The geometry of habitat fragmentation: Effects of species distribution patterns on extinction risk due to habitat conversion.
clustering
fragmentation
habitat loss
intraspecific aggregation
landscape change
Journal
Ecology and evolution
ISSN: 2045-7758
Titre abrégé: Ecol Evol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101566408
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2019
Mar 2019
Historique:
received:
22
08
2018
revised:
11
12
2018
accepted:
10
01
2019
entrez:
21
3
2019
pubmed:
21
3
2019
medline:
21
3
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Land-use changes, which cause loss, degradation, and fragmentation of natural habitats, are important anthropogenic drivers of biodiversity change. However, there is an ongoing debate about how fragmentation per se affects biodiversity in a given amount of habitat. Here, we illustrate why it is important to distinguish two different aspects of fragmentation to resolve this debate: (a) geometric fragmentation effects, which exclusively arise from the spatial distributions of species and habitat fragments, and (b) demographic fragmentation effects due to reduced fragment sizes, and/or changes in fragment isolation, edge effects, or species interactions. While most empirical studies are primarily interested in quantifying demographic fragmentation effects, geometric effects are typically invoked as post hoc explanations of biodiversity responses to fragmentation per se. Here, we present an approach to quantify geometric fragmentation effects on species survival and extinction probabilities. We illustrate this approach using spatial simulations where we systematically varied the initial abundances and distribution patterns (i.e., random, aggregated, or regular) of species as well as habitat amount and fragmentation per se. As expected, we found no geometric fragmentation effects when species were randomly distributed. However, when species were aggregated, we found positive effects of fragmentation per se on survival probability for a large range of scenarios. For regular species distributions, we found weakly negative geometric effects. These findings are independent of the ecological mechanisms which generate nonrandom species distributions. Our study helps to reconcile seemingly contradictory results of previous fragmentation studies. Since intraspecific aggregation is a ubiquitous pattern in nature, our findings imply widespread positive geometric fragmentation effects. This expectation is supported by many studies that find positive effects of fragmentation per se on species occurrences and diversity after controlling for habitat amount. We outline how to disentangle geometric and demographic fragmentation effects, which is critical for predicting the response of biodiversity to landscape change.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30891216
doi: 10.1002/ece3.4951
pii: ECE34951
pmc: PMC6405897
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
2775-2790Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
We have no competing interests.
Références
Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2012 Aug;87(3):661-85
pubmed: 22272640
Ecol Evol. 2019 Feb 18;9(5):2775-2790
pubmed: 30891216
J Theor Biol. 2010 May 21;264(2):604-12
pubmed: 20152842
Ecology. 2006 Aug;87(8):1877-85
pubmed: 16937624
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Aug 20;99(17):11229-34
pubmed: 12177416
Science. 2002 Jan 25;295(5555):666-9
pubmed: 11809969
J Theor Biol. 2000 Nov 7;207(1):81-99
pubmed: 11027481
Ecol Lett. 2018 Jun;21(6):804-813
pubmed: 29601670
J Theor Biol. 2002 Oct 21;218(4):419-33
pubmed: 12384046
Conserv Biol. 2010 Aug;24(4):994-1001
pubmed: 20214672
Science. 2010 Dec 10;330(6010):1496-501
pubmed: 20978282
Ecol Lett. 2008 Sep;11(9):904-17
pubmed: 18494792
Science. 2000 May 26;288(5470):1414-8
pubmed: 10827950
PLoS One. 2013 Jun 19;8(6):e66495
pubmed: 23840490
Nature. 2015 Apr 2;520(7545):45-50
pubmed: 25832402
Am Nat. 2013 Nov;182(5):E142-60
pubmed: 24107376
Science. 2014 May 30;344(6187):1246752
pubmed: 24876501
Ecology. 2011 Sep;92(9):1723-9
pubmed: 21939068
Trends Ecol Evol. 2009 Oct;24(10):564-71
pubmed: 19665254
Biometrika. 1949 Jun;36(Pt. 1-2):18-25
pubmed: 18146215
Proc Biol Sci. 2001 Feb 7;268(1464):273-7
pubmed: 11217898
Am Nat. 1993 Dec.;142(6):911-927
pubmed: 29519140
Trends Ecol Evol. 1999 Oct;14(10):405-410
pubmed: 10481205
Ecol Lett. 2006 Jan;9(1):72-7
pubmed: 16958870
Ecology. 2017 Jun;98(6):1613-1622
pubmed: 28317111
Proc Biol Sci. 2007 Oct 7;274(1624):2409-12
pubmed: 17666380
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Jul 30;110(31):12715-20
pubmed: 23858440
Ecol Lett. 2013 May;16 Suppl 1:27-38
pubmed: 23452159
Nature. 2017 Nov 9;551(7679):187-191
pubmed: 29088701
Sci Adv. 2015 Mar 20;1(2):e1500052
pubmed: 26601154
Oecologia. 1988 Feb;75(1):132-140
pubmed: 28311846
PLoS One. 2015 Jul 28;10(7):e0132383
pubmed: 26218682
Ecology. 2015 Oct;96(10):2669-78
pubmed: 26649388
Ecol Lett. 2013 Oct;16(10):1221-33
pubmed: 23931035
Conserv Biol. 2014 Jun;28(3):874-6
pubmed: 24673576
Am J Bot. 2011 Mar;98(3):481-502
pubmed: 21613141
Ecol Lett. 2010 May;13(5):627-42
pubmed: 20337695
Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2010 Feb;85(1):35-53
pubmed: 19930172
Science. 1976 Jan 23;191(4224):285-6
pubmed: 17832147
Am Nat. 2002 Jan;159(1):1-23
pubmed: 18707398