1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics
  4. Volume 48, 2017
  5. Article

Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics

Volume 48, 2017

Ecological Responses to Habitat Fragmentation Per Se

Abstract

For this article, I reviewed empirical studies finding significant ecological responses to habitat fragmentation per se—in other words, significant responses to fragmentation independent of the effects of habitat amount (hereafter referred to as habitat fragmentation). I asked these two questions: Are most significant responses to habitat fragmentation negative or positive? And do particular attributes of species or landscapes lead to a predominance of negative or positive significant responses? I found 118 studies reporting 381 significant responses to habitat fragmentation independent of habitat amount Of these responses, 76% were positive. Most significant fragmentation effects were positive, irrespective of how the authors controlled for habitat amount, the measure of fragmentation, the taxonomic group, the type of response variable, or the degree of specialization or conservation status of the species or species group. No support was found for predictions that most significant responses to fragmentation should be negative in the tropics, for species with larger movement ranges, or when habitat amount is low; most significant fragmentation effects were positive in all of these cases. Thus, although 24% of significant responses to habitat fragmentation were negative, I found no conditions in which most responses were negative. Authors suggest a wide range of possible explanations for significant positive responses to habitat fragmentation: increased functional connectivity, habitat diversity, positive edge effects, stability of predator–prey/host–parasitoid systems, reduced competition, spreading of risk, and landscape complementation. A consistent preponderance of positive significant responses to fragmentation implies that there is no justification for assigning lower conservation value to a small patch than to an equivalent area within a large patch—instead, it implies just the opposite. This finding also suggests that land sharing will usually provide higher ecological value than land sparing.

Keyword(s): edge effect, landscape complementation, landscape configuration, landscape connectivity, landscape heterogeneity, landscape pattern, landscape structure, patch area, patch isolation, SLOSS
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110316-022612
2017-11-02
2024-04-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/ecolsys/48/1/annurev-ecolsys-110316-022612.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110316-022612&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Alofs KM, González AV, Fowler NL. 2014. Local native plant diversity responds to habitat loss and fragmentation over different time spans and spatial scales. Plant Ecol 215:1139–51 [Google Scholar]
  2. Báldi A. 1996. Edge effects in tropical versus temperate forest bird communities: three alternative hypotheses for the explanation of differences. Acta Zool. Acad. Sci. Hung. 42:163–72 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bancroft JS, Turchin P. 2003. An experimental test of fragmentation and loss of habitat with Oryzaephilus surinamensis. Ecology 84:1756–67 [Google Scholar]
  4. Barelli C, Rovero F, Hodges K, Araldi A, Heistermann M. 2015. Physiological stress levels in the endemic and endangered Udzungwa red colobus vary with elevation. Afr. Zool. 50:23–30 [Google Scholar]
  5. Barth BJ, FitzGibbon SI, Wilson RS. 2015. New urban developments that retain more remnant trees have greater bird diversity. Landsc. Urban Plan. 136:122–29 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bascompte J, Solé RV. 1996. Habitat fragmentation and extinction thresholds in spatially explicit models. J. Anim. Ecol. 65:465–73 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bender DJ, Tischendorf L, Fahrig L. 2003. Using patch isolation metrics to predict animal movement in binary landscapes. Landsc. Ecol. 18:17–39 [Google Scholar]
  8. Boswell GP, Britton NF, Franks NR. 1998. Habitat fragmentation, percolation theory and the conservation of a keystone species. Proc. R. Soc. B 265:1921–25 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bowman J, Cappuccino N, Fahrig L. 2002. Patch size and population density: the effect of immigration behavior. Conserv. Ecol. 6:9 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bruna EM, Oli MK. 2005. Demographic effects of habitat fragmentation on a tropical herb: life-table response experiments. Ecology 86:1816–24 [Google Scholar]
  11. Caley JM, Buckley KA, Jones GP. 2001. Separating ecological effects of habitat fragmentation, degradation, and loss on coral commensals. Ecology 82:3435–48 [Google Scholar]
  12. Carlson A, Hartman G. 2001. Tropical forest fragmentation and nest predation—an experimental study in an Eastern Arc montane forest, Tanzania. Biodivers. Conserv. 10:1077–85 [Google Scholar]
  13. Cerezo A, Perelman S, Robbins CS. 2010. Landscape-level impact of tropical forest loss and fragmentation on bird occurrence in eastern Guatemala. Ecol. Model. 221:512–26 [Google Scholar]
  14. Cisneros LM, Fagan ME, Willig MR. 2015. Season-specific and guild-specific effects of anthropogenic landscape modification on metacommunity structure of tropical bats. J. Anim. Ecol. 84:373–85 [Google Scholar]
  15. Collins RJ, Barrett GW. 1997. Effects of habitat fragmentation on meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus) population dynamics in experiment landscape patches. Landsc. Ecol. 12:63–76 [Google Scholar]
  16. Concepción ED, Díaz M, Kleijn D, Báldi A, Batáry P. et al. 2012. Interactive effects of landscape context constrain the effectiveness of local agri-environmental management. J. Appl. Ecol. 49:695–705 [Google Scholar]
  17. Cushman SA, McGarigal K. 2003. Landscape-level patterns of avian diversity in the Oregon Coast Range. Ecol. Monogr. 73:259–81 [Google Scholar]
  18. den Boer PJ. 1968. Spreading of risk and stabilization of animal numbers. Acta Biotheor 18:165–94 [Google Scholar]
  19. Didham RK, Kapos V, Ewers RM. 2012. Rethinking the conceptual foundations of habitat fragmentation research. Oikos 121:161–70 [Google Scholar]
  20. Duelli P. 1997. Biodiversity evaluation in agricultural landscapes: an approach at two different scales. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 62:81–91 [Google Scholar]
  21. Dufour A, Gadallah F, Wagner HH, Guisan A, Buttler A. 2006. Plant species richness and environmental heterogeneity in a mountain landscape: effects of variability and spatial configuration. Ecography 29:573–84 [Google Scholar]
  22. Dunning JB, Danielson BJ, Pulliam HR. 1992. Ecological processes that affect populations in complex landscapes. Oikos 10:169–95 [Google Scholar]
  23. Fahrig L. 1998. When does fragmentation of breeding habitat affect population survival. Ecol. Model. 105:273–92 [Google Scholar]
  24. Fahrig L. 2003. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 34:487–515 [Google Scholar]
  25. Fahrig L. 2013. Rethinking patch size and isolation effects: the habitat amount hypothesis. J. Biogeogr. 40:1649–63 [Google Scholar]
  26. Fahrig L. 2017. Forty years of bias in habitat fragmentation research. Effective Conservation Science: Data Not Dogma P Kareiva, B Silliman, M Marvier Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press In press [Google Scholar]
  27. Fahrig L, Baudry J, Brotons L, Burel FG, Crist TO. et al. 2011. Functional heterogeneity and biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Ecol. Lett. 14:101–12 [Google Scholar]
  28. Fahrig L, Girard J, Duro D, Pasher J, Smith A. et al. 2015. Farmlands with smaller crop fields have higher within-field biodiversity. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 200:219–34 [Google Scholar]
  29. Fahrig L, Nuttle WK. 2005. Population ecology in spatially heterogeneous environments. Ecosystem Function in Heterogeneous Landscapes GM Lovett, CG Jones, MG Turner, KC Weathers 95–118 New York: Springer-Verlag [Google Scholar]
  30. Flather CH, Bevers M. 2002. Patchy reaction-diffusion and population abundance: the relative importance of habitat amount and arrangement. Am. Nat. 159:40–56 [Google Scholar]
  31. Flick T, Feagan S, Fahrig L. 2012. Effects of landscape structure on butterfly species richness and abundance in agricultural landscapes in eastern Ontario, Canada. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 156:123–33 [Google Scholar]
  32. Fox J. 2011. Zombie ideas in ecology. Oikos Blog June 17. https://oikosjournal.wordpress.com/2011/06/17/zombie-ideas-in-ecology/
  33. Gause GF. 1934. The Struggle for Existence Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins
  34. Goodwin BJ, Fahrig L. 2002. How does landscape structure influence landscape connectivity?. Oikos 99:552–70 [Google Scholar]
  35. Green RE, Cornell SJ, Scharlemann JPW, Balmford A. 2005. Farming and the fate of wild nature. Science 307:550–55 [Google Scholar]
  36. Grossman SR, Hannon SJ, Sánchez-Azofeifa A. 2008. Responses of Great Horned Owls (Bubo virginianus), Barred Owls (Strix varia), and Northern Saw-whet Owls (Aegolius acadicus) to forest cover and configuration in an agricultural landscape in Alberta, Canada. Can. J. Zool 86:1165–72 [Google Scholar]
  37. Hagan JM, McKinley PS, Meehan AL, Grove SL. 1997. Diversity and abundance of landbirds in a northeastern industrial forest. J. Wildl. Manag. 61:718–35 [Google Scholar]
  38. Haila Y, Hanski IK. 1984. Methodology for studying the effect of habitat fragmentation on land birds. Ann. Zool. Fennici 21:393–97 [Google Scholar]
  39. Hanski I. 1987. Carrion fly community dynamics: patchiness, seasonality and coexistence. Ecol. Entomol. 12:257–66 [Google Scholar]
  40. Hanski I. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and species richness. J. Biogeogr. 42:989–94 [Google Scholar]
  41. Healey D, Hovel KA. 2004. Seagrass bed patchiness: effects on epifaunal communities in San Diego Bay, USA. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 313:155–74 [Google Scholar]
  42. Henden J-A, Ims RA, Yoccoz NG, Sørensen R, Killengreen ST. 2011. Population dynamics of tundra voles in relation to configuration of willow thickets in southern arctic tundra. Polar Biol 34:533–40 [Google Scholar]
  43. Hill MF, Caswell H. 1999. Habitat fragmentation and extinction thresholds on fractal landscapes. Ecol. Lett. 2:121–27 [Google Scholar]
  44. Holzschuh A, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T. 2010. How do landscape composition and configuration, organic farming and fallow strips affect the diversity of bees, wasps and their parasitoids?. J. Anim. Ecol. 79:491–500 [Google Scholar]
  45. Hovel KA, Lipcius RN. 2001. Habitat fragmentation in a seagrass landscape: patch size and complexity control blue crab survival. Ecology 82:1814–29 [Google Scholar]
  46. Hovick TJ, Elmore RD, Fuhlendorf SD, Engle DM, Hamilton RG. 2015. Spatial heterogeneity increases diversity and stability in grassland bird communities. Ecol. Appl. 25:662–72 [Google Scholar]
  47. Hu G, Wu J, Feeley KJ, Xu G, Yu M. 2012. The effects of landscape variables on the species-area relationship during late-stage habitat fragmentation. PLOS ONE 7:e43894 [Google Scholar]
  48. Huffaker CB. 1958. Experimental studies on predation: dispersion factors and predator-prey oscillations. Hilgardia 27:795–835 [Google Scholar]
  49. IUCN (Int. Union Conserv. Nat.). 2015. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. http://www.iucnredlist.org/
  50. Jackson HB, Fahrig L. 2012. What size is a biologically relevant landscape?. Landsc. Ecol. 27:929–41 [Google Scholar]
  51. Jeng M. 2006. A selected history of expectation bias in physics. Am. J. Phys. 74:578–83 [Google Scholar]
  52. King DI, Griffin CR, Degraff RM. 1996. Effects of clearcutting on habitat use and reproductive success of the Ovenbird in forested landscapes. Conserv. Biol. 10:1380–86 [Google Scholar]
  53. Klingbeil BT, Willig MR. 2009. Guild-specific responses of bats to landscape composition and configuration in fragmented Amazonian rainforest. J. Appl. Ecol. 46:203–13 [Google Scholar]
  54. Lande R. 1987. Extinction thresholds in demographic models of territorial populations. Am. Nat. 130:624–35 [Google Scholar]
  55. Leopold A. 1933. Game Management New York: Scribner
  56. Levins R. 1970. Extinction. Some Mathematical Problems in Biology M Gesternhaber 77–107 Providence, RI: Amer. Math. Soc. [Google Scholar]
  57. Levins R, Culver D. 1971. Regional coexistence of species and competition between rare species. PNAS 68:1246–48 [Google Scholar]
  58. Lindell CA, Riffell SK, Kaiser SA, Battin AL, Smith ML, Sisk TD. 2007. Edge responses of tropical and temperate birds. Wilson J. Ornithol. 119:205–20 [Google Scholar]
  59. Lindsay KE, Kirk DA, Bergin TM, Best LB, Sifneos JC, Smith J. 2013. Farmland heterogeneity benefits birds in American Mid-west watersheds. Am. Midl. Nat. 170:121–43 [Google Scholar]
  60. Loehle C. 1987. Testing in ecology: psychological aspects and the importance of theory maturation. Q. Rev. Biol. 62:397–409 [Google Scholar]
  61. MacArthur RH, Wilson EO. 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  62. Martin AE, Fahrig L. 2012. Measuring and selecting scales of effect for landscape predictors in species-habitat models. Ecol. Appl. 22:2277–92 [Google Scholar]
  63. Martínez-Sanz C, Canzano CSS, Fernández-Aláez M, García-Criado F. 2012. Relative contribution of small mountain ponds to regional richness of littoral macroinvertebrates and the implications for conservation. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 22:155–64 [Google Scholar]
  64. Mbora DN, McPeek MA. 2009. Host density and human activities mediate increased parasite prevalence and richness in primates threatened by habitat loss and fragmentation. J. Anim. Ecol. 78:210–18 [Google Scholar]
  65. McAlpine CA, Rhodes JR, Callaghan JG, Bowen ME, Lunney D. et al. 2006. The importance of forest area and configuration relative to local habitat factors for conserving forest mammals: a case study of koalas in Queensland, Australia. Biol. Conserv. 132:153–65 [Google Scholar]
  66. McGarigal K, Cushman SA. 2002. Comparative evaluation of experimental approaches to the study of habitat fragmentation effects. Ecol. Appl. 12:335–45 [Google Scholar]
  67. McGarigal K. 2015. FRAGSTATS HELP. http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/documents/fragstats.help.4.2.pdf
  68. Moilanen A, Nieminen M. 2002. Simple connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Ecology 83:1131–45 [Google Scholar]
  69. Moore CH, Van Neil K, Harvey ES. 2011. The effect of landscape composition and configuration on the spatial distribution of temperate demersal fish. Ecography 34:425–35 [Google Scholar]
  70. Nickerson RS. 1998. Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2:175–220 [Google Scholar]
  71. Ont. Min. Nat. Resour. 2002. Forest Management Guide for Natural Disturbance Pattern Emulation, Version 3.1 Toronto: Ont. Min. Nat. Resour., Queen's Print. Ont.
  72. Perović D, Gámez-Virués S, Bőrschig C, Klein A-M, Krauss J. et al. 2015. Configurational landscape heterogeneity shapes functional community composition of grassland butterflies. J. Appl. Ecol. 52:505–13 [Google Scholar]
  73. Plećaš M, Gagić V, Jancović M, Petrović-Obradović O, Kavallieratos NG. et al. 2014. Landscape composition and configuration influence cereal aphid–parasitoid–hyperparasitoid interactions and biological control differentially across years. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 183:1–10 [Google Scholar]
  74. Prugh LR. 2009. An evaluation of patch connectivity measures. Ecol. Appl. 19:1300–10 [Google Scholar]
  75. Prugh LR, Hodges KE, Sinclair ARE, Brashares JS. 2008. Effect of habitat area and isolation on fragmented animal populations. PNAS 105:20770–75 [Google Scholar]
  76. Quinn JF, Harrison SP. 1988. Effect of habitat fragmentation and isolation on species richness: evidence from biogeographic patterns. Oecologia 75:132–40 [Google Scholar]
  77. Radford JQ, Bennett AF. 2007. The relative importance of landscape properties for woodland birds in agricultural environments. J. Appl. Ecol. 44:737–47 [Google Scholar]
  78. Radford JQ, Bennett AF, Cheers GJ. 2005. Landscape-level thresholds of habitat cover for woodland-dependent birds. Biol. Conserv. 124:317–37 [Google Scholar]
  79. Ranius T, Johansson V, Fahrig L. 2010. A comparison of patch connectivity measures using data on invertebrates in hollow oaks. Ecography 33:1–8 [Google Scholar]
  80. Robertson O, Maron M, Buckley Y, McAlpine C. 2013. Incidence of competitors and landscape structure as predictors of woodland-dependent birds. Landsc. Ecol. 28:1975–87 [Google Scholar]
  81. Robinson GR, Quinn JF. 1988. Extinction, turnover and species diversity in an experimentally fragmented California annual grassland. Oecologia 76:71–82 [Google Scholar]
  82. Robinson SK, Thompson FR, Donovan TM, Whitehead DR, Faaborg J. 1995. Regional forest fragmentation and the nesting success of migratory birds. Science 267:1987–90 [Google Scholar]
  83. Roland J. 1993. Large-scale forest fragmentation increases the duration of tent caterpillar outbreak. Oecologia 93:25–30 [Google Scholar]
  84. Sattler T, Duellil P, Obrist MK, Arlettaz R, Moretti M. 2010. Response of arthropod species richness and functional groups to urban habitat structure and management. Landsc. Ecol. 25:941–54 [Google Scholar]
  85. Saura S, Bodin Ő, Fortin M-J. 2014. Stepping stones are crucial for species’ long-distance dispersal and range expansion through habitat networks. J. Appl. Ecol. 51:171–82 [Google Scholar]
  86. Simberloff DS, Abele LG. 1982. Refuge design and island biogeographic theory: effects of fragmentation. Am. Nat. 120:41–50 [Google Scholar]
  87. Slancarova J, Benes J, Kristynek M, Kepka P, Konvicka M. 2014. Does the surrounding landscape heterogeneity affect the butterflies of insular grassland reserves? A contrast between composition and configuration. J. Insect Conserv. 18:1–12 [Google Scholar]
  88. Smith AC, Fahrig L, Francis CM. 2011. Landscape size affects the relative importance of habitat amount, habitat fragmentation, and matrix quality on forest birds. Ecography 34:103–13 [Google Scholar]
  89. Tabarelli M, Mantovani W, Peres CA. 1999. Effects of habitat fragmentation on plant guild structure in the montane Atlantic forest of southeastern Brazil. Biol. Conserv. 91:119–29 [Google Scholar]
  90. Tewksbury JJ, Hejl SJ, Martin TE. 1998. Breeding productivity does not decline with increasing fragmentation in a western landscape. Ecology 79:2890–903 [Google Scholar]
  91. Thornton DH, Branch LC, Sunquist ME. 2011. The influence of landscape, patch, and within-patch factors on species presence and abundance: a review of focal patch studies. Landsc. Ecol. 26:7–18 [Google Scholar]
  92. Tischendorf L, Bender DJ, Fahrig L. 2003. Evaluation of patch isolation metrics in mosaic landscapes for specialist versus generalist dispersers. Landsc. Ecol. 18:41–50 [Google Scholar]
  93. Tischendorf L, Fahrig L. 2000. How should we measure landscape connectivity?. Landsc. Ecol. 15:633–41 [Google Scholar]
  94. Tscharntke T, Steffan-Dewenter I, Kruess A, Thies C. 2002. Contributions of small habitat fragments to conservation of insect communities of grassland–cropland landscapes. Ecol. Appl. 12:354–63 [Google Scholar]
  95. Villard M-A, Metzger JP. 2014. Beyond the fragmentation debate: a conceptual model to predict when habitat configuration really matters. J. Appl. Ecol. 51:309–18 [Google Scholar]
  96. Walter WD, VerCauteren KC, Campa H, Clark WR, Fischer JW. et al. 2009. Regional assessment on influence of landscape configuration and connectivity on range size of white-tailed deer. Landsc. Ecol. 24:1405–20 [Google Scholar]
  97. With KA. 2016. Are landscapes more than the sum of their patches?. Landsc. Ecol. 31:969–80 [Google Scholar]
  98. With KA, King AW. 1999. Dispersal success on fractal landscapes: a consequence of lacunarity thresholds. Landsc. Ecol. 14:73–82 [Google Scholar]
  99. With KA, Pavuk DM, Worchuck JL, Oates RK, Fisher JL. 2002. Threshold effects of landscape structure on biological control in agroecosystems. Ecol. Appl. 12:52–65 [Google Scholar]
  100. Wolff JO, Schauber EM, Edge WD. 1997. Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on the behavior and demography of gray-tailed voles. Conserv. Biol. 11:945–56 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110316-022612
Loading
Ecological Responses to Habitat Fragmentation Per Se
Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 48, 1 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110316-022612
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110316-022612
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110316-022612
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplemental Material

Supplementary Data

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error