial gradients of habitat disturbance and fragmentation. Oikos. 117:507–514.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ducatez S, Tingley R, Shine R. 2014. Using species co-occurrence patterns to quantify relative habitat breadth in terrestrial vertebrates. Ecosphere. 5:1–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dytham C. 2011. Choosing and using statistics: a biologist’s guide. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Enzenhofer K, Mayrhofer S, Reiter K. 2009. Hemeroby of forest ecosystems in the biosphere reserve Wienerwald. Verh Zool-Bot Ges Österr. 146:1–16.
   Google Scholar
• Eurostat 2016. Eurostat statistics explained. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/GlossaryHemerobyindex. ISSN 2443–8219. [Last modified 14 Oct 2016].
   Google Scholar
• Ewers RM, Didham RK. 2006. Confounding factors in detection of species responses to habitat fragmentation. Biol Rev. 81:117–142.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fanelli G, Battisti C. 2014. Comparing disturbance-sensitivity between plants and birds: a fine-grained analysis in a suburban remnant wetland. Isr J Ecol Evol. 60:11–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fanelli G, Battisti C. 2015. Range of species occupancy, disturbance and generalism: applying hemeroby metrics to common breeding birds from a regional Atlas. Vie Milieu. 65:243–250.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fanelli G, Pignatti S, Testi A. 2007. An application case of ecological indicator values (Zeigerwerte) calculated with a simple algorithmic approach. Plant Biosyst. 141:15–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fanelli G, Tescarollo P, Testi A. 2005. Ecological indicators applied to urban and suburban floras. Ecol Indic. 6:444–457.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaston K. 1996. Species-range-size distributions: patterns, mechanisms and implications. Trends Ecol Evol. 11:197–201.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaston KJ, Spicer JI. 2001. The relationship between range size and niche breadth: a test using five species of Gammarus (Amphipoda). Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 10:179–188.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gippoliti S, Amori G. 2006. Historical data on the wild non-volant mammals of Rome. What do they say about urban environment? Aldrovandia. 2:69–72.
   Google Scholar
• Grabherr G, Koch G, Kirchmeir H, Reiter K. 1998. Hemerobie österreichischer Waldökosysteme [Hemeroby of Austrian forest ecosystems]. Innsbruck: Universitätsverlag Wagner/IBK. German.
   Google Scholar
• Gu W, Swihart RK. 2004. Absent or undetected? Effects on non-detection of species occurrence on wildlife-habitat models. Biol Conserv. 116:195–203.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hecnar SJ. 1999. Patterns of turtle species’ geographic range and a test of Rapoport’s rule. Ecography. 22:436–446.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henle K, Davies KF, Kleyer M, Margules C, Settele J. 2004. Predictors of species sensitivity to fragmentation. Biodiv Conserv. 13:207–251.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill MO, Roy DB, Thompson K. 2002. Hemeroby, urbanity and ruderality: bioindicators of disturbance and human impact. J Appl Ecol. 39:708–720.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. 2000. Applied logistic regression analysis, 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Huston MA. 1999. Local processes and regional patterns: appropriate scales for understanding variation in the diversity of plants and mammals. Oikos. 86:393–401.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inc SPSS. 2003. SPSS for Windows – release 13. On (1 Sep 2004), Leadtools (c), Lead Technologies Inc. Available from: https://www.ibm.com/analytics/spss-statistics-software [ Accessed 10 Oct 2018].
   Google Scholar
• Jalas J. 1955. Hemerobe und hemerochore Pflanzenarten. Ein terminologischer Reformversuch [Hemerobe and hemerochore plant species. A terminological reform attempt]. Acta Soc Fauna Flora Fenn. 72:1–15. German.
   Google Scholar
• Kowarik I. 1988. Zum menschlichen Einfluss auf Flora und Vegetation. Theoretische Konzepte und ein Quantifizierungsansatz am Beispiel Berlin (West) [On the human influence on flora and vegetation. Theoretical concepts and a quantification approach using the example of Berlin (West)]. Landschaftsentwicklung Umweltforschung Berlin. 56:1–280. German.
   Google Scholar
• Kowarik I. 2006. Natűrlichkeit, Naturnähe und Hemerobie als Bewertungskriterien. Beitrag VI-3.12 [Naturalness concepts and hemeroby as evaluation criteria]. In: Fränzle O, et al., editor. Handbuch der Unwelrwissenschaften: gründlagen und Anwendungender der Őkosystemforschung [Handbook of the Unweler Sciences: foundations and applications of the ecosystem research]. Wiley-VCH; p. 1–18. German.
   Google Scholar
• Krebs CJ. 2001. Ecology. 5th ed. San Francisco (CA): Benjamin Cummings.
   Google Scholar
• Lawton JH. 1996. Population abundances, geographic ranges and conservation: 1994 Witherby Lecture. Bird Study. 43:3–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindacher R. 1995. PHANART Datenbank der Gefasspflanzen Mitteleuropas: erklarung der Kennzahlen, Aufbau und Inhalt [PHANART database of Central European vascular plants: explanation of codes, structure and contents]. Zurich: Geobotanisches Institutes. German.
   Google Scholar
• Lovari S, Renzoni A, Fondi R. 1976. The predatory habits of the Barn Owl (Tyto alba Scopoli) in relation to the vegetation cover. Ital J Zool. 43:173–191.
   Google Scholar
• McCullagh P, Nelder JA. 1989. Generalized linear models. London (UK): Chapman and Hall/CRC.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell-Jones AJ, Amori G, Bogdanowicz W, Krystufek B, Reijnders PJH, Spitzenberger F, Stubbe M, Thissen JBM, Vohralik V, Zima J. 1999. The atlas of European mammals. London: Academic Press; p. 3.
   Google Scholar
• Moll RJ, Kilshaw K, Montgomery RA, Abade L, Campbell RD, Harrington LA, Millspaugh J, Birks JDS, Macdonald DW. 2016. Clarifying habitat niche width using broad-scale, hierarchical occupancy models: a case study with a recovering mesocarnivore. J Zool. 300:177–185.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noss RF. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conserv Biol. 4:355–364.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noss RF. 1992. Issues of scale in conservation biology. In: Fiedler PL, Jain SK, editors. Conservation biology. New York and London: Chapman and Hall; p. 239–250.
   Google Scholar
• QGIS Development Team. 2015. QGIS Geographic Information System. Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project, QGIS Version 2.4.0. Available from: http://qgis.osgeo.org [Accessed 10 Oct 2018].
   Google Scholar
• Quinn R, Gaston K, Blackburn T, Eversham B. 1997. Abundance-range size relationships of macrolepidoptera in Britain: the effects of taxonomy and life history variables. Ecol Entomol. 22:453–461.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Regione Lazio. 2000. Carta dell’uso del suolo. Assessorato Urbanistica e Casa. Scala 1:25,000 [Land use Map. Urban Planning Department]. Roma (Italy): Regione Lazio.
   Google Scholar
• Regione Lazio. 2004. Rapporto sullo stato dell’ambiente del Lazio [Report on the state of the Environment in Latium]. Roma (Italy): Regione Lazio, Assessorato all’Ambiente, Dipartimento al Territorio, Agenzia Regionale per la Protezione Ambientale nel Lazio. Italian.
   Google Scholar
• Regione Lazio. 2012. Carta Uso del Suolo della Regione Lazio – approfondimento delle formazioni naturali e seminaturali al IV e V livello Corine Land Cover. Available from: https://dati.lazio.it/it [Accessed 24 Jun 2016].
   Google Scholar
• Salafsky N, Salzer N, Stattersfield AJ, Hilton-Taylor C, Neugarten R, Butchart SHM, Collen B, Cox N, Master LL, O’Connor S, Wilkie D. 2008. A standard lexicon for biodiversity conservation: unified classifications of threats and actions. Conserv Biol. 22:897–911.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schleupner C, Schenider UA. 2013. Allocation of European wetland restoration options for systematic conservation planning. Land Use Policy. 30:604–614.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slatyer RA, Hirst M, Sexton JP. 2013. Niche breadth predicts geographical range size: a general ecological pattern. Ecol Lett. 16:1104–1114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sousa WP. 1984. The role of disturbance in natural communities. Ann Rev Ecol Syst. 15:353–391.
   Google Scholar
• Spinozzi F, Battisti C, Bologna MA. 2012. Habitat fragmentation sensitivity in mammals: a target selection for landscape planning comparing two different approaches (bibliographic review and expert based). Rend Lincei. 23:365–373.
   Google Scholar
• Steinhardt U, Herzog F, Lausch A, Miller E, Lehmann S. 1999. Hemeroby index for landscape monitoring and evaluation. In: Pykh YA, editor. Environmental indices – system analysis approach. Oxford: EOLSS Publishing; p. 237–254.
   Google Scholar
• Sutherland WJ. 2006. Ecological census techniques. Massachussets: Blackwell Science.
   Google Scholar
• Ter Braak CJK, Barendregt LG. 1986. Weighted averaging of species indicator values: its efficiency in environmental calibration. Math Biosci. 78:57–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Testi A, Guidotti S, Bisceglie S, Fanelli G. 2009. Detecting river environmental quality through plant and macroinvertebrate indicators in the Aniene River (Central Italy). Aquat Ecol. 43:477–486.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomaselli R, Balduzzi A, Filippello S. 1973. Carta bioclimatica d’Italia [Bioclimatic Map of Italy]. Pavia (Italy): Istituto di Botanica, Università di Pavia. Italian.
   Google Scholar
• Van der Maarel E. 1993. Some remarks on disturbance and its relations to diversity and stability. J Veget Sci. 3:733–736.
   Google Scholar
• Walz U, Stein C. 2014. Indicators of hemeroby for the monitoring of landscapes in Germany. J Nat Cons. 22:279–289.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White PS. 1979. Pattern, process, and natural disturbance in vegetation. Bot Rev. 45:229–299.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White PS, Pickett STA. 1985. Natural disturbance and patch dynamics: an introduction. In: Pickett STA, White PS, editors. The ecology of natural disturbance and patch dynamics. New York: Academic Press; p. 3–13.
   Google Scholar
• Yu J, Dobson FS. 2000. Seven forms of rarity in mammals. J Biogeogr. 27:131–139.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar