Why are some animal populations unaffected or positively affected by roads?
In reviews on effects of roads on animal population abundance we found that most effects are negative; however, there are also many neutral and positive responses [Fahrig and Rytwinski (Ecol Soc 14:21, 2009; Rytwinski and Fahrig (Biol Conserv 147:87–98, 2012)]. Here we use an individual-based simula...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Oecologia 2013-11, Vol.173 (3), p.1143-1156 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1156 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 1143 |
| container_title | Oecologia |
| container_volume | 173 |
| creator | Rytwinski, Trina Fahrig, Lenore |
| description | In reviews on effects of roads on animal population abundance we found that most effects are negative; however, there are also many neutral and positive responses [Fahrig and Rytwinski (Ecol Soc 14:21, 2009; Rytwinski and Fahrig (Biol Conserv 147:87–98, 2012)]. Here we use an individual-based simulation model to: (1) confirm predictions from the existing literature of the combinations of species traits and behavioural responses to roads that lead to negative effects of roads on animal population abundance, and (2) improve prediction of the combinations of species traits and behavioural responses to roads that lead to neutral and positive effects of roads on animal population abundance. Simulations represented a typical situation in which road mitigation is contemplated, i.e. rural landscapes containing a relatively low density (up to 1.86 km/km²) of high-traffic roads, with continuous habitat between the roads. In these landscapes, the simulations predict that populations of species with small territories and movement ranges, and high reproductive rates, i.e. many small mammals and birds, should not be reduced by roads. Contrary to previous suggestions, the results also predict that populations of species that obtain a resource from roads (e.g. vultures) do not increase with increasing road density. In addition, our simulations support the predation release hypothesis for positive road effects on prey (both small- and large-bodied prey), whereby abundance of a prey species increased with increasing road density due to reduced predation by generalist road-affected predators. The simulations also predict an optimal road density for the large-bodied prey species if it avoids roads or traffic emissions. Overall, the simulation results suggest that in rural landscapes containing high-traffic roads, there are many species for which road mitigation may not be necessary; mitigation efforts should be tailored to the species that show negative population responses to roads. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00442-013-2684-x |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1458540875</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A350976686</galeid><jstor_id>24033586</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>A350976686</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c624t-2c03aac5fd589b5208e458122e5811b2961b822c195c4f83b09dcf2df5084e423</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkl1rFDEUhoNY7Fr9AV4oAyLoxdR8ziRXUkrV0oLgB16GTCZZZ5mZrDkzsvvvm3G23a6ISCCBk-d9wzl5EXpG8CnBuHwLGHNOc0xYTgvJ880DtCCc0Zwoph6iBcZU5VJwdYweA6wwJpwI8QgdU1YSUXK-QFfff2wzE10GoXOZ6ZvOtNk6rMfWDE3oIRt7472zg6uzENMNNEPzy7VJdFuutlkMpoZ3T9CRNy24p7vzBH17f_H1_GN-_enD5fnZdW4LyoecWsyMscLXQqpKUCwdF5JQ6tJOKqoKUklKLVHCci9ZhVVtPa29wJI7TtkJej37rmP4OToYdNeAdW1rehdG0CTZCY5lKf4D5UwpLlWR0Jd_oKswxj418puiBeOE7qmlaZ1ueh-GaOxkqs-YwKosCjl5nf6FSqt2XWND73yT6geCNweCxAxuMyzNCKAvv3w-ZMnM2hgAovN6HdO3xa0mWE-50HMudMqFnnKhN0nzYtfcWHWuvlPcBiEBr3aAAWtaH01vG9hzpeSCsGmgdOYgXfVLF-9N6R-vP59FKxhC3JtyzJhIHd0AbDHVFQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1443263412</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Why are some animal populations unaffected or positively affected by roads?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><creator>Rytwinski, Trina ; Fahrig, Lenore</creator><creatorcontrib>Rytwinski, Trina ; Fahrig, Lenore</creatorcontrib><description>In reviews on effects of roads on animal population abundance we found that most effects are negative; however, there are also many neutral and positive responses [Fahrig and Rytwinski (Ecol Soc 14:21, 2009; Rytwinski and Fahrig (Biol Conserv 147:87–98, 2012)]. Here we use an individual-based simulation model to: (1) confirm predictions from the existing literature of the combinations of species traits and behavioural responses to roads that lead to negative effects of roads on animal population abundance, and (2) improve prediction of the combinations of species traits and behavioural responses to roads that lead to neutral and positive effects of roads on animal population abundance. Simulations represented a typical situation in which road mitigation is contemplated, i.e. rural landscapes containing a relatively low density (up to 1.86 km/km²) of high-traffic roads, with continuous habitat between the roads. In these landscapes, the simulations predict that populations of species with small territories and movement ranges, and high reproductive rates, i.e. many small mammals and birds, should not be reduced by roads. Contrary to previous suggestions, the results also predict that populations of species that obtain a resource from roads (e.g. vultures) do not increase with increasing road density. In addition, our simulations support the predation release hypothesis for positive road effects on prey (both small- and large-bodied prey), whereby abundance of a prey species increased with increasing road density due to reduced predation by generalist road-affected predators. The simulations also predict an optimal road density for the large-bodied prey species if it avoids roads or traffic emissions. Overall, the simulation results suggest that in rural landscapes containing high-traffic roads, there are many species for which road mitigation may not be necessary; mitigation efforts should be tailored to the species that show negative population responses to roads.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0029-8549</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-1939</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00442-013-2684-x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23715744</identifier><identifier>CODEN: OECOBX</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer</publisher><subject>Animal and plant ecology ; Animal populations ; Animal, plant and microbial ecology ; Animals ; Behavior, Animal - physiology ; Biological and medical sciences ; Biomedical and Life Sciences ; Computer Simulation ; CONSERVATION ECOLOGY ; Conservation ecology - Original research ; Ecology ; Ecosystem ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; General aspects ; Habitat loss ; Hydrology/Water Resources ; Life Sciences ; Mammals ; Models, Biological ; Mortality ; Motor vehicle traffic ; Plant Sciences ; Population Dynamics ; Predation ; Predators ; Prey ; Roads ; Species Specificity ; Traffic density ; Transportation ; Vehicle emissions ; Vehicles</subject><ispartof>Oecologia, 2013-11, Vol.173 (3), p.1143-1156</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013</rights><rights>2014 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2013 Springer</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c624t-2c03aac5fd589b5208e458122e5811b2961b822c195c4f83b09dcf2df5084e423</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c624t-2c03aac5fd589b5208e458122e5811b2961b822c195c4f83b09dcf2df5084e423</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/24033586$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/24033586$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,800,27905,27906,41469,42538,51300,57998,58231</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=27845135$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23715744$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Rytwinski, Trina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fahrig, Lenore</creatorcontrib><title>Why are some animal populations unaffected or positively affected by roads?</title><title>Oecologia</title><addtitle>Oecologia</addtitle><addtitle>Oecologia</addtitle><description>In reviews on effects of roads on animal population abundance we found that most effects are negative; however, there are also many neutral and positive responses [Fahrig and Rytwinski (Ecol Soc 14:21, 2009; Rytwinski and Fahrig (Biol Conserv 147:87–98, 2012)]. Here we use an individual-based simulation model to: (1) confirm predictions from the existing literature of the combinations of species traits and behavioural responses to roads that lead to negative effects of roads on animal population abundance, and (2) improve prediction of the combinations of species traits and behavioural responses to roads that lead to neutral and positive effects of roads on animal population abundance. Simulations represented a typical situation in which road mitigation is contemplated, i.e. rural landscapes containing a relatively low density (up to 1.86 km/km²) of high-traffic roads, with continuous habitat between the roads. In these landscapes, the simulations predict that populations of species with small territories and movement ranges, and high reproductive rates, i.e. many small mammals and birds, should not be reduced by roads. Contrary to previous suggestions, the results also predict that populations of species that obtain a resource from roads (e.g. vultures) do not increase with increasing road density. In addition, our simulations support the predation release hypothesis for positive road effects on prey (both small- and large-bodied prey), whereby abundance of a prey species increased with increasing road density due to reduced predation by generalist road-affected predators. The simulations also predict an optimal road density for the large-bodied prey species if it avoids roads or traffic emissions. Overall, the simulation results suggest that in rural landscapes containing high-traffic roads, there are many species for which road mitigation may not be necessary; mitigation efforts should be tailored to the species that show negative population responses to roads.</description><subject>Animal and plant ecology</subject><subject>Animal populations</subject><subject>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Behavior, Animal - physiology</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Biomedical and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Computer Simulation</subject><subject>CONSERVATION ECOLOGY</subject><subject>Conservation ecology - Original research</subject><subject>Ecology</subject><subject>Ecosystem</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>General aspects</subject><subject>Habitat loss</subject><subject>Hydrology/Water Resources</subject><subject>Life Sciences</subject><subject>Mammals</subject><subject>Models, Biological</subject><subject>Mortality</subject><subject>Motor vehicle traffic</subject><subject>Plant Sciences</subject><subject>Population Dynamics</subject><subject>Predation</subject><subject>Predators</subject><subject>Prey</subject><subject>Roads</subject><subject>Species Specificity</subject><subject>Traffic density</subject><subject>Transportation</subject><subject>Vehicle emissions</subject><subject>Vehicles</subject><issn>0029-8549</issn><issn>1432-1939</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkl1rFDEUhoNY7Fr9AV4oAyLoxdR8ziRXUkrV0oLgB16GTCZZZ5mZrDkzsvvvm3G23a6ISCCBk-d9wzl5EXpG8CnBuHwLGHNOc0xYTgvJ880DtCCc0Zwoph6iBcZU5VJwdYweA6wwJpwI8QgdU1YSUXK-QFfff2wzE10GoXOZ6ZvOtNk6rMfWDE3oIRt7472zg6uzENMNNEPzy7VJdFuutlkMpoZ3T9CRNy24p7vzBH17f_H1_GN-_enD5fnZdW4LyoecWsyMscLXQqpKUCwdF5JQ6tJOKqoKUklKLVHCci9ZhVVtPa29wJI7TtkJej37rmP4OToYdNeAdW1rehdG0CTZCY5lKf4D5UwpLlWR0Jd_oKswxj418puiBeOE7qmlaZ1ueh-GaOxkqs-YwKosCjl5nf6FSqt2XWND73yT6geCNweCxAxuMyzNCKAvv3w-ZMnM2hgAovN6HdO3xa0mWE-50HMudMqFnnKhN0nzYtfcWHWuvlPcBiEBr3aAAWtaH01vG9hzpeSCsGmgdOYgXfVLF-9N6R-vP59FKxhC3JtyzJhIHd0AbDHVFQ</recordid><startdate>20131101</startdate><enddate>20131101</enddate><creator>Rytwinski, Trina</creator><creator>Fahrig, Lenore</creator><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TN</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7U6</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20131101</creationdate><title>Why are some animal populations unaffected or positively affected by roads?</title><author>Rytwinski, Trina ; Fahrig, Lenore</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c624t-2c03aac5fd589b5208e458122e5811b2961b822c195c4f83b09dcf2df5084e423</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Animal and plant ecology</topic><topic>Animal populations</topic><topic>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Behavior, Animal - physiology</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Biomedical and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Computer Simulation</topic><topic>CONSERVATION ECOLOGY</topic><topic>Conservation ecology - Original research</topic><topic>Ecology</topic><topic>Ecosystem</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>General aspects</topic><topic>Habitat loss</topic><topic>Hydrology/Water Resources</topic><topic>Life Sciences</topic><topic>Mammals</topic><topic>Models, Biological</topic><topic>Mortality</topic><topic>Motor vehicle traffic</topic><topic>Plant Sciences</topic><topic>Population Dynamics</topic><topic>Predation</topic><topic>Predators</topic><topic>Prey</topic><topic>Roads</topic><topic>Species Specificity</topic><topic>Traffic density</topic><topic>Transportation</topic><topic>Vehicle emissions</topic><topic>Vehicles</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rytwinski, Trina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fahrig, Lenore</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Oceanic Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Oecologia</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rytwinski, Trina</au><au>Fahrig, Lenore</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Why are some animal populations unaffected or positively affected by roads?</atitle><jtitle>Oecologia</jtitle><stitle>Oecologia</stitle><addtitle>Oecologia</addtitle><date>2013-11-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>173</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>1143</spage><epage>1156</epage><pages>1143-1156</pages><issn>0029-8549</issn><eissn>1432-1939</eissn><coden>OECOBX</coden><abstract>In reviews on effects of roads on animal population abundance we found that most effects are negative; however, there are also many neutral and positive responses [Fahrig and Rytwinski (Ecol Soc 14:21, 2009; Rytwinski and Fahrig (Biol Conserv 147:87–98, 2012)]. Here we use an individual-based simulation model to: (1) confirm predictions from the existing literature of the combinations of species traits and behavioural responses to roads that lead to negative effects of roads on animal population abundance, and (2) improve prediction of the combinations of species traits and behavioural responses to roads that lead to neutral and positive effects of roads on animal population abundance. Simulations represented a typical situation in which road mitigation is contemplated, i.e. rural landscapes containing a relatively low density (up to 1.86 km/km²) of high-traffic roads, with continuous habitat between the roads. In these landscapes, the simulations predict that populations of species with small territories and movement ranges, and high reproductive rates, i.e. many small mammals and birds, should not be reduced by roads. Contrary to previous suggestions, the results also predict that populations of species that obtain a resource from roads (e.g. vultures) do not increase with increasing road density. In addition, our simulations support the predation release hypothesis for positive road effects on prey (both small- and large-bodied prey), whereby abundance of a prey species increased with increasing road density due to reduced predation by generalist road-affected predators. The simulations also predict an optimal road density for the large-bodied prey species if it avoids roads or traffic emissions. Overall, the simulation results suggest that in rural landscapes containing high-traffic roads, there are many species for which road mitigation may not be necessary; mitigation efforts should be tailored to the species that show negative population responses to roads.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer</pub><pmid>23715744</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00442-013-2684-x</doi><tpages>14</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0029-8549 |
| ispartof | Oecologia, 2013-11, Vol.173 (3), p.1143-1156 |
| issn | 0029-8549 1432-1939 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1458540875 |
| source | MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals; Jstor Complete Legacy |
| subjects | Animal and plant ecology Animal populations Animal, plant and microbial ecology Animals Behavior, Animal - physiology Biological and medical sciences Biomedical and Life Sciences Computer Simulation CONSERVATION ECOLOGY Conservation ecology - Original research Ecology Ecosystem Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology General aspects Habitat loss Hydrology/Water Resources Life Sciences Mammals Models, Biological Mortality Motor vehicle traffic Plant Sciences Population Dynamics Predation Predators Prey Roads Species Specificity Traffic density Transportation Vehicle emissions Vehicles |
| title | Why are some animal populations unaffected or positively affected by roads? |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-17T20%3A32%3A09IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Why%20are%20some%20animal%20populations%20unaffected%20or%20positively%20affected%20by%20roads?&rft.jtitle=Oecologia&rft.au=Rytwinski,%20Trina&rft.date=2013-11-01&rft.volume=173&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=1143&rft.epage=1156&rft.pages=1143-1156&rft.issn=0029-8549&rft.eissn=1432-1939&rft.coden=OECOBX&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00442-013-2684-x&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA350976686%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1443263412&rft_id=info:pmid/23715744&rft_galeid=A350976686&rft_jstor_id=24033586&rfr_iscdi=true |