Farig.2003.effects of Habitat Fragmentation PDF

30 Sep 2003 15:53 AR AR200-ES34-18.tex AR200-ES34-18.
sgm LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: GCE

10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132419
Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2003. 34:487–515

doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132419
Copyright ° c 2003 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved
First published online as a Review in Advance on August 14, 2003
EFFECTS OF HABITAT FRAGMENTATION ON

BIODIVERSITY
Lenore Fahrig
Ottawa-Carleton Institute of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario,
Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2003.34:487-515. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Canada K1S 5B6; email: Lenore [email protected]
Key Words habitat loss, landscape scale, habitat configuration, patch size, patch
Access provided by CAPES on 06/05/17. For personal use only.
isolation, extinction threshold, landscape complementation

■ Abstract The literature on effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity is
huge. It is also very diverse, with different authors measuring fragmentation in dif-
ferent ways and, as a consequence, drawing different conclusions regarding both the
magnitude and direction of its effects. Habitat fragmentation is usually defined as a
landscape-scale process involving both habitat loss and the breaking apart of habi-
tat. Results of empirical studies of habitat fragmentation are often difficult to inter-
pret because (a) many researchers measure fragmentation at the patch scale, not the
landscape scale and (b) most researchers measure fragmentation in ways that do not
distinguish between habitat loss and habitat fragmentation per se, i.e., the breaking
apart of habitat after controlling for habitat loss. Empirical studies to date suggest
that habitat loss has large, consistently negative effects on biodiversity. Habitat frag-
mentation per se has much weaker effects on biodiversity that are at least as likely
to be positive as negative. Therefore, to correctly interpret the influence of habitat
fragmentation on biodiversity, the effects of these two components of fragmentation
must be measured independently. More studies of the independent effects of habitat
loss and fragmentation per se are needed to determine the factors that lead to positive
versus negative effects of fragmentation per se. I suggest that the term “fragmen-
tation” should be reserved for the breaking apart of habitat, independent of habitat
loss.
INTRODUCTION
A recent search of the Cambridge Scientific Abstracts database revealed over 1600
articles containing the phrase “habitat fragmentation.” The task of reviewing this
literature is daunting not only because of its size but also because different authors
use different definitions of habitat fragmentation, and they measure fragmentation
in different ways and at different spatial scales.
This diversity of definitions of habitat fragmentation can be readily seen in
the titles of some articles. For example, “Impacts of habitat fragmentation and
1543-592X/03/1215-0487$14.00 487
30 Sep 2003 15:53 AR AR200-ES34-18.tex AR200-ES34-18.sgm LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: GCE
488 FAHRIG
patch size. . .” (Collingham & Huntly 2000) suggests that habitat fragmenta-
tion and patch size are two different things. However, other authors actually use
patch size to measure habitat fragmentation (e.g., Golden & Crist 2000, Hovel &
Lipicus 2001). “The effects of forest fragmentation and isolation. . .” (Good-
man & Rakotodravony 2000) suggests that forest fragmentation and isolation are
different, in contrast to authors who use forest isolation as a measure of for-
est fragmentation (e.g., Mossman & Waser 2001, Rukke 2000). “Effect of land
cover, habitat fragmentation, and. . .” (Laakkonen et al. 2001) contrasts with many
authors who equate landscape fragmentation with land cover (e.g., Carlson &
Hartman 2001; Fuller 2001; Gibbs 1998, 2001; Golden & Crist 2000; Hargis
et al. 1999; Robinson et al. 1995; Summerville & Crist 2001; Virgós 2001). “The
influence of forest fragmentation and landscape pattern. . .” (Hargis et al. 1999)
contrasts with researchers who define fragmentation as an aspect of landscape
pattern (e.g., Wolff et al. 1997, Trzcinski et al. 1999). As a final example, “Effects
of experimental habitat fragmentation and connectivity. . .” (Ims & Andreassen
1999) suggests that habitat fragmentation and connectivity can be examined in-
dependently, whereas some researchers actually define fragmentation as “a dis-
ruption in landscape connectivity” (With et al. 1997; see also Young & Jarvis
2001).
My goal in this review is to discuss the information available on the effects
of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. To meet this objective I first need to ex-
amine the different ways in which habitat fragmentation is conceptualized and
measured. Of course, the concept of biodiversity is probably at least as wide-
ranging as the concept of habitat fragmentation. However, I do not deal with
the issues surrounding the concept of biodiversity. Instead, I include any eco-
logical response variable that is or can be related to biological diversity (see
Table 1).
To determine current usage of the term habitat fragmentation, I conducted
a search of the Cambridge Scientific Abstracts (Biological Sciences) database
on 11 April 2002 for papers containing either “habitat fragmentation,” “forest
fragmentation,” or “landscape fragmentation” in the title of the paper. I reviewed
in detail the most recent 100 resulting papers, irrespective of the journal in which
they appeared. I limited this search to papers containing “fragmentation” in the
title to ensure that my sample included only papers that are directly on the subject
of habitat fragmentation. The results are summarized in Table 1.
I then surveyed the broader ecological literature to ask the following: How
strong are the effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity, and are the effects
negative or positive? Habitat fragmentation is generally thought to have a large,
negative effect on biodiversity and is therefore widely viewed as an aspect of habitat
degradation (Haila 2002). However, as I show, this conclusion is generally valid
only for conceptualizations of fragmentation that are inseparable from habitat loss.
Other ways of conceptualizing habitat fragmentation lead to other conclusions. I
end the paper with recommendations.
30 Sep 2003
TABLE 1 Summary of 100 recent fragmentation studies∗

Biodiversity (response) variables
15:53
Abundance/ Richness/ Presence/ Fitness Genetic Species Extinction/ Individual Movement/ Population
Fragmentation (predictor) density diversity absence measures variability interactions turnover habitat use dispersal growth
AR
variables (35) (28) (26) (15) (12) (10) (8) (5) (4) (3)
Patch sizea (63) 26 21 20 11 3 7 3 3 3 3

Habitat loss/amount (60) 21 17 13 9 8 5 5 3 2 1
Patch isolationa (35) 14 7 11 2 6 3 0 0 1 0
Edgea (22) 11 5 3 2 0 4 1 2 0 1
Number of patches (10) 2 1 0 2 0 2 3 1 0 1
Structural connectivityb (8) 3 1 1 2 0 2 1 0 1 1
AR200-ES34-18.tex
Matrix quality (7) 3 2 1 1 2 0 0 2 0 0

Patch shapea (4) 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Qualitative only (28) 13 9 7 10 4 0 1 3 0 1
Patch scalec (42) 17 14 16 6 7 4 0 2 1 1
Landscape scaled (37) 7 7 4 4 3 3 8 2 3 1
Patch and landscape 10 6 6 5 2 3 0 1 0 1
scales (21)
AR200-ES34-18.sgm
a
Predictor variables that can be measured at either the patch scale (individually for each patch) or at the landscape scale (averaged or summed across all patches in the
landscape).
b
Includes both connectivity studies and corridor studies.
c
Each data point in the analysis represents information from a single patch.
d
Each data point in the analysis represents information from a single landscape.
∗
Table entries are the numbers of papers that studied the given combination of predictor (fragmentation) variable or scale and response (biodiversity) variable. Numbers in
parentheses after variable names are the total number of papers (of 100) using that variable. Columns and rows do not add to 100 because each study may contain more
than one fragmentation variable and more than one biodiversity variable.
LaTeX2e(2002/01/18)
EFFECTS OF HABITAT FRAGMENTATION

P1: GCE
489
490 FAHRIG
CONCEPTUALIZATION AND MEASUREMENT OF

HABITAT FRAGMENTATION
Fragmentation as Process
Habitat fragmentation is often defined as a process during which “a large expanse
of habitat is transformed into a number of smaller patches of smaller total area,
isolated from each other by a matrix of habitats unlike the original” (Wilcove et al.
1986) (Figure 1). By this definition, a landscape can be qualitatively categorized
as either continuous (containing continuous habitat) or fragmented, where the
fragmented landscape represents the endpoint of the process of fragmentation.

Many studies of the effect of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity conform
to this definition by comparing some aspect(s) of biodiversity at “reference” sites
within a continuous landscape to the same aspect(s) of biodiversity at sites within
a fragmented landscape (e.g., Bowers & Dooley 1999, Cascante et al. 2002, Diaz
et al. 2000, Groppe et al. 2001, Laurance et al. 2001, Mac Nally & Brown 2001,
Mahan & Yahner 1999, Morato 2001, Mossman & Waser 2001, Renjifo 1999,
Walters et al. 1999). From my sample of 100 recent studies, 28% conducted such
comparisons of continuous versus fragmented landscapes (Table 1). In these stud-
ies, the continuous landscape represents a landscape before fragmentation (time
1 in Figure 1) and the fragmented landscape represents a landscape following
fragmentation (time 2 or time 3 in Figure 1).
Although this approach conforms to the definition of fragmentation as a process,
it has two inherent weaknesses. First, because habitat fragmentation is a landscape-
scale process (McGarigal & Cushman 2002), the sample size in such studies, for
questions about the effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity, is typically
Figure 1 The process of habitat fragmentation, where “a large expanse of habitat is

transformed into a number of smaller patches of smaller total area, isolated from each
other by a matrix of habitats unlike the original” (Wilcove et al. 1986). Black areas
represent habitat and white areas represent matrix.
EFFECTS OF HABITAT FRAGMENTATION 491
only two, i.e., one continuous landscape and one fragmented landscape. With such a
design, inferences about the effects of fragmentation are weak. Apparent effects of
fragmentation could easily be due to other differences between the landscapes. For
example, Mac Nally et al. (2000) found consistent vegetation differences between
fragments and reference sites and concluded that apparent effects of fragmentation
on birds could be due to preexisting habitat differences between the two landscapes.
Second, this characterization of habitat fragmentation is strictly qualitative, i.e.,
each landscape can be in only one of two states, continuous or fragmented. This
design does not permit one to study the relationship between the degree of habitat
fragmentation and the magnitude of the biodiversity response. Quantifying the
degree of fragmentation requires measuring the pattern of habitat on the land-

scape. The diversity of approaches in the fragmentation literature arises mainly
from differences among researchers in how they quantify habitat fragmentation.
These differences have significant implications for conclusions about the effects
of fragmentation on biodiversity.
Fragmentation as Pattern: Quantitative Conceptualizations

The definition of habitat fragmentation above implies four effects of the process of
fragmentation on habitat pattern: (a) reduction in habitat amount, (b) increase in
number of habitat patches, (c) decrease in sizes of habitat patches, and (d) increase
in isolation of patches. These four effects form the basis of most quantitative
measures of habitat fragmentation. However, fragmentation measures vary widely;
some include only one effect (e.g., reduced habitat amount or reduced patch sizes),
whereas others include two or three effects but not all four.
Does it matter which fragmentation measure a researcher uses? The answer
depends on whether the different effects of the process of fragmentation on habitat
pattern have the same effects on biodiversity. If they do, we can draw general
conclusions about the effects of fragmentation on biodiversity even though the
different studies making up the fragmentation literature measure fragmentation
in different ways. As I show in Effects of Habitat Fragmentation on Biodiversity,
the different effects of the process of fragmentation on habitat pattern do not affect
biodiversity in the same way. This has led to apparently contradictory conclusions
about the effects of fragmentation on biodiversity. In this section, I review quanti-
tative conceptualizations of habitat fragmentation. This is an important step toward
reconciling these apparently contradictory results.
FRAGMENTATION AS HABITAT LOSS The most obvious effect of the process of

fragmentation is the removal of habitat (Figure 1). This has led many researchers
to measure the degree of habitat fragmentation as simply the amount of habitat
remaining on the landscape (e.g., Carlson & Hartman 2001, Fuller 2001, Golden
& Crist 2000, Hargis et al. 1999, Robinson et al. 1995, Summerville & Crist 2001,
Virgós 2001). If we can measure the level of fragmentation as the amount of habi-
tat, why do we call it “fragmentation”? Why not simply call it habitat loss? The
492 FAHRIG
reason is that when ecologists think of fragmentation, the word invokes more than
habitat removal: “fragmentation . . . not only causes loss of the amount of habi-
tat, but by creating small, isolated patches it also changes the properties of the
remaining habitat” (van den Berg et al. 2001).
Habitat can be removed from a landscape in many different ways, resulting in
many different spatial patterns (Figure 2). Do some patterns represent a higher
degree of fragmentation than others, and does this have implications for biodi-
versity? If the answer to either of these questions is “no,” then the concept of
fragmentation is redundant with habitat loss. The assertion that habitat fragmen-
tation means something more than habitat loss depends on the existence of effects
of fragmentation on biodiversity that can be attributed to changes in the pattern

of habitat that are independent of habitat loss. Therefore, many researchers define
habitat fragmentation as an aspect of habitat configuration.
FRAGMENTATION AS A CHANGE IN HABITAT CONFIGURATION In addition to loss

of habitat, the process of habitat fragmentation results in three other effects: in-
crease in number of patches, decrease in patch sizes, and increase in isolation
of patches. Measures of fragmentation that go beyond simply habitat amount are
generally derived from these or other strongly related measures (e.g., amount of
edge). There are at least 40 such measures of fragmentation (McGarigal et al.
2002), many of which typically have strong relationships with the amount of habi-
tat as well as with each other (Bélisle et al. 2001, Boulinier et al. 2001, Drolet
et al. 1999, Gustafson 1998, Haines-Young & Chopping 1996, Hargis et al. 1998,
Robinson et al. 1995, Schumaker 1996, Trzcinski et al. 1999, Wickham et al. 1999)
(Figure 3).
The interrelationships among measures of fragmentation are not widely recog-
nized in the current fragmentation literature. Most researchers do not separate the
effects of habitat loss from the configurational effects of fragmentation. This leads
to ambiguous conclusions regarding the effects of habitat configuration on bio-
diversity (e.g., Summerville & Crist 2001, Swenson & Franklin 2000). It is also
common for fragmentation studies to report individual effects of fragmentation
measures without reporting the relationships among them, which again makes the
results difficult to interpret.
THE PATCH-SCALE PROBLEM Similar problems arise when fragmentation is mea-

sured at the patch scale rather than the landscape scale. Because fragmentation is
a landscape-scale process (Figure 1), fragmentation measurements are correctly
made at the landscape scale (McGarigal & Cushman 2002). As pointed out by
Delin & Andrén (1999), when a study is at the patch scale, the sample size at
the landscape scale is only one, which means that landscape-scale inference is
not possible (Figure 4; see Brennan et al. 2002, Tischendorf & Fahrig 2000).
However, in approximately 42% of recent fragmentation studies, individual data
points represent measurements on individual patches, not landscapes (Table 1).
Similarly, using a different sample of the literature, McGarigal & Cushman (2002)

Figure 2 Illustration of habitat loss resulting in some, but not all, of the other three
expected effects of habitat fragmentation on landscape pattern. Expected effects are
(a) an increase in the number of patches, (b) a decrease in mean patch size, and
(c) an increase in mean patch isolation (nearest neighbor distance). Actual changes are
indicated by arrows.
494 FAHRIG
Figure 3 Illustration of the typical relationships between habitat amount and various mea-
sures of fragmentation. Individual data points correspond to individual landscapes. Based on
relationships in Bélisle et al. (2001), Boulinier et al. (2001), Drolet et al. (1999), Gustafson
(1998), Haines-Young & Chopping (1996), Hargis et al. (1998), Robinson et al. (1995),
Schumaker (1996), Trzcinski et al. (1999), and Wickham et al. (1999).

Figure 4 (A) Patch-scale study. Each observation represents the information from a single
patch. Only one landscape is studied, so sample size for landscape-scale inferences is one.
(B) Landscape-scale study. Each observation represents the information from a single land-
scape. Multiple landscapes, with different structures, are studied. Here, sample size for
landscape-scale inferences is four.
estimated that more than 57% of all fragmentation studies are at the patch scale.
Some researchers even refer to patch-scale measures as landscape features (e.g.,
Fernandez-Juricic 2000, Schweiger et al. 2000).
Patch size: an ambiguous measure of fragmentation The relationship between

patch size and fragmentation is ambiguous because both habitat loss and habitat
fragmentation per se (i.e., the breaking apart of habitat, controlling for changes
in habitat amount) result in smaller patches (Figure 5). Using patch size as a
measure of habitat fragmentation per se implicitly assumes that patch size is inde-
pendent of habitat amount at the landscape scale (e.g., Niemelä 2001). However,
regions where patches are large often correspond to regions where there is more
habitat (Fernandez-Juricic 2000, McCoy & Mushinsky 1999) (Figure 6). Ignor-
ing potential relationships between a patch-scale measure (e.g., patch size) and
landscape-scale habitat amount does not control for this relationship; it can lead
to misinterpretation of results.
496 FAHRIG
Figure 5 Both habitat loss and habitat fragmentation per se (independent of habitat
loss) result in smaller patches. Therefore, patch size itself is ambiguous as a mea-
sure of either habitat amount or habitat fragmentation per se. Note also that habitat
fragmentation per se leads to reduced patch isolation.
Patch isolation: a measure of habitat amount In the fragmentation literature,

patch isolation is almost universally interpreted as a measure of habitat configu-
ration. However, patch isolation is more accurately viewed as a measure of the
lack of habitat in the landscape surrounding the patch. The more isolated a patch
is, generally speaking, the less habitat there is in the landscape that surrounds
it (Figure 7). Therefore, when translated to the landscape scale, isolation of a
patch is a measure of habitat amount in the landscape, not configuration of the
landscape.
Bender et al. (2003) reviewed measures of patch isolation. All measures are
strongly negatively related to habitat amount in the surrounding landscape. The
most common measure of patch isolation is the distance to the next-nearest patch,

Figure 6 Landscape in southern Ontario (from Tischendorf 2001) showing that regions
where forest patches (black areas) are small typically correspond to regions where there is
little forest. Compare (A) and (B), where (A) has small patches and less than 5% forest and
(B) has larger patches and approximately 50% forest.
or “nearest-neighbor distance” (e.g., Delin & Andrén 1999, Haig et al. 2000, Hargis
et al. 1999). Patches with small nearest-neighbor distances are typically situated in
landscapes containing more habitat than are patches with large nearest-neighbor
distances (Figure 7), so in most situations this measure of isolation is related to
habitat amount in the landscape. Another common measure of patch isolation is
the inverse of the amount of habitat within some distance of the patch in question
(e.g., Kinnunen et al. 1996, Magura et al. 2001, Miyashita et al. 1998). In other
words, patch isolation is measured as habitat amount at the landscape scale. All
other measures of patch isolation are a combination of distances to other patches
and sizes of those patches (or the populations they contain) in the surrounding
landscape (reviewed in Bender et al. 2003). As such they are all measures of the
amount of habitat in the surrounding landscape.
498 FAHRIG
Figure 7 Illustration of the relationship between patch isolation and amount of habitat in
the landscape immediately surrounding the patch. Gray areas are forest. Isolated patches
(black patches labeled “I”) are situated in landscapes (circles) containing less forest than are
less isolated patches (black patches labeled “N”).
MEASURING HABITAT FRAGMENTATION PER SE How can we measure habitat frag-

mentation independent of habitat amount? Some researchers have constructed
landscapes in which they experimentally controlled habitat amount while vary-
ing habitat fragmentation per se (e.g., Caley et al. 2001, Collins & Barrett 1997).
Researchers studying real landscapes have used statistical methods to control for
habitat amount. For example, McGarigal and McComb (1995) measured 25 land-
scape indices for each of 30 landscapes. They statistically corrected each index
for its relationship to habitat amount and then entered the corrected variables
into a PCA. Each axis of the resulting PCA represented a different component of
landscape configuration. In a similar approach, Villard et al. (1999) measured the

number of forest patches, total length of edge, mean nearest-neighbor distance,
and percent of forest cover on each of 33 landscapes. They used the residuals of
the statistical models relating each of the first three variables to forest amount
as measures of fragmentation that have been controlled for their relationships to
habitat amount.

ON BIODIVERSITY
In this section I review the empirical evidence for effects of habitat fragmentation
on biodiversity. This review is not limited to the 100 papers summarized in Table
1. The fragmentation literature can be distilled into two major effects: the gener-
ally strong negative effect of habitat loss on biodiversity, and the much weaker,
positive or negative effect of fragmentation per se on biodiversity. Because the
effect of fragmentation per se is weaker than the effect of habitat loss, to detect the
effect of fragmentation per se, the effect of habitat loss must be experimentally or
statistically controlled.
Effects of Habitat Loss on Biodiversity

Habitat loss has large, consistently negative effects on biodiversity, so researchers
who conceptualize and measure fragmentation as equivalent to habitat loss typ-
ically conclude that fragmentation has large negative effects. The negative ef-
fects of habitat loss apply not only to direct measures of biodiversity such as
species richness (Findlay & Houlahan 1997, Gurd et al. 2001, Schmiegelow
& Mönkkönen 2002, Steffan-Dewenter et al. 2002, Wettstein & Schmid 1999),
population abundance and distribution (Best et al. 2001, Gibbs 1998, Guthery
et al. 2001, Hanski et al. 1996, Hargis et al. 1999, Hinsley et al. 1995, Lande
1987, Sánchez-Zapata & Calvo 1999, Venier & Fahrig 1996) and genetic diversity
(Gibbs 2001), but also to indirect measures of biodiversity and factors affecting
biodiversity. A model by Bascompte et al. (2002) predicts a negative effect of
habitat loss on population growth rate. This is supported by Donovan & Flather
(2002), who found that species showing declining trends in global abundance are
more likely to occur in areas with high habitat loss than are species with increas-
ing or stable trends. Habitat loss has been shown to reduce trophic chain length
(Komonen et al. 2000), to alter species interactions (Taylor & Merriam 1995),
and to reduce the number of specialist, large-bodied species (Gibbs & Stanton
2001). Habitat loss also negatively affects breeding success (Kurki et al. 2000),
dispersal success (Bélisle et al. 2001, Pither & Taylor 1998, With & Crist 1995,
With & King 1999), predation rate (Bergin et al. 2000, Hartley & Hunter 1998),
and aspects of animal behavior that affect foraging success rate (Mahan & Yahner
1999).
500 FAHRIG
INDIRECT EVIDENCE OF EFFECTS OF HABITAT LOSS Negative effects of habitat

loss on biodiversity are also evident from studies that measure habitat amount
indirectly, using measures that are highly correlated with habitat amount. For ex-
ample, Robinson et al. (1995) found that reproductive success of forest nesting
bird species was positively correlated with percentage of forest cover, percentage
of forest interior, and average patch size in a landscape. Because the latter two
variables were highly correlated with percentage of forest cover, these all repre-
sent positive effects of habitat amount on reproductive success. Boulinier et al.
(2001) found effects of mean patch size on species richness, local extinction rate,
and turnover rate of forest birds in 214 landscapes. Because mean patch size had a
0.94 correlation with forest amount in their study, this result most likely represents
an effect of habitat amount.
Patch isolation effects Patch isolation is a measure of the lack of habitat in the
landscape surrounding the patch (Figure 7). Therefore, the many studies that have
shown negative effects of patch isolation on species richness or presence/absence
represent further evidence for the strong negative effect of landscape-scale habitat
loss on biodiversity (e.g., McCoy & Mushinsky 1999, Rukke 2000, Virgós 2001).
Bender et al. (2003) and Tischendorf et al. (2003) conducted simulation analyses
to determine which patch isolation measures are most strongly related to movement
of animals between patches. They found that the “buffer” measures, i.e., amount
of habitat within a given buffer around the patch, were best. This suggests a strong
effect of habitat amount on interpatch movement. It also suggests, again, that
effects of patch isolation and landscape-scale habitat amount are equivalent.
Patch size effects Individual species have minimum patch size requirements (e.g.,
Diaz et al. 2000). Therefore, smaller patches generally contain fewer species than
larger patches (Debinski & Holt 2000), and the set of species on smaller patches
is often a more-or-less predictable subset of the species on larger patches (e.g.,
Ganzhorn & Eisenbeiß 2001, Kolozsvary & Swihart 1999, Vallan 2000). Similarly,
the amount of habitat on a landscape required for species occurrence there differs
among species (Gibbs 1998, Vance et al. 2003), so landscapes with less habitat
should contain a subset of the species found in landscapes with more habitat.
Despite this apparent correspondence between patch- and landscape-scale ef-
fects, the landscape-scale interpretation of patch size effects depends on the land-
scape context of the patch. For example, Donovan et al. (1995) found that forest
birds had lower reproductive rates in small patches than in large patches. If small
patches occur in areas with less forest, the reduced reproductive rate may not be
the result of patch size, but may result from larger populations of nest predators
and brood parasites that occur in landscapes with more open habitat (Hartley &
Hunter 1998, Robinson et al. 1995, Schmiegelow & Mönkkönen 2002).
EXTINCTION THRESHOLD The number of individuals of any species that a land-

scape can support should be a positive function of the amount of habitat available to

Figure 8 Illustration of the extinction threshold hypothesis in comparison to the

proportional area hypothesis.
that species in the landscape. However, several theoretical studies suggest that the
relationship is not proportional; they predict a threshold habitat level below which
the population cannot sustain itself, termed the extinction threshold (Bascompte
& Solé 1996, Boswell et al. 1998, Fahrig 2001, Flather & Bevers 2002, Hill &
Caswell 1999, Lande 1987, With & King 1999; Figure 8). There have been very
few direct empirical tests of the extinction threshold hypothesis (but see Jansson
& Angelstam 1999).
Note that the predicted occurrence of the extinction threshold results from habi-
tat loss, not habitat fragmentation per se. Theoretical studies suggest that habitat
fragmentation per se can affect where the extinction threshold occurs on the habi-
tat amount axis. Also, the effects of habitat fragmentation per se are predicted to
increase below some level of habitat loss (see The 20–30% Threshold, below).
However, the occurrence of the extinction threshold is a response to habitat loss,
not fragmentation per se. This has led to some ambiguity in interpretation of empir-
ical literature. For example, Virgós (2001) found that patch isolation affects bad-
ger density only for patches in landscapes with <20% forest cover. As explained
above, patch isolation is typically an index of habitat amount at the landscape scale.
Therefore, this result probably suggests a threshold effect of forest loss on badger
density. This conclusion is different from that of the author, who interpreted the
isolation effect as an effect of habitat configuration. The interpretation is ambigu-
ous because the relationship between habitat amount and patch isolation was not
statistically controlled in this study. Similarly, Andrén (1994) reviewed patch size
and patch isolation effects on population density and concluded that these effects
502 FAHRIG
increase below a threshold amount of habitat in the landscape. Because patch size
and isolation can be indicators of habitat amount at a landscape scale (see Patch
size: An Ambiguous Measure of Fragmentation and Patch Isolation: A Measure
of Habitat Amount, above), this result could be interpreted as an intensification
of the effects of habitat loss at low habitat levels, i.e., it supports the extinction
threshold hypothesis (Figure 8). This result has also been viewed as evidence for
configuration effects below a threshold habitat level (e.g., Flather & Bevers 2002,
Villard et al. 1999). Again, the interpretation is ambiguous because the relation-
ships between patch size and isolation and amount of habitat surrounding each
patch were not controlled for.
Effects of Habitat Fragmentation per se on Biodiversity

In this section I review the empirical evidence for fragmentation effects per se, i.e.,
for effects of “breaking apart” of habitat on biodiversity, that are independent of or
in addition to the effects of habitat loss. The 17 studies in Table 2 represent all of the
empirical studies of fragmentation per se of which I am aware. Some theoretical
studies suggest that the effect of habitat fragmentation per se is weak relative to the
effect of habitat loss (Collingham & Huntley 2000, Fahrig 1997, Flather & Bevers
2002, Henein et al. 1998), although other modeling studies predict much larger
effects of fragmentation per se (Boswell et al. 1998, Burkey 1999, Hill & Caswell
1999, Urban & Keitt 2001, With & King 1999; reviewed in Fahrig 2002). All these
recent models predict negative effects of habitat fragmentation per se, in contrast
with some earlier theoretical work (see Reasons for Positive Effects of Fragmenta-
tion, below). The empirical evidence to date suggests that the effects of fragmen-
tation per se are generally much weaker than the effects of habitat loss. Unlike the
effects of habitat loss, and in contrast to current theory, empirical studies suggest
that the effects of fragmentation per se are at least as likely to be positive as negative.
The 17 empirical studies on the effects of habitat fragmentation per se (Table 2)
range from small-scale experimental studies to continental-scale analyses. They
cover a range of response variables, including abundance, density, distribution,
reproduction, movement, and species richness. About half of the studies are on
forest birds; other taxa include insects, small mammals, plants, aquatic inverte-
brates, and a virus, and other habitats include grasslands, cropland, a coral reef,
and an estuary.
The 17 studies used a variety of approaches for estimating the effect of frag-
mentation per se. In five of them, experimental landscapes were constructed to
independently control the levels of habitat amount and fragmentation per se. Four
of these varied both habitat amount and fragmentation per se, and one varied only
fragmentation, holding the amount of habitat constant. Three of the 12 studies in
real landscapes compared the response variable in one large patch versus several
small patches (i.e., holding habitat amount constant). In the remaining nine studies
in real landscapes, the effect of fragmentation per se was estimated by statistically
controlling for the effect of habitat amount.
30 Sep 2003
TABLE 2 Summary of empirical studies that examined the effects of habitat fragmentation per se, i.e., controlling for effects of habitat
15:53
amount on biodiversity
Direction of effect(s) of
AR
Relative effects of habitat loss versus fragmentation per se on

Study Taxa and response variable(s) habitat fragmentation per se biodiversity
Studies in real landscapes

Middleton & Merriam 111 forest taxa (various): n.a.a No effect
1983 distribution
McGarigal & McComb 15 late-seral forest bird Amount À fragmentation 6 positive, 1 negative
AR200-ES34-18.tex
1995 species: abundance

Meyer et al. 1998 Northern spotted owl: Amount À fragmentation No effect
presence/absence,
persistence, reproduction
Rosenberg et al. 1999 6 Tanager species and Amount À fragmentation 2 negative
populations: presence/
absence
AR200-ES34-18.sgm
Trzcinski et al. 1999 31 forest bird species: Amount À fragmentation 2 positive, 4 negative
presence/absence
Drolet et al. 1999 14 forest bird species: Amount À fragmentation No effect
presence/absence
Villard et al. 1999 15 forest bird species: Amount ∼
= fragmentation 4 positive, 2 negative
presence/absence
Bélisle et al. 2001 3 forest bird species: homing Amount À fragmentation Positive
LaTeX2e(2002/01/18)
time and homing success

Langlois et al. 2001 Hanta virus: incidence Amount À fragmentation Positive
(Continued)
P1: GCE
503
30 Sep 2003
504
15:53
TABLE 2 (Continued)
AR
Direction of effect(s) of
Relative effects of habitat loss versus fragmentation per se on
FAHRIG
Study Taxa and response variable(s) habitat fragmentation per se biodiversity
Hovel & Lipcius 2001 Blue crab: juvenile survival, n.a.a 1 positive (juvenile
adult (predator) density survival),
1 negative (adult
density)
AR200-ES34-18.tex
Tscharntke et al. 2002 Butterflies: species richness, n.a.a 2 positive (total

endangered species richness and endangered
species richness)
Flather et al. 1999 Forest birds: abundance Amount À fragmentation No effect
Studies in experimental landscapes:
Collins & Barrett 1997 Meadow vole: density n.a.a Positive
AR200-ES34-18.sgm
Wolff et al. 1997 Gray-tailed vole: abundance, Fragmentation > amount Positive
density, reproductive rate,
recruitment
Collinge & Forman 1998 Grassland insects: abundance, Not stated Positive
species richness
Caley et al. 2001 8 coral commensals: species Amount À fragmentation 1 positive
richness and abundance
LaTeX2e(2002/01/18)
With et al. 2002 Clover insects: spatial aggregation Amount À fragmentation n.a.b
a
Habitat amount was held constant; only fragmentation was varied.
b
Response variable was spatial distribution of the insects.
P1: GCE
The overall result from these studies is that habitat loss has a much larger
effect than habitat fragmentation per se on biodiversity measures (Table 2). When
fragmentation per se did have an effect, it was at least as likely to be positive
as negative (Table 2). Given the relatively small number of studies and the large
variation in conditions among studies, it is not possible to tease apart the factors
that lead to positive versus negative effects of fragmentation per se. However,
the positive effects of fragmentation can not be explained as merely responses
by “weedy,” habitat generalist species. For example, the results reported from
McGarigal & McComb (1995) are specifically limited to late-seral forest species,
and Tscharntke et al. (2002) found a positive effect of fragmentation per se on
butterfly species richness, even when they only included endangered butterfly
species.
THE 20–30% THRESHOLD Some theoretical studies suggest that the effects of frag-
mentation per se should become apparent only at low levels of habitat amount,
below approximately 20–30% habitat on the landscape (Fahrig 1998, Flather &
Bevers 2002). To date, there is no convincing empirical evidence for this prediction.
If the threshold does occur, it should result in a statistical interaction effect be-
tween habitat amount and habitat fragmentation per se; such an interaction would
indicate that the effect of fragmentation per se depends on the amount of habitat
in the landscape. Trzcinski et al. (1999) tested for this interaction effect but found
no evidence for it. The hypothesis that fragmentation effects increase below a
threshold of habitat amount has not yet been adequately tested.
REASONS FOR NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF FRAGMENTATION PER SE Negative effects

of fragmentation are likely due to two main causes. First, fragmentation per se
implies a larger number of smaller patches. At some point, each patch of habi-
tat will be too small to sustain a local population or perhaps even an individual
territory. Species that are unable to cross the nonhabitat portion of the landscape
(the “matrix”) will be confined to a large number of too-small patches, ultimately
reducing the overall population size and probability of persistence.
The second main cause of negative effects of fragmentation per se is negative
edge effects; more fragmented landscapes contain more edge for a given amount
of habitat. This can increase the probability of individuals leaving the habitat and
entering the matrix. Overall the amount of time spent in the matrix will be larger
in a more fragmented landscape, which may increase overall mortality rate and
reduce overall reproductive rate of the population (Fahrig 2002). In addition, there
are negative edge effects due to species interactions. Probably the most extensively
studied of these is increased predation on forest birds at forest edges (Chalfoun
et al. 2002).
REASONS FOR POSITIVE EFFECTS OF FRAGMENTATION PER SE More than half of

the effects of fragmentation per se that have been documented are positive (Table 2).
Some readers will find this surprising, probably because habitat loss is inextricably
506 FAHRIG
included within their conceptualization of habitat fragmentation. In this case even

if fragmentation per se has a positive effect on biodiversity, this effect will be
masked by the large negative effect of habitat loss.
Haila (2002) describes how the current concept of habitat fragmentation emer-
ged from the theory of island biogeography (MacArthur & Wilson 1967). The two
predictor variables in this theory are island size and island isolation, or distance
of the island from the mainland. When this theory was conceptually extended
from island archipelagos to terrestrial systems of habitat patches, the concept
of isolation changed; isolation was now the result of habitat loss, and it repre-
sented the distance from a patch to its neighbor(s), not the distance to a mainland.
Because of its roots in island biogeography, isolation was viewed as represent-

ing habitat subdivision even though it was inextricably linked to habitat
loss.
However, a parallel research stream, which arose independently of the theory

of island biogeography, suggested that habitat fragmentation could have positive
effects on biodiversity. Huffaker’s (1958) experiment suggested that subdivision of
the same amount of habitat into many smaller pieces can enhance the persistence of
a predator-prey system. He hypothesized that habitat subdivision provides tempo-
rary refugia for the prey species, where they can increase in numbers and disperse
elsewhere before the predator or parasite finds them. The plausibility of this mecha-
nism was supported by early theoretical studies (Hastings 1977, Vandermeer 1973).
Early theoretical studies also suggested that habitat fragmentation enhances the
stability of two-species competition (Levin 1974, Shmida & Ellner 1984, Slatkin
1974), and in an empirical study, Atkinson & Shorrocks (1981) found that coexis-
tence of two competing species could be extended by dividing the habitat into more,
smaller patches. Enhanced coexistence resulted from a trade-off between dispersal
rate and competitive ability. This trade-off, along with asynchronous disturbances
that locally removed the superior competitor, allowed the inferior competitor (but
superior disperser) to colonize the empty patches first, before being later displaced
by the superior competitor (Chesson 1985). Other researchers suggested that habi-
tat subdivision could even stabilize single-species population dynamics when local
disturbances are asynchronous by reducing the probability of simultaneous extinc-
tion of the whole population (den Boer 1981; Reddingius & den Boer 1970; Roff
1974a,b).
Why has this early work, suggesting positive effects of habitat fragmentation per
se, been largely ignored in the more recent habitat fragmentation literature? One
reason is that later theoretical and empirical studies (reviewed in Kareiva 1990)
demonstrated that the predicted positive effects of fragmentation per se depend
strongly on particular assumptions about the relative movement rates of predator
versus prey (or host versus parasite), the trade-off between competitive ability and
movement rate, and the asynchrony of disturbances. It seems that the sensitivity to
these assumptions, along with the misrepresentation of patch isolation as a measure
of habitat subdivision, led researchers to ignore the possibility that fragmentation
per se could have a positive effect on biodiversity.
There are at least four additional possible reasons for positive effects of habitat
fragmentation per se on biodiversity. First, Bowman et al. (2002) argued that, for
many species, immigration rate is a function of the linear dimension of a habitat
patch rather than the area of the patch. For these species, overall immigration rate
should be higher when the landscape is comprised of a larger number of smaller
patches (higher fragmentation per se) than when it is comprised of a smaller num-
ber of larger patches. In situations where immigration is an important determinant
of population density, this could result in a positive effect of fragmentation per se
on density.
Second, if habitat amount is held constant, increasing fragmentation per se
actually implies smaller distances between patches (Figure 5). Therefore, a positive
effect of fragmentation per se could be due to a reduction in patch isolation.
Third, many species require more than one kind of habitat (Law & Dickman
1998). For example, immature insects and amphibians often use different habitats
than those they use as adults. A successful life cycle requires that the adults can
move away from the habitat where they were reared to their adult habitats and then
back to the immature habitat to lay eggs. The proximity of different required habi-
tat types will determine the ease with which individuals can move among them.
For example, Pope et al. (2000) showed that the proximity of feeding habitat to
breeding ponds affected the abundance of leopard frog populations. Pedlar et al.
(1997) found that raccoon abundance was highest in landscapes with intermediate
amounts of forest. They suggested that this level of forest maximized the acces-
sibility to the raccoons of both feeding areas (grain fields) and denning sites in
forest.
The degree to which landscape structure facilitates movement among different
required habitat types was labeled “landscape complementation” by Dunning et al.
(1992). For the same amount of habitat, a more fragmented landscape (more,
smaller patches, and more edge) will have a higher level of interdigitation of
different habitat types. This should increase landscape complementation, which
has a positive effect on biodiversity (Law & Dickman 1998, Tscharntke et al. 2002).
Finally, it seems likely that positive edge effects are a factor. Some species
do show positive edge effects (Carlson & Hartman 2001, Kremsater & Bunnell
1999, Laurance et al. 2001). For a given amount of habitat, more fragmented land-
scapes contain more edge. Therefore, positive edge effects could be responsible
for positive effects of fragmentation per se on abundance or distribution of some
species.
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Habitat Loss Versus Fragmentation
Most researchers view habitat fragmentation as a process involving both the loss of
habitat and the breaking apart of habitat. The fact that most fragmentation research
does not differentiate between these two effects has led to several problems. First,
508 FAHRIG
the apparent inconsistency in the effects of a single process (fragmentation) gives

the impression that fragmentation effects are difficult to generalize. In fact, gen-
eralization is possible, but only for the separate components of fragmentation, not
for the combined concept of loss and breaking apart of habitat. Empirical evidence
to date suggests that the loss of habitat has large negative effects on biodiversity.
On the other hand, the breaking apart of habitat, independent of habitat loss, has
rather weak effects on biodiversity, which are as likely to be positive as negative.
Second, the merging of these two aspects of fragmentation has obscured the
fact that the effects of habitat loss outweigh the effects of habitat fragmentation per
se. In fact, the effects of fragmentation per se are absent or too small to be detected
in most empirical tests to date. This is in contrast to several theoretical predictions

(Burkey 1999, Hill & Caswell 1999, Urban & Keitt 2001, With & King 1999) and
has important implications for conservation. It suggests that conservation efforts
should focus on habitat preservation and restoration. It also suggests that research
in support of particular conservation problems should focus on determining the
amount of habitat required for conservation of the species of concern. The fact
that effects of fragmentation per se are usually small and at least as likely to be
positive as negative suggests that conservation actions that attempt to minimize
fragmentation (for a given habitat amount) may often be ineffectual.
Note, however, that this conclusion is preliminary because there are still only a
small number of relevant empirical studies. To my knowledge there are, to date, no
studies in tropical regions of the effects of forest fragmentation per se (controlling
for habitat loss). Laurance et al. (2002) concluded that in Brazilian tropical forest
there are strong negative effects of forest edge on several taxa. These effects
are apparently much stronger than negative edge effects in temperate systems
(Kremsater & Bunnell 1999). Negative edge effects could translate into a negative
effect of fragmentation per se at the landscape scale because fragmentation per
se increases the amount of edge on the landscape. This suggests that effects of
fragmentation per se may be greater in tropical systems than in temperate systems.
This prediction remains to be tested.
Third, ambiguous empirical results could lead to errors in modeling studies. For
example, Donovan & Lamberson (2001) constructed a model to look at the effects
of habitat fragmentation on population growth rate. They held amount of habitat
constant and varied mean patch size. For input parameters they used empirical work
suggesting that reproductive success increases with increasing patch size. However,
as they point out, in these empirical studies patch size was highly correlated with
habitat amount in the surrounding landscape. It is not known whether reproductive
success increases with increasing patch size when habitat amount in the landscape
is held constant. It could be that reproductive success increases with amount of
habitat on the landscape, independent of habitat fragmentation per se. If this is
true, the results of the simulation may be misleading.
These conclusions are based on the relatively small, but growing, number of
empirical studies that separate the effects of habitat loss and fragmentation per se.
So far these studies have been conducted on a limited set of taxa primarily within
North America. More research is needed to determine how general the conclusions
are (Harrison & Bruna 1999).
IS “FRAGMENTATION” A USEFUL TERM? The term “fragmentation” is quickly los-

ing its usefulness as more and more effects of human activities are incorporated
into this single term. Some authors have even suggested that some species are “in-
dicators of fragmentation” (e.g., Hager 1998, Niemelä 2001). The implication that
fragmentation can be indicated by the decline of some species or species group
suggests that the term is becoming a catchall for human-caused habitat changes
that have negative effects on biodiversity. As questioned by Haila (2002), “Is a
conceptually ambiguous and empirically multifaceted term fruitful as a generic

description of human effects on landscapes?”
I suggest that the term “fragmentation” should be limited to the breaking apart
of habitat. Habitat loss should be called habitat loss; it has important effects on
biodiversity that are independent of any effects of habitat fragmentation per se.
Habitat fragmentation should be reserved for changes in habitat configuration that
result from the breaking apart of habitat, independent of habitat loss.
Implications for Biodiversity Conservation

Does our knowledge about fragmentation effects have general implications for
conservation of biodiversity, particularly simultaneous conservation of multiple
species? The fragmentation literature provides strong evidence that habitat loss
has large, consistently negative effects on biodiversity. This implies that the most
important question for biodiversity conservation is probably “How much habitat
is enough?” Different species use different kinds of habitat, and different species
require different amounts of habitat for persistence. Therefore, conservation of
all species in a given region requires identifying which species in that region are
most vulnerable to habitat loss (Fahrig 2001, With & King 1999) and estimating
the minimum habitat required for persistence of each of these most vulnerable
species. This determines the minimum habitat amounts for each kind of habitat
in the region. In addition, many species require more than one kind of habitat
within a life cycle. Therefore, landscape patterns that maintain the required habitat
amounts, but intersperse the different habitat types as much as possible, should
produce the largest positive biodiversity response (Law & Dickman 1998).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank Jeff Bowman, Julie Brennan, Dan Bert, Tormod Burkey, Neil Charbonneau,
Kathryn Freemark, Audrey Grez, Jeff Houlahan, Jochen Jaeger, Maxim Larrivée,
Lutz Tischendorf, Rebecca Tittler, Paul Zorn, and members of the Landscape Ecol-
ogy Laboratory at Carleton for comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.
This work was supported by a grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council of Canada.
510 FAHRIG
The Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics is online at

http://ecolsys.annualreviews.org
LITERATURE CITED
Andrén H. 1994. Effects of habitat fragmen- hierarchical study of habitat fragmentation:
tation on birds and mammals in landscapes responses at the individual, patch, and land-
with different proportions of suitable habitat: scape scale. Landsc. Ecol. 14:381–89
a review. Oikos 71:355–66 Bowman J, Cappuccino N, Fahrig L. 2002.
Atkinson WD, Shorrocks B. 1981. Competition Patch size and population density: the effect
on a divided and ephemeral resource: a sim- of immigration behavior. Conserv. Ecol. 6:9.
ulation model. J. Anim. Ecol. 50:461–71 http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss1/art9
Bascompte J, Solé RV. 1996. Habitat frag- Brennan JM, Bender DJ, Contreras TA, Fahrig
mentation and extinction thresholds in spa- L. 2002. Focal patch landscape studies for
tially explicit models. J. Anim. Ecol. 65:465– wildlife management: optimizing sampling
73 effort across scales. In Integrating Land-
Bascompte J, Possingham H, Roughgarden J. scape Ecology into Natural Resource Man-
2002. Patchy populations in stochastic envi- agement, ed. J Liu, WW Taylor, pp. 68–
ronments: critical number of patches for per- 91. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univ. Press.
sistence. Am. Nat. 159:128–37 480 pp.
Bélisle M, Desrochers A, Fortin M-J. 2001. In- Burkey TV. 1999. Extinction in fragmented
fluence of forest cover on the movements of habitats predicted from stochastic birth-death
forest birds: a homing experiment. Ecology processes with density dependence. J. Theor.
82:1893–904 Biol. 199:395–406
Bender DJ, Tischendorf L, Fahrig L. 2003. Caley MJ, Buckley KA, Jones GP. 2001. Sepa-
Evaluation of patch isolation metrics for pre- rating ecological effects of habitat fragmen-
dicting animal movement in binary land- tation, degradation, and loss on coral com-
scapes. Landsc. Ecol. 18:17–39 mensals. Ecology 82:3435–48
Bergin TM, Best LB, Freemark KE, Koehler Carlson A, Hartman G. 2001. Tropical forest
KJ. 2000. Effects of landscape structure on fragmentation and nest predation—an exper-
nest predation in roadsides of a midwest- imental study in an Eastern Arc montane for-
ern agroecosystem: a multiscale analysis. est, Tanzania. Biodivers. Conserv. 10:1077–
Landsc. Ecol. 15:131–43 85
Best LB, Bergin TM, Freemark KE. 2001. In- Cascante A, Quesada M, Lobo JJ, Fuchs EA.
fluence of landscape composition on bird use 2002. Effects of dry tropical forest fragmen-
of rowcrop fields. J. Wildl. Manage. 65:442– tation on the reproductive success and ge-
49 netic structure of the tree Samanea saman.
Boswell GP, Britton NF, Franks NR. 1998. Conserv. Biol. 16:137–47
Habitat fragmentation, percolation theory Chalfoun AD, Thompson FR, Ratnaswamy
and the conservation of a keystone species. MJ. 2002. Nest predators and fragmentation:
Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 265:1921–25 a review and meta-analysis. Conserv. Biol.
Boulinier T, Nichols JD, Hines JE, Sauer JR, 16:306–18
Flather CH, Pollock KH. 2001. Forest frag- Chesson PL. 1985. Coexistence of competitors
mentation and bird community dynamics: in- in spatially and temporally varying environ-
ference at regional scales. Ecology 82:1159– ments: a look at the combined effects of dif-
69 ferent sorts of variability. Theor. Popul. Biol.
Bowers MA, Dooley JL. 1999. A controlled, 28:263–87
Collinge SK, Forman RTT. 1998. A conceptual and fragmentation on species extinction. J.
model of land conversion processes: predic- Wildl. Manage. 61:603–10
tions and evidence from a microlandscape Fahrig L. 1998. When does fragmentation of
experiment with grassland insects. Oikos breeding habitat affect population survival?
82:66–84 Ecol. Model. 105:273–92
Collingham YC, Huntley B. 2000. Impacts of Fahrig L. 2001. How much habitat is enough?
habitat fragmentation and patch size upon Biol. Conserv. 100:65–74
migration rates. Ecol. Appl. 10:131–44 Fahrig L. 2002. Effect of habitat fragmentation
Collins RJ, Barrett GW. 1997. Effects of habi- on the extinction threshold: a synthesis. Ecol.
tat fragmentation on meadow vole (Micro- Appl. 12:346–53
tus pennsylvanicus) population dynamics in Fernandez-Juricic E. 2000. Forest fragmenta-
experiment landscape patches. Landsc. Ecol. tion affects winter flock formation of an in-
12:63–76 sectivorous guild. Ardea 88:235–41
Debinski DM, Holt RD. 2000. A survey and Findlay CS, Houlahan J. 1997. Anthropogenic
overview of habitat fragmentation experi- correlates of species richness in southeastern

ments. Conserv. Biol. 14:342–55 Ontario wetlands. Conserv. Biol. 11:1000–9
Delin AE, Andrén H. 1999. Effects of habitat Flather CH, Bevers M. 2002. Patchy reaction-
fragmentation on Eurasian red squirrel (Sci- diffusion and population abundance: the
urus vulgaris) in a forest landscape. Landsc. relative importance of habitat amount and
Ecol. 14:67–72 arrangement. Am. Nat. 159:40–56
den Boer PJ. 1981. On the survival of popula- Flather CH, Bevers M, Cam E, Nichols J, Sauer
tions in a heterogeneous and variable envi- J. 1999. Habitat arrangement and extinction
ronment. Oecologia 50:39–53 thresholds: do forest birds conform to model
Diaz JA, Carbonell R, Virgos E, Santos T, Telle- predictions? Landscape Ecology: the Science
ria JL. 2000. Effects of forest fragmentation and the Action. 5th World Congr. Int. Assoc.
on the distribution of the lizard Psammodro- Landsc. Ecol., Snowmass, Col. 1:44–45 (Ab-
mus algirus. Anim. Conserv. 3:235–40 str.)
Donovan TM, Flather CH. 2002. Relationships Fuller DO. 2001. Forest fragmentation in
among North American songbird trends, Loudoun County, Virginia, USA evalu-
habitat fragmentation, and landscape occu- ated with multitemporal Landsat imagery.
pancy. Ecol. Appl. 12:364–74 Landsc. Ecol. 16:627–42
Donovan TM, Lamberson RH. 2001. Area- Ganzhorn JU, Eisenbeiß B. 2001. The concept
sensitive distributions counteract negative ef- of nested species assemblages and its utility
fects of habitat fragmentation on breeding for understanding effects of habitat fragmen-
birds. Ecology 82:1170–79 tation. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2:87–95
Donovan TM, Thompson FR, Faaborg J, Probst Gibbs JP. 1998. Distribution of woodland am-
J. 1995. Reproductive success of migratory phibians along a forest fragmentation gradi-
birds in habitat sources and sinks. Conserv. ent. Landsc. Ecol. 13:263–68
Biol. 9:1380–95 Gibbs JP. 2001. Demography versus habitat
Drolet B, Desrochers A, Fortin M-J. 1999. Ef- fragmentation as determinants of genetic
fects of landscape structure on nesting song- variation in wild populations Biol. Conserv.
bird distribution in a harvested boreal forest. 100:15–20
Condor 101:699–704 Gibbs JP, Stanton EJ. 2001. Habitat fragmenta-
Dunning JB, Danielson BJ, Pulliam HR. 1992. tion and arthropod community change: car-
Ecological processes that affect popula- rion beetles, phoretic mites, and flies. Ecol.
tions in complex landscapes. Oikos 65:169– Appl. 11:79–85
75 Golden DM, Crist TO. 2000. Experimental ef-
Fahrig L. 1997. Relative effects of habitat loss fects of habitat fragmentation on rove beetles
512 FAHRIG
and ants: patch area or edge? Oikos 90:525– landscape pattern on American martens. J.
38 Appl. Ecol. 36:157–72
Goodman SM, Rakotondravony D. 2000. The Harrison S, Bruna E. 1999. Habitat fragmenta-
effects of forest fragmentation and isolation tion and large-scale conservation: What do
on insectivorous small mammals (Lipoty- we know for sure? Ecography 22:225–32
phla) on the Central High Plateau of Mada- Hartley MJ, Hunter ML. 1998. A meta-analysis
gascar. J. Zool. 250:193–200 of forest cover, edge effects, and artificial
Groppe K, Steinger T, Schmid B, Baur B, Boller nest predation rates. Conserv. Biol. 12:465–
T. 2001. Effects of habitat fragmentation on 69
choke disease (Epichloe bromicola) in the Hastings A. 1977. Spatial heterogeneity and
grass Bromus erectus. J. Ecol. 89:247–55 the stability of predator-prey systems. Theor.
Gurd DB, Nudds TD, Rivard DH. 2001. Conser- Popul. Biol. 12:37–48
vation of mammals in Eastern North Ameri- Henein K, Wegner J, Merriam G. 1998. Popu-
can wildlife reserves: How small is too small? lation effects of landscape model manipula-
Conserv. Biol. 15:1355–63 tion on two behaviourally different woodland

Gustafson EJ. 1998. Quantifying landscape small mammals. Oikos 81:168–86
spatial pattern: What is the state of the art? Hill MF, Caswell H. 1999. Habitat fragmenta-
Ecosystems 1:143–56 tion and extinction thresholds on fractal land-
Guthery FS, Green MC, Masters RE, DeMaso scapes. Ecol. Lett. 2:121–27
SJ, Wilson HM, Steubing FB. 2001. Land Hinsley SA, Bellamy PE, Newton I, Sparks TH.
cover and bobwhite abundance on Oklahoma 1995. Habitat and landscape factors influ-
farms and ranches. J. Wildl. Manage. 65:838– encing the presence of individual breeding
49 bird species in woodland fragments. J. Avian.
Hager HA. 1998. Area-sensitivity of rep- Biol. 26:94–104
tiles and amphibians: Are there indica- Hovel KA, Lipcius RN. 2001. Habitat fragmen-
tor species for habitat fragmentation? Eco- tation in a seagrass landscape: Patch size and
Science 5:139–47 complexity control blue crab survival. Ecol-
Haig AR, Matthes U, Larson DW. 2000. Ef- ogy 82:1814–29
fects of natural habitat fragmentation on the Huffaker CB. 1958. Experimental studies on
species richness, diversity, and composition predation: dispersion factors and predator-
of cliff vegetation. Can. J. Bot. 78:786–97 prey oscillations. Hilgardia 27:343–83
Haila Y. 2002. A conceptual genealogy of frag- Ims RA, Andreassen HP. 1999. Effects of exper-
mentation research: from island biogeogra- imental habitat fragmentation and connectiv-
phy to landscape ecology. Ecol. Appl. 12: ity on root vole demography. J. Anim. Ecol.
321–34 68:839–52
Haines-Young R, Chopping M. 1996. Quanti- Jansson G, Angelstam P. 1999. Threshold lev-
fying landscape structure: a review of land- els of habitat composition for the presence of
scape indices and their application to forested the long-tailed tit (Aegithalos caudatus) in a
landscapes. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 20:418–45 boreal landscape. Landsc. Ecol. 14:283–90
Hanski I, Moilanen A, Gyllenberg M. 1996. Kareiva P. 1990. Population dynamics in spa-
Minimum viable metapopulation size. Am. tially complex environments: theory and
Nat. 147:527–41 data. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. B
Hargis CD, Bissonette JA, David JL. 1998. The 330:175–90
behavior of landscape metrics commonly Kinnunen H, Jarvelainen K, Pakkala T, Tiainen
used in the study of habitat fragmentation. J. 1996. The effect of isolation on the occur-
Landsc. Ecol. 13:167–86 rence of farmland carabids in a fragmented
Hargis CD, Bissonette JA, Turner DL. 1999. landscape. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 33:165–71
The influence of forest fragmentation and Kolozsvary MB, Swihart RK. 1999. Habitat
fragmentation and the distribution of am- Mac Nally R, Brown GW. 2001. Reptiles and
phibians: patch and landscape correlates in habitat fragmentation in the box-ironbark
farmland. Can. J. Zool. 77:1288–99 forests of central Victoria, Australia: predic-
Komonen A, Penttilae R, Lindgren M, Hanski I. tions, compositional change and faunal nest-
2000. Forest fragmentation truncates a food edness. Oecologia 128:116–25
chain based on an old-growth forest bracket Mac Nally R, Bennett AF, Horrocks G. 2000.
fungus. Oikos 90:119–26 Forecasting the impacts of habitat fragmen-
Kremsater L, Bunnell FL. 1999. Edge effects: tation. Evaluation of species-specific predic-
theory, evidence and implications to man- tions of the impact of habitat fragmentation
agement of western North American forests. on birds in the box-ironbark forests of cen-
In Forest Fragmentation: Wildlife and Man- tral Victoria, Australia. Biol. Conserv. 95:7–
agement Implications, ed. JA Rochelle, LA 29

Lehmann, J Wisniewski, pp. 117–53. Boston, Magura T, Koedoeboecz V, Tothmeresz B.
MA: Brill. 301 pp. 2001. Effects of habitat fragmentation on
Kurki S, Nikula A, Helle P, Linden H. 2000. carabids in forest patches. J. Biogeogr.

Landscape fragmentation and forest compo- 28:129–38
sition effects on grouse breeding success in Mahan CG, Yahner RH. 1999. Effects of forest
boreal forests. Ecology 81:1985–97 fragmentation on behaviour patterns in the
Laakkonen J, Fisher RN, Case TJ. 2001. Effect eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus). Can. J.
of land cover, habitat fragmentation and ant Zool. 77:1991–97
colonies on the distribution and abundance of McCoy ED, Mushinsky HR. 1999. Habitat frag-
shrews in southern California. J. Anim. Ecol. mentation and the abundances of vertebrates
70:776–88 in the Florida scrub. Ecology 80:2526–38
Lande R. 1987. Extinction thresholds in de- McGarigal K, Cushman SA. 2002. Compara-
mographic models of territorial populations. tive evaluation of experimental approaches
Am. Nat. 130:624–35 to the study of habitat fragmentation effects.
Langlois JP, Fahrig L, Merriam G, Artsob H. Ecol. Appl. 12:335–45
2001. Landscape structure influences conti- McGarigal K, McComb WC. 1995. Relation-
nental distribution of hantavirus in deer mice. ships between landscape structure and breed-
Landsc. Ecol. 16:255–66 ing birds in the Oregon Coast Range. Ecol.
Laurance WF, Delamonica P, D’Angelo S, Jero- Monogr. 65:235–60
zolinski A, Pohl L, et al. 2001. Rain forest McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Neel MC, Ene
fragmentation and the structure of Amazo- E. 2002. FRAGSTATS: Spatial pattern
nian liana communities. Ecology 82:105–16 analysis program for categorical maps.
Laurance WF, Lovejoy TE, Vasconcelos HL, Comp. software prog. Univ. Mass., Amherst.
Bruna EM, Didham RK, et al. 2002. www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/
Ecosystem decay of Amazonian forest frag- fragstats.html
ments: a 22-year investigation. Conserv. Biol. Meyer JS, Irwin LL, Boyce MS. 1998. Influ-
16:605–18 ence of habitat abundance and fragmentation
Law BS, Dickman CR. 1998. The use of habitat on northern spotted owls in western Oregon.
mosaics by terrestrial vertebrate fauna: im- Wildl. Monogr. 139:1–51
plications for conservation and management. Middleton J, Merriam G. 1983. Distribution
Biodivers. Conserv. 7:323–33 of woodland species in farmland woods. J.
Levin SA. 1974. Dispersion and population in- Appl. Ecol. 20:625–44
teractions. Am. Nat. 108:207–28 Miyashita T, Shinkai A, Chida T. 1998. The ef-
MacArthur RH, Wilson EO. 1967. The The- fects of forest fragmentation on web spider
ory of Island Biogeography. Princeton, NJ: communities in urban areas. Biol. Conserv.
Princeton Univ. Press 86:357–64
514 FAHRIG
Morato EF. 2001. Effects of forest fragmen- Sánchez-Zapata JA, Calvo JF. 1999. Rocks and
tation on solitary wasps and bees in Cen- trees: habitat response of Tawny Owls Strix
tral Amazonia. II. Vertical stratification. Rev. aluco in semiarid landscapes. Ornis Fenn.
Brasileira Zool. 18:737–47 76:79–87
Mossman CA, Waser PM. 2001. Effects of Schmiegelow FKA, Mönkkönen M. 2002.
habitat fragmentation on population genetic Habitat loss and fragmentation in dynamic
structure in the white-footed mouse (Per- landscapes: avian perspectives from the bo-
omyscus leucopus). Can. J. Zool. 79:285–95 real forest. Ecol. Appl. 12:375–89
Niemelä J. 2001. Carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Schumaker NH. 1996. Using landscape in-
Carabidae) and habitat fragmentation: A re- dices to predict habitat connectivity. Ecology
view. Eur. J. Entomol. 98:127–32 77:1210–25
Pedlar JH, Fahrig L, Merriam HG. 1997. Rac- Schweiger EW, Diffendorfer JE, Holt RD,
coon habitat use at two spatial scales. J. Wildl. Pierotti R, Gaines MS. 2000. The interac-
Manage. 61:102–12 tion of habitat fragmentation, plant, and small
Pither J, Taylor PD. 1998. An experimental as- mammal succession in an old field. Ecol.
sessment of landscape connectivity. Oikos Monogr. 70:383–400
83:166–74 Shmida A, Ellner S. 1984. Coexistence of plant
Pope SE, Fahrig L, Merriam HG. 2000. Land- species with similar niches. Vegetatio 58:29–
scape complementation and metapopulation 55
effects on leopard frog populations. Ecology Slatkin M. 1974. Competition and regional co-
81:2498–508 existence. Ecology 55:128–34
Reddingius J, den Boer PJ. 1970. Simulation Steffan-Dewenter I, Münzenberg U, Bürger
experiments illustrating stabilization of ani- C, Thies C, Tscharntke T. 2002. Scale-
mal numbers by spreading of risk. Oecologia dependent effects of landscape context on
5:240–84 three pollinator guilds. Ecology 83:1421–
Renjifo LM. 1999. Composition changes in a 32
Subandean avifauna after long-term forest Summerville KS, Crist TO. 2001. Effects of
fragmentation. Conserv. Biol. 13:1124–39 experimental habitat fragmentation on patch
Robinson SK, Thompson FR, Donovan TM, use by butterflies and skippers (Lepidoptera).
Whitehead DR, Faaborg J. 1995. Regional Ecology 82:1360–70
forest fragmentation and the nesting success Swenson JJ, Franklin J. 2000. The effects of
of migratory birds. Science 267:1987–90 future urban development on habitat frag-
Roff DA. 1974a. Spatial heterogeneity and mentation in the Santa Monica Mountains.
the persistence of populations. Oecologia Landsc. Ecol. 15:713–30
15:245–58 Taylor PD, Merriam G. 1995. Habitat fragmen-
Roff DA. 1974b. The analysis of a population tation and parasitism of a forest damselfly.
model demonstrating the importance of dis- Landsc. Ecol. 11:181–89
persal in a heterogeneous environment. Oe- Tischendorf L. 2001. Can landscape indices
cologia 15:259–75 predict ecological processes consistently?
Rosenberg KV, Lowe JD, Dhondt AA. 1999. Landsc. Ecol. 16:235–54
Effects of forest fragmentation on breeding Tischendorf L, Fahrig L. 2000. On the usage
tanagers: a continental perspective. Conserv. and measurement of landscape connectivity.
Biol. 13:568–83 Oikos 90:7–19
Rukke BA. 2000. Effects of habitat fragmen- Tischendorf L, Bender DJ, Fahrig L. 2003.
tation: increased isolation and reduced habi- Evaluation of patch isolation metrics in mo-
tat size reduces the incidence of dead wood saic landscapes for specialist vs. generalist
fungi beetles in a fragmented forest land- dispersers. Landsc. Ecol. 18:41–50
scape. Ecography 23:492–502 Trzcinski MK, Fahrig L, Merriam G. 1999.
Independent effects of forest cover and frag- Walters JR, Ford HA, Cooper CB. 1999. The
mentation on the distribution of forest breed- ecological basis of sensitivity of brown
ing birds. Ecol. Appl. 9:586–93 treecreepers to habitat fragmentation: a pre-
Tscharntke T, Steffan-Dewenter I, Kruess liminary assessment. Biol. Conserv. 90:13–
A, Thies C. 2002. Contribution of small 20
habitat fragments to conservation of insect Wettstein W, Schmid B. 1999. Conservation of
communities of grassland-cropland land- arthropod diversity in montane wetlands: Ef-
scapes. Ecol. Appl. 12:354–63 fect of altitude, habitat quality and habitat
Urban D, Keitt T. 2001. Landscape connectiv- fragmentation on butterflies and grasshop-
ity: a graph-theoretic perspective. Ecology pers. J. Appl. Ecol. 36:363–73
82:1205–18 Wickham JD, Jones KB, Riitters KH, Wade TG,
Vallan D. 2000. Influence of forest fragmenta- O’Neill RV. 1999. Transitions in forest frag-
tion on amphibian diversity in the nature re- mentation: implications for restoration op-
serve of Ambohitantely, highland Madagas- portunities at regional scales. Landsc. Ecol.
car. Biol. Conserv. 96:31–43 14:137–45

Vance MD, Fahrig L, Flather CH. 2003. Rela- Wilcove DS, McLellan CH, Dobson AP. 1986.
tionship between minimum habitat require- Habitat fragmentation in the temperate zone.
ments and annual reproductive rates in forest In Conservation Biology, ed. ME Soulé, pp.
breeding birds. Ecology. In press 237–56. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer
van den Berg LJL, Bullock JM, Clarke RT, With KA, Crist TO. 1995. Critical thresholds
Langston RHW, Rose RJ. 2001. Territory se- in species’ responses to landscape structure.
lection by the Dartford warbler (Sylvia un- Ecology 76:2446–59
data) in Dorset, England: the role of vegeta- With KA, Gardner RH, Turner MG. 1997.
tion type, habitat fragmentation and popula- Landscape connectivity and population dis-
tion size. Biol. Conserv. 101:217–28 tributions in heterogeneous environments.
Vandermeer JH. 1973. On the regional stabi- Oikos 78:151–69
lization of locally unstable predator-prey re- With KA, King AW. 1999. Dispersal success on
lationships. J. Theor. Biol. 41:161–70 fractal landscapes: a consequence of lacunar-
Venier L, Fahrig L. 1996. Habitat availability ity thresholds. Landsc. Ecol. 14:73–82
causes the species abundance-distrubution With KA, Pavuk DM, Worchuck JL, Oates
relationship. Oikos 76:564–70 RK, Fisher JL. 2002. Threshold effects of
Villard M-A, Trzcinski MK, Merriam G. 1999. landscape structure on biological control in
Fragmentation effects on forest birds: rela- agroecosystems. Ecol. Appl. 12:52–65
tive influence of woodland cover and con- Wolff JO, Schauber EM, Edge WD. 1997. Ef-
figuration on landscape occupancy. Conserv. fects of habitat loss and fragmentation on
Biol. 13:774–83 the behavior and demography of gray-tailed
Virgós E. 2001. Role of isolation and habitat voles. Conserv. Biol. 11:945–56
quality in shaping species abundance: a test Young CH, Jarvis PJ. 2001. Measuring urban
with badgers (Meles meles L.) in a gradient habitat fragmentation: an example from the
of forest fragmentation. J. Biogeogr. 28:381– Black Country, UK. Landsc. Ecol. 16:643–
89 58
P1: FDS
October 17, 2003 16:25 Annual Reviews AR200-FM
Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics

Volume 34, 2003
CONTENTS
EFFECTS OF INTRODUCED BEES ON NATIVE ECOSYSTEMS,
Dave Goulson 1
AVIAN SEXUAL DICHROMATISM IN RELATION TO PHYLOGENY AND

ECOLOGY, Alexander V. Badyaev and Geoffrey E. Hill 27
PALEOBIOGEOGRAPHY: THE RELEVANCE OF FOSSILS TO
BIOGEOGRAPHY, Bruce S. Lieberman 51

THE ECOLOGY OF BIRD INTRODUCTIONS, Richard P. Duncan,
Tim M. Blackburn, and Daniel Sol 71
THE EFFECTS OF GENETIC AND GEOGRAPHIC STRUCTURE ON
NEUTRAL VARIATION, Brian Charlesworth, Deborah Charlesworth, and
Nicholas H. Barton 99
DATA, MODELS, AND DECISIONS IN US MARINE FISHERIES
MANAGEMENT: LESSONS FOR ECOLOGISTS, Kenneth A. Rose and
James H. Cowan Jr. 127
PARTITIONING OF TIME AS AN ECOLOGICAL RESOURCE,
Noga Kronfeld-Schor and Tamar Dayan 153
PERFORMANCE COMPARISONS OF CO-OCCURING NATIVE AND ALIEN
INVASIVE PLANTS: IMPLICATIONS FOR CONSERVATION AND
RESTORATION, Curtis C. Daehler 183
GENETIC VARIATION IN RARE AND COMMON PLANTS,
Christopher T. Cole 213
THE ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION OF INSECT BACULOVIRUSES,
Jenny S. Cory and Judith H. Myers 239
LATITUDINAL GRADIENTS OF BIODIVERSITY: PATTERN, PROCESS,
SCALE, AND SYNTHESIS, M.R. Willig, D.M. Kaufman,
and R.D. Stevens 273
RECENT ADVANCES IN THE (MOLECULAR) PHYLOGENY OF
VERTEBRATES, Axel Meyer and Rafael Zardoya 311
THE ROLE OF REINFORCEMENT IN SPECIATION: THEORY AND DATA,
Maria R. Servedio and Mohamed A.F. Noor 339
EXTRA-PAIR PATERNITY IN BIRDS: CAUSES, CORRELATES, AND
CONFLICT, David F. Westneat and Ian R.K. Stewart 365
v
P1: FDS
October 17, 2003 16:25 Annual Reviews AR200-FM
vi CONTENTS
SPECIES-LEVEL PARAPHYLY AND POLYPHYLY: FREQUENCY, CAUSES,

AND CONSEQUENCES, WITH INSIGHTS FROM ANIMAL
MITOCHONDRIAL DNA, Daniel J. Funk and Kevin E. Omland 397
PROTECTIVE ANT-PLANT INTERACTIONS AS MODEL SYSTEMS IN
ECOLOGICAL AND EVOLUTIONARY RESEARCH, Martin Heil
and Doyle McKey 425
FUNCTIONAL MATRIX: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR PREDICTING
PLANT EFFECTS ON ECOSYSTEM PROCESSES, Valerie T. Eviner
and F. Stuart Chapin III 455
EFFECTS OF HABITAT FRAGMENTATION ON BIODIVERSITY,

Lenore Fahrig 487
SOCIAL ORGANIZATION AND PARASITE RISK IN MAMMALS:
INTEGRATING THEORY AND EMPIRICAL STUDIES, Sonia Altizer,

Charles L. Nunn, Peter H. Thrall, John L. Gittleman, Janis Antonovics,
Andrew A. Cunnningham, Andrew P. Dobson, Vanessa Ezenwa,
Kate E. Jones, Amy B. Pedersen, Mary Poss, and Juliet R.C. Pulliam 517
THE COMMUNITY-LEVEL CONSEQUENCES OF SEED DISPERSAL
PATTERNS, Jonathan M. Levine and David J. Murrell 549
THE ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION OF SEED DISPERSAL: A THEORETICAL
PERSPECTIVE, Simon A. Levin, Helene C. Muller-Landau, Ran Nathan,
and Jérôme Chave 575
ANALYSIS OF RATES OF MORPHOLOGIC EVOLUTION,
Peter D. Roopnarine 605
DEVELOPMENT AND THE GENETICS OF EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE
WITHIN INSECT SPECIES, Paul M. Brakefield, Vernon French,
and Bas J. Zwaan 633
FLEXIBILITY AND SPECIFICITY IN CORAL-ALGAL SYMBIOSIS:
DIVERSITY, ECOLOGY, AND BIOGEOGRAPHY OF SYMBIODINIUM,
Andrew C. Baker 661
INDEXES
Subject Index 691
Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 30–34 705
Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 30–34 708
ERRATA
An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Ecology,
Evolution, and Systematics chapters may be found at
http://ecolsys.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml

Farig.2003.effects of Habitat Fragmentation PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Farig.2003.effects of Habitat Fragmentation PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Farig.2003.effects of Habitat Fragmentation PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

30 Sep 2003 15:53 AR AR200-ES34-18.tex AR200-ES34-18.

sgm LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: GCE

Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2003. 34:487–515

EFFECTS OF HABITAT FRAGMENTATION ON

Canada K1S 5B6; email: Lenore [email protected]

isolation, extinction threshold, landscape complementation

TABLE 1 Summary of 100 recent fragmentation studies∗

Patch sizea (63) 26 21 20 11 3 7 3 3 3 3

Matrix quality (7) 3 2 1 1 2 0 0 2 0 0

EFFECTS OF HABITAT FRAGMENTATION

CONCEPTUALIZATION AND MEASUREMENT OF

fragmented landscape represents the endpoint of the process of fragmentation.

Figure 1 The process of habitat fragmentation, where “a large expanse of habitat is

EFFECTS OF HABITAT FRAGMENTATION 491

degree of fragmentation requires measuring the pattern of habitat on the land-

Fragmentation as Pattern: Quantitative Conceptualizations

FRAGMENTATION AS HABITAT LOSS The most obvious effect of the process of

of fragmentation on biodiversity that can be attributed to changes in the pattern

FRAGMENTATION AS A CHANGE IN HABITAT CONFIGURATION In addition to loss

THE PATCH-SCALE PROBLEM Similar problems arise when fragmentation is mea-

EFFECTS OF HABITAT FRAGMENTATION 493

EFFECTS OF HABITAT FRAGMENTATION 495

Patch size: an ambiguous measure of fragmentation The relationship between

Patch isolation: a measure of habitat amount In the fragmentation literature,

EFFECTS OF HABITAT FRAGMENTATION 497

MEASURING HABITAT FRAGMENTATION PER SE How can we measure habitat frag-

EFFECTS OF HABITAT FRAGMENTATION 499

landscape configuration. In a similar approach, Villard et al. (1999) measured the

EFFECTS OF HABITAT FRAGMENTATION

Effects of Habitat Loss on Biodiversity

INDIRECT EVIDENCE OF EFFECTS OF HABITAT LOSS Negative effects of habitat

EXTINCTION THRESHOLD The number of individuals of any species that a land-

EFFECTS OF HABITAT FRAGMENTATION 501

Figure 8 Illustration of the extinction threshold hypothesis in comparison to the

Effects of Habitat Fragmentation per se on Biodiversity

Relative effects of habitat loss versus fragmentation per se on

Studies in real landscapes

1995 species: abundance

time and homing success

Langlois et al. 2001 Hanta virus: incidence Amount À fragmentation Positive

Study Taxa and response variable(s) habitat fragmentation per se biodiversity

Tscharntke et al. 2002 Butterflies: species richness, n.a.a 2 positive (total

EFFECTS OF HABITAT FRAGMENTATION 505

REASONS FOR NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF FRAGMENTATION PER SE Negative effects

REASONS FOR POSITIVE EFFECTS OF FRAGMENTATION PER SE More than half of

included within their conceptualization of habitat fragmentation. In this case even

Because of its roots in island biogeography, isolation was viewed as represent-

However, a parallel research stream, which arose independently of the theory

EFFECTS OF HABITAT FRAGMENTATION 507

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

the apparent inconsistency in the effects of a single process (fragmentation) gives

in most empirical tests to date. This is in contrast to several theoretical predictions

EFFECTS OF HABITAT FRAGMENTATION 509

IS “FRAGMENTATION” A USEFUL TERM? The term “fragmentation” is quickly los-

conceptually ambiguous and empirically multifaceted term fruitful as a generic

Implications for Biodiversity Conservation

The Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics is online at

EFFECTS OF HABITAT FRAGMENTATION 511

overview of habitat fragmentation experi- correlates of species richness in southeastern