Predicting effects of rainforest fragmentation from live trapping
studies of small mammals in Sri Lanka
Mayuri R. Wijesinghe
Department of Zoology, University
of Colombo, Cumaratunga Munidasa Mawatha, Colombo 03, Sri Lanka
Email: mayuri@zoology.cmb.ac.lk
Date of publication (online): 26 June 2012
Date of publication (print): 26 June 2012
ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print)
Editor: Giovanni Amori
Manuscript
details:
Ms # o2994
Received 08 November 2011
Final received 23 May 2012
Finally accepted 29 May 2012
Citation: Wijesinghe,
M.R. (2012). Predicting effects of rainforest fragmentation from live trapping
studies of small mammals in Sri Lanka. Journal of Threatened Taxa4(6): 2629–2636.
Copyright: © Mayuri R.
Wijesinghe 2012. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported
License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium for
non-profit purposes, reproduction and distribution by providing adequate credit
to the authors and the source of publication.
Author
Details: Dr. Mayuri R. Wijesinghe is a Senior
Lecturer in Zoology attached to the University of Colombo, Sri Lanka. Her
expertise lies in the fields of Conservation Biology and Toxicology. Her
research focuses on collecting baseline data on the distribution and habitat
requirements of many rodents and shrews and on investigating reasons for their
vulnerability to forest destruction and fragmentation. She also studies the
impact of agrochemicals and heavy metal pollutants on the survival, growth,
development and histopathology of larval stages of amphibians.
Acknowledgments: I am very
grateful to the National Science Foundation for granting financial assistance
(2004/Zoo/B2) for this project. I am also thankful to the Forest Department and
the Department of Wildlife Conservation for granting me permission to work in
the selected forests.
Abstract: This paper
examines the impact of forest fragmentation on small mammals inhabiting the
rainforests of Sri Lanka. Fifteen
forests ranging in size from 145 to 11000 ha were live-trapped for five to
eight nights each in both interior and edge habitats, yielding a total of 18400
trap nights. A total of 444
individuals belonging to 10 species of small mammals were captured. Multiple-regression analysis
incorporating three indicators of fragmentation: patch area, shape index
(perimeter/area) and degree of isolation, showed no significant effects on
overall species richness of small mammals. This is likely because the decline of forest-adapted species
from small forest fragments was accompanied by an increase in more tolerant and
adaptive species. Patch size,
however, had a significant positive effect on the abundance of small
mammals. Of the two dominant
species, the endemic Mus
mayori was positively affected by patch area whilst Rattus rattus was not
affected. Although no differences
were evident between interior and edge habitats with respect to total species
richness and abundance, endemics were more abundant in core areas while the
reverse was true for the non-endemics. Core forest areas were significantly different from forest edges with
respect to canopy cover, density of herbaceous vegetation, large trees and
litter cover. These results
suggest that forest fragmentation is detrimental to some forest specialists and
beneficial to some generalists.
Keywords: Edge effects,
endemics, fragmentation, rainforests, small mammals, Sri Lanka.
Introduction
The
global decline of biodiversity has been primarily attributed to habitat loss
and fragmentation of natural landscapes. Not surprisingly, many studies have focused on the effects of forest
fragmentation on the distribution and abundance of different animal taxa
(Walters 1991; Boone & Keller 1993; Malcolm 1994). Forest destruction and fragmentation
may affect fauna in several ways. As forests become increasingly fragmented the smaller remnant patches
support fewer species (e.g. Debinski & Holt 2000; Laurance et al. 2000; Cox et al. 2004). The creation of edge habitats at the
interphase where the forest meets man-modified habitats facilitates invasion of
competitors or predators and/or exposes forest species to unsuitable external
environmental conditions (Yahner 1988); a linear forest would be exposed to
greater edge effects than a circular forest patch having the same area. Also, as forests become increasingly
isolated, inter-patch migration becomes more difficult. This factor is particularly important
for faunal taxa that have a metapopulation structure whichnecessitates frequent mixing of populations between different forest patches
(Diffendorfer et al. 1995). Based on these factors it could be
predicted that small, isolated and irregularly-shapedforests would support the lowest faunal diversity. However, all species are not equally sensitive to habitat
fragmentation. For example species
vulnerability to forest fragmentation depends on habitat preferences (Andrén
1994). Generalist species, capable
of using the original forest, its borders and the surrounding matrix, are less
affected than species restricted to the use of the forest alone.
The
tropical rainforests in southwestern Sri Lanka harbour a rich complement of
flora and fauna, with a large proportion of species being endemic to the
island. Because of high levels of
endemism and the exceptional levels of threat facing the biota, the wet zone in
the southwest of the country has been recognized as a biodiversity hotspot
(Myers 1990; Myers et al. 2000). Southwestern Sri Lanka, together with the Western Ghats of India, has
the highest human population density among the hotspots (Cincotta et al.
2000). Increasing human
settlements, urbanization and agricultural expansion has resulted in intense
habitat degradation and fragmentation of the once extensive forests, which now
cover a mere eight per cent of Sri Lanka’s wet zone land area. So far, no study has attempted to
examine the influence of spatial attributes of forest fragments and/or edge
effects on the fauna inhabiting these rainforests in Sri Lanka.
The
present live trapping study aimed to investigate the effects of forest area, shape,
degree of isolation and the edge effects on species richness and abundance of
small mammals in rainforest fragments of southwestern Sri Lanka with a view to
ascertaining the overall effects of forest loss and fragmentation on this
community. Small mammals are of
special interest as they make a significant contribution to the country’s
biological diversity and endemism representing over 30 per cent of the mammals
and over 60 per cent of the endemic mammals inhabiting the island.
Methods
Selected rainforests
A
total of 15 rainforests ranging in size from 145 to 11000 ha were surveyed for
small mammals from 2006 to 2009 in: Kombala-Kottawa, Kanneliya, Dombagaskanda,
Kalugala, Morapitiya, Delwala, Delgoda, Dellawa, Masimbula, Warathalgoda,
Kalubowitiyana, Sinharaja, Walankanda, Yagirala and Kudumeriya in the four
districts of Ratnapura, Kalutara, Galle and Matara in southwestern Sri
Lanka. These are low to mid
elevation forests with tropical wet evergreen forest vegetation (de Rosayro
1950). The forests are dominated
by tree species of the family Dipterocarpaceae.
Capturing small mammals
Small
mammal communities were assessed using live trapping. Two trapping grids were laid, one at the edge of the forest
starting at the boundary (edge habitat) and the other in the forest interior at
least 500m away from the forest boundary (core habitat). Each trapping grid consisted of 50
Sherman’s live traps laid at 10m intervals and baited with lightly roasted coconut
kernel. This method has been
successfully used for live trapping small mammals in Sri Lankan rainforests in
the past (Wijesinghe & de Brooke 2005). Live trapping was conducted for five to eight nights twice
or thrice during the study period yielding a total of 18400 trap nights. A live trapping of four nights has been
recognized as being sufficient for the comparison of small mammal communities
between forests (Wijesinghe 2010). Traps were checked and rebaited each morning and captured individuals were
released at the point of capture after identification. Fur clipping enabled the identification
of recaptured individuals within each trapping session of a maximum of eight
days. The abundance of each species
of small mammal was taken to be the number of new animals captured during each
individual trapping session in a given forest, following Wijesinghe &
Brooke (2005), Molur & Singh (2009), Ratnaweera & Wijesinghe (2009),
and Wijesinghe (2010).
Fragmentation indices
Information
on patch size, length of periphery and the distance to the nearest forest
fragment for the 15 surveyed forests was obtained from the most recent digital
maps provided by the Forest Department, Sri Lanka. If a forest was connected to another forest, the degree of
isolation was taken to be zero. The shape index for each of the forests was calculated according to
Gkaraveli et al. (2001)
where Shape index = Perimeter of fragment / Area of fragment.
Habitat assessments
A
total of 10 microhabitat parameters were identified that could be potentially affected by
fragmentation in each of the two trapping grids at the edges and core areas of
the selected forests. They were
canopy cover, number of seedlings (small plants below the height of ½m),
number of non-woody herbaceous plants, number of trees with a girth at breast
height (gbh) of less than 20cm, number of large trees (trees with over 20cm
gbh), litter depth, litter cover, light intensity, relative humidity and
temperature at a height of one metre from the ground. These were measured in six 5x5 m quadrats
which were evenly distributed throughout each of the two trapping
grids. The canopy was estimated
cover using a plastic pipe (sighting tube with a diameter of 2.5cm), one end of
which was covered by a piece of cellophane marked with a grid. When looking vertically upwards through
the pipe towards the sky, the grid squares in which the view in at least half
the area was intercepted by the canopy was counted and used to calculate the
percentage canopy cover. Five
readings were taken at the four corners and middle of each of the 5x5 m
quadrats. The number of seedlings,
non-woody herbaceous plants, small tress and large trees were counted within
each of the six 5x5 m quadrats. Litter depth was measured at the four corners and middle of each quadrat
using a ruler. This also included
the humus layer. The litter cover
was estimated at the four corners and middle of each quadrat using a square
mesh of 25x25 cm with subdivisions of 5x5 cm squares. The number of squares where more than half the square was
covered by litter was counted and used to calculate the percentage litter
cover. Temperature, relative
humidity and light intensities (Yu Pung YF 172) were measured using standard
portable meters (Yu Pung YF 180).
Results
The small mammal community in the wet
zone forests
A
total of 444 individuals belonging to 10 species, eight rodents and two shrews,
were recorded from the 15 rainforests. Five of these species Mus
mayori Thomas, 1915 (Spiny Mouse), Srilankamys ohiensis Philllips, 1929 (Sri Lanka Bicolored
Rat), Funambulus layardi Blyth,
1849 (Flame-striped Jungle Squirrel), Crocidura miya Phillips, 1929 (Sri Lanka
Long-tailed Shrew) and Suncus
zeylanicus Phillips, 1928 (Sri Lanka Jungle Shrew) are
endemic, with one of them (S.
ohiensis) belonging
to an endemic genus. The
non-endemics recorded were Mus
booduga Gray, 1837 (Field Mouse), Rattus rattus Linnaeus, 1758 (Common Rat), Vandeleuria oleracea Bennett,
1832 (Long-tailed Tree Mouse), Funambulus
sublineatus Waterhouse, 1838 (Dusky-striped Jungle Squirrel)
and Funambulus palmarum Linnaeus,
1766 (Palm Squirrel). The capture
rate (number of captures per 100 trap nights was 3.09 per cent. The two predominant species M. mayori and R. rattus comprised
90 per cent of the small mammal community.
Effect of forest fragmentation on small
mammals
Table
1 shows the summarized results of the trapping survey in the 15 forests. Multiple regressions were conducted
incorporating the three indicators of fragmentation, i.e. the area, shape and
the degree of isolation of the forests, as independent variables and species
richness or abundance as the dependent variable. These analyses revealed that species richness was not
significantly affected by any of the three factors (species richness = -0.242 +
0.000025area – 0.714shape – 0.0523isolation; F = 2.76, P>0.05), but that
abundance was significantly and positively affected by patch size (abundance =
2.12 + 0.000148area -2.23shape - 0.161isolation; F=5.92, P>0.05). The three fragmentation indices
contributed to around 40% of the variation in species richness and to 60%
variation in abundance. Contrasting trends were observed with the two predominant species. Multiple-regressions incorporating
abundance of the endemic M.
mayori showed that around 80% of the variation in abundance
was explained by the three factors with patch size having a positive and
significant influence (M.
mayori = 0.705 +.000095area –
0.846shape - 0.0947isolation; F=16.74, P<0.001). The positive value for area indicates that M. mayori is more
abundant in larger forest patches than in smaller ones. It should be noted, however, that this
species also utilized smaller forest patches to a certain extent (Table 1). Although not significant, the shape
index had a negative impact on this species indicating that it preferred more
circular patches. In the case of
the other predominant species R.
rattus, only 10% of the variation was explained by the three
factors, with none of the factors having a significant impact (R. rattus = 1.43
– 0.000025area – 1.07shape – 0.117isolation; F=0.43,
P>0.05). In the case of this too shape had a negative value indicating that
it prefers circular forest patches. With regards to the Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index [H’ = -∑(Pi ln Pi)] or evenness (E=H’/log S) where Pi is the
proportional abundance of a species in a forest and S is the species richness
in that forest, the values show that Kanneliya, Sinharaja and Yagirala had
distinctly higher diversity compared to the other forests (Table 1). In some forests (e.g. Dombagaskanda,
Delgoda and Kottawa) although the diversity was low, the evenness values were
high suggesting that the existing species were equally distributed.
Table
2 shows the abundance of the individual species in core and edge habitats of
the 15 rainforests surveyed during the present investigation. Comparing the core and edge habitats of
the forests, a total of eight species of small mammals were recorded from both
core and edge habitats (Table 2). Of the 10 small mammals recorded, six species, the endemics S. ohiensis, M. mayori andC. miya and
the non-endemics R. rattus,
F. sublineatus and F.
palmarum, were recorded from both core and edge habitats,
while F. layardiand S. zeylanicus were
recorded from only the core areas and the nonendemics M. booduga and Vandeleuria oleraceae were
recorded only from edge habitats. With respect to overall abundance, both core areas and edges of forests
recorded almost similar numbers of individuals (234 and 210). Similar results were noted for the
abundance of small mammals in core and edge habitats when individual forests
were considered (T=1.34, p>0.05, Pairwise t-Test). Marked differences were nevertheless evident when comparing
the abundance of endemics and non-endemics. The abundance of endemics was higher in core areas than in
the edge forests (123 core and 69 edge). This is primarily because of the differential use of interior and edge
habitat by the endemic M.
mayori. Significantly higher numbers of individuals were
recorded for this species in core habitats (104 individuals) than at the edges
(65 individuals). A reverse trend
was seen for the non-endemics with more non-endemics using edges than interior
areas. Some microhabitat features differed greatly between edges and core areas
(Table 3). The core forest areas
were characterized by a greater number of large trees, greater canopy cover,
and by being shadier, cooler and more humid than the forest edges. The interior areas had a lower litter
cover than edges. The forest
edges, since they are exposed, have higher light levels and greater herbaceous
vegetation. Statistical analyses revealed that four variables namely canopy
cover, herbaceous cover, the number of large trees and litter cover differed
significantly between the core and edge areas of the forest.
Discussion
The
present survey was conducted with the objective of investigating the overall
effects of forest fragmentation on small mammal communities inhabiting the
remnant rainforest patches in Sri Lanka. The theory of island biogeography by MacArthur & Wilson (1967)
predicts that larger areas would support greater numbers of species and
individuals than smaller areas. Supporting this claim, Goodman & Rakotondravony (2000) report that
in Madagascar, the species of the families Tenrecidae and Soricidae declined
progressively with diminishing forest size. Similarly, Schoener (1974) proposed
that, for small mammals, space is the main niche dimension that facilitates the
coexistence of ecologically similar species. It has been shown that larger spaces result in greater
resource diversity making the coexistence of a large number of species feasible
(Vieira & Monteiro-Filho 2003; Renata 2004). Also, it is reported that the reduction of species is such
that the complement of species in smaller patches is a subset of that found in
larger ones (e.g. Patterson & Brown 1991; Pattanavibool & Dearden
2002).
The
species-area relationship per se, however, does not consider a variety of other
factors that are of considerable importance in determining the viability of
species and populations within habitat islands. For instance, fragmentation facilitates the creation of edge
habitats that in turn may seriously affect the diversity of organisms within
the forest patches (Laurance 1991; Hansen et al. 1992). The type of habitat matrix surrounding
the individual forest patches will also have an impact on diversity (Renata
2004). The degree of isolation also
influences the viability of the species within a particular fragment
(Kozakiewicz & Jurasinska 1989). Hence, the variability of these factors between forest fragments may
serve to mask the effects of area on biotic communities. This is evident from the results of
several studies - Lindenmayer et al. (2000) for mammals; Wethered & Lawes (2003) for birds; Conde & Rocha (2006) and Rosenblatt et al. (1999) for
small mammals.
The
present study did not provide direct evidence for the species-area
relationship. It is apparent from
the results of the present study that the lack of a species-area relationship
for the overall small mammal community is because the absence of, or the
reduction in, certain species in smaller fragments was well compensated for by
other species. These “replacement
species”, are those that are more adaptable to man modified landscapes. This observation suggests that a
species replenishment model, demonstrated in some studies (e.g. Harraington et
al. 2001;
Castelletta et al. 2005),
is applicable to the rainforests in Sri Lanka. Several studies have in fact shown that the species-area
theory may be applicable at a regional scale but is not applicable at smaller
spatial scales (Cutler 1991; Patterson & Brown 1991). Middleton & Merriam (1983), working
with small mammal fauna of forest fragments in Illinois, likewise claim that
the island biogeography analogy does not apply well for the areas studied.
Species
replacement tends to obscure species-area relationships. The patterns of replacement of species
in smaller fragments in turn reflect the species’ ability to tolerate edge
effects (Yáñez et al. 1999). Andrén (1994) reports that species’
responses to habitat disturbance are varied with fragmentation and edge effects
imposing major threats to the survival of forest-dependent fauna. He further states that habitat generalists
were largely tolerant of habitat fragmentation, their abundance being similar
in forests, corridors, and remnants, and are capable of persisting in remnants
only a few hectares in extent. In
the present study the patterns of occupancy of the two predominant species, the endemic M. mayori and the cosmopolitan R. rattus in
particular, clearly demonstrate such differences in tolerance. The fact that the smallest fragments
and forest edges were occupied by a lesser number of individuals of M. mayori strongly
suggests that environmental conditions in edges were perceived as matrix rather
than a forest habitat by this species. It was evident from the results of the present investigation that the
forest interior was much cooler and had different vegetation characteristics
such as greater canopy cover and larger trees and lesser herbaceous cover, than
the edge habitats. R. rattus,
in contrast to the former, is a ubiquitous generalist species that has managed
to colonize six continents and thousands of islands in the wet tropics as well
as in arid environments. In
addition to M. mayori,
the fact that the endemics S.
ohiensis and F.
layardi and the non-endemic F. sublineatus preferentially utilized interior
areas, suggest that they may be negatively affected by the creation of habitat
edges. On the other hand, those
that are tolerant of habitat edges and perhaps benefit by such human
modifications are R. rattus,M. booduga andF. palmarum.
Due
to edge effects and the differential tolerance of species, the shape of a
particular forest patch could be expected to influence the biotic community it
supports. Circular forest patches
will have proportionately less edge habitat than similar-sized linear forest
patches (Bentley et al. 2000). The shape index for forest fragments is
calculated as the ratio of perimeter to area (Gkaraveli et al. 2001), which
increases as forests become more linear. Based on this premise, the abundance of core forest species should be
negatively affected by the shape index, which was observed for M. mayori.
Although
the fragmentation of Sri Lankan rainforests may not have an overall impact on the species richness of
the small mammal community the study clearly demonstrates that it may lead to
the decline of certain forest-adapted species. This emphasizes the need to preserve large intact and
circular forests whenever possible. The preservation of the smaller forests is also important, since they
function as potential “stop over points” that may facilitate the spreading of
forest species to nearby patches. Such linkages between forests are particularly important for small
mammals that are unable to cover large distances.
References
Andrén, H. (1994).Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with differed
proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71:
355–366.
Bentley, J.M., C.P. Catterall & G.C. Smith (2000). Effects of fragmentation of Auraucarian vine forest on small mammal
communities. Conservation Biology 14: 1075–1087.
Boone, J.D. & B.L. Keller (1993).Temporal and spatial patterns of small mammal density and species composition
in a radioactive waste disposal area: The role of edge habitat. Great Basin Naturalist53: 341–349.
Castelletta, M., J.M. Thiollay &
N.S. Sodhi (2005). The effects of
extreme forest fragmentation on the bird community of Singapore Island. Conservation Biology 121:
135–155.
Cincotta, R.P., J. Wisnewski & R. Engleman (2000). Human population in the biodiversity hotspots Nature 440:
990–992.
Conde, C.F. & C.F.D. Rocha (2006). Habitat disturbance and small mammal richness and diversity in an
Atlantic rainforest area in southeastern Brazil. Brazilian Journal of
Biology 66: 983–990.
Cox, M.P., C.R. Dickman & J. Hunter
(2004). Effects of
rainforest fragmentation on non-flying mammals of the Eastern Dorrigo Plateau,
Australia. Biological
Conservation 115: 175–189.
Cutler, A. (1991). Nested faunas and extinction in fragmented habitats. Conservation Biology5: 496–505.
Debinski, D.M. & R.D. Holt (2000). A survey and overview of habitat fragmentation experiments. Conservation Biology14: 342–355
de Rosayro, R.A. (1950). Ecological conceptions and vegetation types with special reference
to Ceylon. The
Tropical Agriculturist 56: 108–121.
Diffendorfer, J.E., M.S. Gaines & R.D. Holt (1995). Habitat fragmentation and movements of three small mammals (Sigmodon, Microtus andPeromyscus). Ecology76: 827–839.
Gkaraveli, A., J.H. Williams & G.E.G. Good (2001). Fragmented native woodlands in Snowdonia. UK: Assessment and
amelioration. Forestry74: 89–193.
Goodman, S.M. & D. Rakotondravony (2000). The effect of forest fragmentation and isolation on insectivorous
small mammals (Lipothyphla) on the Central High Plateau of Madagascar. Journal of Zoology250: 193–200.
Hansen, A.J., P.G. Risser & F. DiCastri (1992).Epilogue: Biodiversity and ecological flows across ecotones, pp. 423–438.
In: Hansen, A.J. & F. DiCastri (eds.). Landscape boundaries. Consequences for Biotic
Diversity and Ecological Flora. Springer-Verlag, New
York.
Harraington, G.N., A.N.D. Freeman &
F.H.G. Crome (2001). The effects of fragmentation of an Australian tropical rainforest
on populations and assemblages of small mammals. Journal of Tropical
Ecology 17: 225–240.
KozAkiewicz, M. & E. Jurasinska
(1989). The role of habitat
barriers in woodlot recolonizatin by small mammals. Ecography 12:
106–111.
Laurance, W.F. (1991). Edge effects on tropical forest fragments. Application of a model for the design of nature reserves. Biological Conservation57: 205–219.
Laurance, W.F., P. Delamônica, S.G. Laurance, H.L.
Vasconcelos & T.E. Lovejoy (2000).Rainforest fragmentation kills big trees. Nature 404: 836.
Lindenmayer, D.B., M.A. McCarthy, K.M. Parris & M. Pope
(2000). Habitat fragmentation, landscape context
and mammalian assemblages in south-eastern Australia. Journal of Mammalogy 82:
787–797.
MacArthur, R.H. & E.O. Wilson (1967). The Theory of Island
Biogeography. Princeton University
Press, Princeton, 203pp.
Malcolm, J.R. (1994).Edge effects in central amazonian forest fragments. Ecology 75:
2438–2445.
Middleton, J. & G. Merriam (1983). Distribution of woodland species in farmland woods. Journal of Applied
Ecology 20: 625–644.
Molur, S. & M. Singh (2009). Non-volant small mammals of the Western Ghats of Coorg District,
southern India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 1(12): 589–608.
Myers, N. (1990). The
biodiversity challenge: Expanded hotspot analysis. The Environmentalist10: 243–256.
Myers, N., R.A. Mittermeir, C.G. Mittermeir, G.A.B. da
Fonseka & J. Kent (2000). Biodiversity
hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:
853–858.
Pattanavibool, A. & P. Dearden
(2002). Fragmentation and
wildlife in montane evergreen forests, northern Thailand. Biological Conservation107: 155–164.
Patterson, B.D. & J.H. Brown (1991). Regionally nested patterns of species composition in granivorous
rodent assemblages. Journal of Biogeography 18: 395–402.
Ratnaweera, P.B. & M.R. Wijesinghe (2009). Effect of food quality and availability on rainforest rodents of
Sri Lanka. Journal
of Threatened Taxa 1(12): 581–588.
Renata, P.
(2004). Effects of forest fragmentation on
small mammals in an Atlantic forest landscape. Biodiversity Conservation 13:
2567–2586.
Rosenblatt,
D.L., E.J. Heske, S.L. Nelson, D.M. Barber, M.A. Miller & B. MacAllister
(1999). Forest fragments in east-central
Illinois: islands of habitat fragments for mammals? American Midland Naturalist141: 115–123.
Schoener, T.W. (1974). Competition in the form of habitat shift. Theoretical Population
Biology 6: 265–307.
Vieira, E.M. & E.L.A.
Monteiro-Filho (2003). Vertical
stratification of small mammals in the Atlantic rainforest of south-eastern Brazil. Journal of Tropical Ecology19: 501–507.
Walters, B.B. (1991). Small mammals in subalpine old-growth forest and clearcuts. Northwest Science 65:
27–31.
Wethered, R. & M. Lawes (2003). Matrix effects on bird assemblages in fragmented Afromontane
forests in South Africa. Biological Conservation 114: 327–340.
Wijesinsghe, M.R. (2010). Efficiency
of live trapping protocols to assess small mammal diversity in tropical
rainforests of Sri Lanka. Belgian Journal of Zoology 140:
212–215.
Wijesinghe, M.R. & M. de Brooke (2005). The distribution of small mammals along a disturbance gradient in
Sinharaja, Sri Lanka. Journal of Tropical Ecology 21: 291–296.
Yahner, R.H. (1988). Changes in wildlife communities near edges. Conservation Biology2: 333–339.
Yáñez, M.A., V. Frida, J.A. Simonetti & A.A. Grez (1999). Small mammals of forest islands of the Beni Biological Station,
Bolivia. Mastozoología
Neotropical 6: 135–138.