Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Is habitat fragmentation good for biodiversity?

Electronic data

  • Fletcher_etal_2018-Biological_Conservation

    Rights statement: This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Biological Conservation. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Biological Conservation, 226, 2018 DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2018.07.022

    Accepted author manuscript, 713 KB, PDF document

    Available under license: CC BY-NC-ND: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Is habitat fragmentation good for biodiversity?

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Is habitat fragmentation good for biodiversity? / Fletcher, Robert J.; Didham, Raphael K.; Banks-Leite, Cristina; Barlow, Jos; Ewers, Robert M.; Rosindell, James; Holt, Robert D.; Gonzalez, Andrew; Pardini, Renata; Damschen, Ellen I.; Melo, Felipe P.L.; Ries, Leslie; Prevedello, Jayme A.; Tscharntke, Teja; Laurance, William F.; Lovejoy, Thomas; Haddad, Nick M.

In: Biological Conservation, Vol. 226, 10.2018, p. 9-15.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

Fletcher, RJ, Didham, RK, Banks-Leite, C, Barlow, J, Ewers, RM, Rosindell, J, Holt, RD, Gonzalez, A, Pardini, R, Damschen, EI, Melo, FPL, Ries, L, Prevedello, JA, Tscharntke, T, Laurance, WF, Lovejoy, T & Haddad, NM 2018, 'Is habitat fragmentation good for biodiversity?', Biological Conservation, vol. 226, pp. 9-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.07.022

APA

Fletcher, R. J., Didham, R. K., Banks-Leite, C., Barlow, J., Ewers, R. M., Rosindell, J., Holt, R. D., Gonzalez, A., Pardini, R., Damschen, E. I., Melo, F. P. L., Ries, L., Prevedello, J. A., Tscharntke, T., Laurance, W. F., Lovejoy, T., & Haddad, N. M. (2018). Is habitat fragmentation good for biodiversity? Biological Conservation, 226, 9-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.07.022

Vancouver

Fletcher RJ, Didham RK, Banks-Leite C, Barlow J, Ewers RM, Rosindell J et al. Is habitat fragmentation good for biodiversity? Biological Conservation. 2018 Oct;226:9-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.07.022

Author

Fletcher, Robert J. ; Didham, Raphael K. ; Banks-Leite, Cristina ; Barlow, Jos ; Ewers, Robert M. ; Rosindell, James ; Holt, Robert D. ; Gonzalez, Andrew ; Pardini, Renata ; Damschen, Ellen I. ; Melo, Felipe P.L. ; Ries, Leslie ; Prevedello, Jayme A. ; Tscharntke, Teja ; Laurance, William F. ; Lovejoy, Thomas ; Haddad, Nick M. / Is habitat fragmentation good for biodiversity?. In: Biological Conservation. 2018 ; Vol. 226. pp. 9-15.

Bibtex

@article{26d87947d2494723a2fa248d707a3a1a,
title = "Is habitat fragmentation good for biodiversity?",
abstract = "Habitat loss is a primary threat to biodiversity across the planet, yet contentious debate has ensued on the importance of habitat fragmentation {\textquoteleft}per se{\textquoteright} (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 {\textquoteleft}per se{\textquoteright} are more often positive rather than negative and concludes that the widespread belief in negative fragmentation effects is a {\textquoteleft}zombie idea{\textquoteright}. 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.",
keywords = "Habitat amount, Habitat loss, Configuration, Biodiversity",
author = "Fletcher, {Robert J.} and Didham, {Raphael K.} and Cristina Banks-Leite and Jos Barlow and Ewers, {Robert M.} and James Rosindell and Holt, {Robert D.} and Andrew Gonzalez and Renata Pardini and Damschen, {Ellen I.} and Melo, {Felipe P.L.} and Leslie Ries and Prevedello, {Jayme A.} and Teja Tscharntke and Laurance, {William F.} and Thomas Lovejoy and Haddad, {Nick M.}",
note = "This is the author{\textquoteright}s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Biological Conservation. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Biological Conservation, 226, 2018 DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2018.07.022",
year = "2018",
month = oct,
doi = "10.1016/j.biocon.2018.07.022",
language = "English",
volume = "226",
pages = "9--15",
journal = "Biological Conservation",
issn = "0006-3207",
publisher = "Elsevier Ltd",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Is habitat fragmentation good for biodiversity?

AU - Fletcher, Robert J.

AU - Didham, Raphael K.

AU - Banks-Leite, Cristina

AU - Barlow, Jos

AU - Ewers, Robert M.

AU - Rosindell, James

AU - Holt, Robert D.

AU - Gonzalez, Andrew

AU - Pardini, Renata

AU - Damschen, Ellen I.

AU - Melo, Felipe P.L.

AU - Ries, Leslie

AU - Prevedello, Jayme A.

AU - Tscharntke, Teja

AU - Laurance, William F.

AU - Lovejoy, Thomas

AU - Haddad, Nick M.

N1 - This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Biological Conservation. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Biological Conservation, 226, 2018 DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2018.07.022

PY - 2018/10

Y1 - 2018/10

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Habitat amount

KW - Habitat loss

KW - Configuration

KW - Biodiversity

U2 - 10.1016/j.biocon.2018.07.022

DO - 10.1016/j.biocon.2018.07.022

M3 - Journal article

VL - 226

SP - 9

EP - 15

JO - Biological Conservation

JF - Biological Conservation

SN - 0006-3207

ER -