Department of Wildland Resources, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322-5230, USA.
Conserv Biol. 2010 Jun;24(3):660-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01450.x. Epub 2010 Feb 19.
Using corridors for conservation is increasing despite a lack of consensus on their efficacy. Specifically, whether corridors increase movement of plants and animals between habitat fragments has been addressed on a case-by-case basis with mixed results. Because of the growing number of well-designed experiments that have addressed this question, we conducted a meta-analysis to determine whether corridors increase movement; whether corridor effectiveness differs among taxa; how recent changes in experimental design have influenced findings; and whether corridor effectiveness differs between manipulative and natural experiments. To conduct our meta-analysis, we analyzed 78 experiments from 35 studies using a conservative hierarchical Bayesian model that accounts for hierarchical and sampling dependence. We found a highly significant result that corridors increase movement between habitat patches by approximately 50% compared to patches that are not connected with corridors. We found that corridors were more important for the movement of invertebrates, nonavian vertebrates, and plants than they were for birds. Recent methodological advances in corridor experiments, such as controlling for the area added by corridors, did not influence whether corridors increased movement, whereas controlling for the distance between source and connected or unconnected recipient patches decreased movement through corridors. After controlling for taxa differences and whether studies controlled for distance in experimental design, we found that natural corridors (those existing in landscapes prior to the study) showed more movement than manipulated corridors (those created and maintained for the study). Our results suggest that existing corridors increase species movement in fragmented landscapes and that efforts spent on maintaining and creating corridors are worthwhile.
尽管对于走廊在保护中的有效性缺乏共识,但人们仍在越来越多地使用走廊。具体来说,走廊是否能增加动植物在生境碎片之间的迁移,这在个案基础上已经得到了研究,但结果不一。由于越来越多精心设计的实验已经解决了这个问题,我们进行了荟萃分析,以确定走廊是否能增加迁移;走廊的有效性是否因分类群而异;实验设计的近期变化如何影响研究结果;以及走廊的有效性在操纵实验和自然实验之间是否存在差异。为了进行荟萃分析,我们使用一个保守的层次贝叶斯模型分析了来自 35 项研究的 78 项实验,该模型考虑了层次结构和抽样依赖性。我们发现了一个非常显著的结果,即与没有连接走廊的斑块相比,走廊可以使生境斑块之间的迁移增加约 50%。我们发现,走廊对无脊椎动物、非鸟类脊椎动物和植物的迁移比鸟类更为重要。走廊实验的最近方法学进展,例如控制走廊增加的面积,并没有影响走廊是否增加迁移,而控制源和连接或未连接的接收斑块之间的距离则减少了通过走廊的迁移。在控制了分类群差异以及研究是否在实验设计中控制了距离之后,我们发现自然走廊(即在研究之前存在于景观中的走廊)比人为走廊(为研究而创建和维护的走廊)显示出更多的迁移。我们的研究结果表明,现有的走廊可以增加破碎景观中物种的迁移,并且为维护和创建走廊所付出的努力是值得的。