An official website of the United States government
Abstract Habitat loss is a major threat to biodiversity, but the effects of habitat fragmentation are less clear. Examining drivers of key demographic processes, such as reproduction, will clarify species‐level responses to fragmentation and broader effects on biodiversity. Yet, understanding how fragmentation affects demography has been challenging due to the many ways landscapes are altered by co‐occurring habitat loss and fragmentation, coupled with the rarity of experiments to disentangle these effects.In a large, replicated fragmentation experiment with open savanna habitats surrounded by pine plantation forests, we tested the effects of inter‐patch connectivity, patch edge‐to‐area ratio, and within‐patch distance from an edge on plant reproductive output. Using five experimentally planted species of restoration interest—three wind‐pollinated grass species and two insect‐pollinated forb species—we measured plant flowering, pollination rate, and seed production.All plant species were more likely to flower and produce more flowering structures farther from the forest edge. Connectivity and distance from an edge, however, had no effect on the pollination rate (regardless of pollination mode). Despite no influence of fragmentation on pollination, plant seed production increased farther from the edge for four of five species, driven by the increase in flower production.Synthesis. Altogether, we demonstrate that plant reproductive output (seed production) is decreased by habitat fragmentation through edge effects on flowering. Our work provides evidence that an important contributor to plant demography, reproductive output, is altered by edge effects in fragmented patches. These species‐level impacts of fragmentation may provide insight into the mechanisms of fragmentation effects on community‐level changes in biodiversity.
more »
« less
Is habitat fragmentation good for biodiversity?
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
- Award ID(s):
- 1655555
- PAR ID:
- 10065692
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Biological conservation
- Volume:
- 226
- ISSN:
- 0006-3207
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 9-15
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Yang Kuang (Ed.)Habitat loss and fragmentation is the largest contributing factor to species extinction and declining biodiversity. Landscapes are becoming highly spatially heterogeneous with varying degrees of human modification. Much theoretical study of habitat fragmentation has historically focused on a simple theoretical landscape with patches of habitat surrounded by a spatially homogeneous hostile matrix. However, terrestrial habitat patches are often surrounded by complex mosaics of many different land cover types, which are rarely ecologically neutral or completely inhospitable environments. We employ an extension of a reaction diffusion model to explore effects of heterogeneity in the matrix immediately surrounding a patch in a one-dimensional theoretical landscape. Exact dynamics of a population exhibiting logistic growth, an unbiased random walk in the patch and matrix, habitat preference at the patch/matrix interface, and two functionally different matrix types for the one-dimensional landscape is obtained. These results show existence of a minimum patch size (MPS), below which population persistence is not possible. This MPS can be estimated via empirically derived estimates of patch intrinsic growth rate and diffusion rate, habitat preference, and matrix death and diffusion rates. We conclude that local matrix heterogeneity can greatly change model predictions, and argue that conservation strategies should not only consider patch size, configuration, and quality, but also quality and spatial structure of the surrounding matrix.more » « less
-
Abstract Habitat loss and fragmentation have independent impacts on biodiversity; thus, field studies are needed to distinguish their impacts. Moreover, species with different locomotion rates respond differently to fragmentation, complicating direct comparisons of the effects of habitat loss and fragmentation across differing taxa and landscapes. To overcome these challenges, we combined mechanistic mathematical modeling and laboratory experiments to compare how species with different locomotion rates were affected by low (∼80% intact) and high (∼30% intact) levels of habitat loss. In our laboratory experiment, we usedCaenorhabditis elegansstrains with different locomotion rates and subjected them to the different levels of habitat loss and fragmentation by placingEscherichia coli(C. elegansfood) over different proportions of the Petri dish. We developed a partial differential equation model that incorporated spatial and biological phenomena to predict the impacts of habitat arrangement on populations. Only species with low rates of locomotion declined significantly in abundance as fragmentation increased in areas with low (p = 0.0270) and high (p = 0.0243) levels of habitat loss. Despite that species with high locomotion rates changed little in abundance regardless of the spatial arrangement of resources, they had the lowest abundance and growth rates in all environments because the negative effect of fragmentation created a mismatch between the population distribution and the resource distribution. Our findings shed new light on incorporating the role of locomotion in determining the effects of habitat fragmentation.more » « less
-
Landscape experiments unlock relationships among habitat loss, fragmentation, and patch‐size effectsAbstract Habitat loss is often considered the greatest near‐term threat to biodiversity, while the impact of habitat fragmentation remains intensely debated. A key issue of this debate centers on the problem of scale–landscape or patch–at which to assess the consequences of fragmentation. Yet patterns are often confounded across scales, and experimental designs that could solve this scaling problem remain scarce. We conducted two field experiments in 30 experimental landscapes in which we manipulated habitat loss, fragmentation, and patch size for a community of four insect herbivores that specialize on the cactusOpuntia. In the first experiment, we destroyed 2088Opuntiapatches in either aggregated or random patterns and compared the relative effects of landscape‐scale loss and fragmentation to those of local patch size on species occurrence. This experiment focused on manipulating the relative separation of remaining patches, where we hypothesized that aggregated loss would disrupt dispersal more than random loss, leading to lower occurrence. In the second experiment, we destroyed 759Opuntiapatches to generate landscapes that varied in patch number and size for a given amount of habitat loss and assessed species occurrence. This experiment focused on manipulating the subdivision of remaining habitat, where we hypothesized that an increase in the number of patches for a given amount of loss would lead to negative effects on occurrence. For both, we expected that occurrence would increase with patch size. We find strong evidence for landscape‐scale effects of habitat fragmentation, with aggregated loss and a larger number of patches for a given amount of habitat loss leading to a lower frequency of patches occupied in landscapes. In both experiments, occurrence increased with patch size, yet interactions of patch size and landscape‐scale loss and fragmentation drove species occurrence in patches. Importantly, the direction of effects were consistent across scales and effects of patch size were sufficient to predict the effects of habitat loss and fragmentation across entire landscapes. Our experimental results suggest that changes at both the patch and landscape scales can impact populations, but that a long‐standing pattern—the patch‐size effect—captures much of the key variation shaping patterns of species occurrence.more » « less
-
Abstract Habitat loss is rarely truly random and often occurs selectively with respect to the plant species comprising the habitat. Such selective habitat removal that decreases plant species diversity, that is, habitat simplification or homogenization, may have two negative effects on other species. First, the reduction in plant community size (number of individuals) represents habitat loss for species at higher trophic levels who use plants as habitat. Second, when plants are removed selectively, the resulting habitat simplification decreases the diversity of resources available to species at higher trophic levels. It follows that habitat loss combined with simplification will reduce biodiversity more than habitat loss without simplification. To test this, we experimentally implemented two types of habitat loss at the plant community level and compared biodiversity of resident arthropods between habitat loss types. In the first type of habitat loss, we reduced habitats by 50% nonselectively, maintaining original relative abundance and diversity of plant species and therefore habitat and resource diversity for arthropods. In the second type of habitat loss, we reduced habitats by 50% selectively, removing all but one common plant species, dramatically simplifying habitat and resources for arthropods. We replicated this experiment across three common plant species:Asclepias tuberosa,Solidago altissima, andBaptisia alba. While habitat loss with simplification reduced arthropod species richness compared with habitat loss without simplification, neither type of habitat loss affected diversity, measured as effective number of species (ENS), or species evenness as compared with controls. Instead, differences in ENS and evenness were explained by the identity of the common plant species. Our results indicate that the quality of remaining habitat, in our case plant species identity, may be more important for multi‐trophic diversity than habitat diversity per se.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- The DOI is not currently available.
