An official website of the United States government
Habitat loss is a primary threat to biodiversity across the planet, yet contentious debate has ensued on the importance of habitat fragmentation ‘per se’ (i.e., altered spatial configuration of habitat for a given amount of habitat loss). Based on a review of landscape-scale investigations, Fahrig (2017; Ecological responses to habitat fragmentation per se. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 48:1-23) reports that biodiversity responses to habitat fragmentation ‘per se’ are more often positive rather than negative and concludes that the widespread belief in negative fragmentation effects is a ‘zombie idea’. We show that Fahrig’s conclusions are drawn from a narrow and potentially biased subset of available evidence, which ignore much of the observational, experimental and theoretical evidence for negative effects of altered habitat configuration. We therefore argue that Fahrig’s conclusions should be interpreted cautiously as they could be misconstrued by policy makers and managers, and we provide six arguments why they should not be applied in conservation decision-making. Reconciling the scientific disagreement, and informing conservation more effectively, will require research that goes beyond statistical and correlative approaches. This includes a more prudent use of data and conceptual models that appropriately partition direct vs indirect influences of habitat loss and altered spatial configuration, and more clearly discriminate the mechanisms underpinning any changes. Incorporating these issues will deliver greater mechanistic understanding and more predictive power to address the conservation issues arising from habitat loss and fragmentation.
more »
« less
Inclusion of Biodiversity in Habitat Restoration Policy to Facilitate Ecosystem Recovery: Biodiversity in habitat restoration
- Award ID(s):
- 1652320
- PAR ID:
- 10046279
- Publisher / Repository:
- Wiley-Blackwell
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Conservation Letters
- Volume:
- 11
- Issue:
- 3
- ISSN:
- 1755-263X
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- e12419
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract Coastal habitat‐forming species provide protection and essential habitat for fisheries but their ability to maintain these services are under threat from novel stressors including rising temperatures. Coastal habitat restoration is a powerful tool to help mitigate the loss of habitat‐forming species, however, many efforts focus on reintroducing a single, imperilled species instead of incorporating alternatives that are more conducive to current and future conditions. Seagrass restoration has seen mixed success in halting local meadow declines but could begin to specifically utilize generalist seagrasses with climate change‐tolerant and opportunistic life history traits including high reproduction rates and rapid growth.Here, we built on decades of successful eelgrass (Zostera marina) restoration in the Chesapeake Bay by experimentally testing seed‐based restoration potential of widgeongrass (Ruppia maritima)—a globally distributed seagrass that can withstand wide ranges of salinities and temperatures. Using field experiments, we evaluated which seeding methods yielded highest widgeongrass survival and growth, tested if seeding widgeongrass adjacent to eelgrass can increase restoration success, and quantified how either seagrass species changes restored bed structure, invertebrate communities, and nitrogen cycling.We found that widgeongrass can be restored via direct seeding in the fall, and that seeding both species maximized total viable restored area. Our pilot restoration area increased by 98% because we seeded widgeongrass in shallow, high temperature waters that are currently unsuitable for eelgrass survival and thus, would remain unseeded via only eelgrass restoration efforts. Restored widgeongrass had higher faunal diversity and double animal abundance per plant biomass than restored eelgrass, whereas restored eelgrass produced three times greater plant biomass per unit area and higher nitrogen recycling in the sediment.Synthesis and applications.Overall, we provide evidence that supplementing opportunistic, generalist species into habitat restoration is a proactive approach to combat climate change impacts. Specifically, these species can increase trait diversity which, for our study, increased total habitat area restored—a key factor to promote seagrass beds' facilitation cascades, stability, and grass persistence through changing environments. Now, we call for tests to determine if the benefits of restoration with generalist species alone or in conjunction with historically dominant taxa are broadly transferrable to restoration in other marine and terrestrial habitats.more » « less
-
An often-cited benefit of river restoration is an increase in biodiversity or shift in composition to more desirable taxa. Yet, hard manipulations of habitat structure often fail to elicit a significant response in terms of biodiversity patterns. In contrast to conventional wisdom, the dispersal of organisms may have as large an influence on biodiversity patterns as environmental conditions. This influence of dispersal may be particularly influential in river networks which are linear branching, or dendritic, and thus constrain most dispersal to the river corridor. As such, some locations in river networks, such as isolated headwaters, are expected to respond less to environmental factors and less by dispersal than more well-connected downstream reaches. We applied this metacommunity framework to study how restoration drives biodiversity patterns in river networks. By comparing assemblage structure in headwater versus more well-connected mainstem sites, we learned that headwater restoration efforts supported higher biodiversity, exhibited more stable ecological communities compared with adjacent, un-restored reaches. Such differences were not evident in mainstem reaches. Consistent with theory and mounting empirical evidence, we attribute this finding to a relatively higher influence of dispersal-driven factors on assemblage structure in more well-connected, higher order reaches. An implication of this work is that, if biodiversity is to be a goal of restoration activity, such local manipulations of habitat should elicit a more profound response in small, isolated streams than in larger downstream reaches. These results offer another significant finding supporting the notion that restoration activity cannot proceed in isolation of larger scale, catchment level degradation. This dataset represents the microhabitat sampling.more » « less
-
Abstract The dilution effect hypothesis posits that increasing biodiversity reduces infectious disease transmission. Here, we propose that habitat quality might modulate this negative biodiversity–disease relationship. Habitat may influence pathogen prevalence directly by affecting host traits like nutrition and immune response (we coined the term “habitat–disease relationship” to describe this phenomenon) or indirectly by changing host biodiversity (biodiversity–disease relationship). We used a path model to test the relative strength of links between habitat, biodiversity, and pathogen prevalence in a pollinator–virus system. High‐quality habitat metrics were directly associated with viral prevalence, providing evidence for a habitat–disease relationship. However, the strength and direction of specific habitat effects on viral prevalence varied based on the characteristics of the habitat, host, and pathogen. In general, more natural area and richness of land‐cover types were directly associated with increased viral prevalence, whereas greater floral density was associated with reduced viral prevalence. More natural habitat was also indirectly associated with reduced prevalence of two key viruses (black queen cell virus and deformed wing virus) via increased pollinator species richness, providing evidence for a habitat‐mediated dilution effect on viral prevalence. Biodiversity–disease relationships varied across viruses, with the prevalence of sacbrood virus not being associated with any habitat quality or pollinator community metrics. Across all viruses and hosts, habitat–disease and biodiversity–disease paths had effects of similar magnitude on viral prevalence. Therefore, habitat quality is a key driver of variation in pathogen prevalence among communities via both direct habitat–disease and indirect biodiversity–disease pathways, though the specific patterns varied among different viruses and host species. Critically, habitat–disease relationships could either contribute to or obscure dilution effects in natural systems depending on the relative strength and direction of the habitat–disease and biodiversity–disease pathways in that host–pathogen system. Therefore, habitat may be an important driver in the complex interactions between hosts and pathogens.more » « less
