, Volume 163, Issue 2, pp 535–547

The role of habitat quality in fragmented landscapes: a conceptual overview and prospectus for future research

  • Alessio Mortelliti
  • Giovanni Amori
  • Luigi Boitani
Conservation ecology - Original Paper


There is increasing empirical evidence that the quality of habitat patches (determined by either habitat degradation or natural heterogeneity in the quality of habitat) plays an important role in determining species distribution patterns and in regulating spatial dynamics in fragmented landscapes. However, to date, most of the debate has focused on whether or not to include habitat variables in fragmentation studies, and we still lack general conclusions as well as standard and robust research approaches. In this paper we show how a weak conceptualization of “patch quality” and the inappropriate choice of target surrogate variables (e.g., density is often used as an indicator of patch quality) have mainly produced case-specific results, rather than general conclusions. We then identify weaknesses in the inclusion of habitat quality measurements within fragmentation studies. In particular, we focus on: (1) the lack of appropriate experimental design, outlining how few studies have actually included a gradient of habitat quality in their sample; (2) the lack of fundamental information provided (e.g., lack of standard outputs), which in turn hampers the possibility of carrying out meta-analyses. We finally synthesize available knowledge from empirical studies and highlight the different conceptual frameworks needed for patch occupancy versus patch use studies.


Habitat degradation Habitat fragmentation Habitat loss Patch quality Patch structure 

Supplementary material

442_2010_1623_MOESM1_ESM.doc (166 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 166 kb)


  1. Adriaens D, Jacquemyn H, Honnay O, Hermy M (2009) Conservation of remnant populations of Colchicum autumnale: the relative importance of local habitat quality and habitat fragmentation. Acta Oecol 35:69–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anzures-Dadda A, Manson RH (2007) Patch- and landscape-scale effects on howler monkey distribution and abundance in rainforest fragments. Anim Conserv 10:69–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Armstrong DP (2005) Integrating the metapopulation and habitat paradigms for understanding broad-scale declines of species. Conserv Biol 19:1402–1410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arroyo-Rodriguez V, Mandujano S (2006) Forest fragmentation modifies habitat quality for Alouatta palliata. Int J Primatol 27:1079–1096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Betzholtz PE, Ehrig A, Lindeborg M, Dinnétz P (2007) Food plant density, patch isolation and vegetation height determine occurrence in a Swedish metapopulation of the marsh fritillary Euphydryas aurinia (Rottemburg, 1775) (Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae). J Insect Conserv 11:343–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boitani L, Falcucci A, Maiorano L, Rondinini C (2007) Ecological networks as conceptual frameworks or operational tools in conservation. Conserv Biol 21:1414–1422PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crooks K, Sanjayan M (2006) Connectivity conservation: maintaining connections for nature. In: Crooks K, Sanjayan M (eds) Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–19Google Scholar
  8. Dennis RLH, Eales HT (1997) Patch occupancy in Coenonympha tullia (Muêller, 1764) (Lepidoptera: Satyrinae): Habitat quality matters as much as patch size and isolation. J Insect Conserv 1:167–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Denoel M, Lehmann A (2006) Multi-scale effect of landscape processes and habitat quality on newt abundance: implications for conservation. Biol Conserv 130:495–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DeWoody YD, Feng Z, Swihart RK (2005) Merging spatial and temporal structure within a metapopulation model. Am Nat 166:42–55CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Drielsma M, Ferrier S (2009) Rapid evaluation of metapopulation persistence in highly variegated landscapes. Biol Conserv 142:529–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Falcucci A, Ciucci P, Maiorano L, Gentile L, Boitani L (2009) Assessing habitat quality for conservation using an integrated occurrence-mortality model. J Appl Ecol 46:600–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Felton AM, Engstram LM, Felton A, Knott CD (2003) Orangutan population density, forest structure and fruit availability in hand-logged and unlogged peat swamp forests in West Kalimantan. Indonesia Biol Conserv 114:91–101Google Scholar
  15. Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2007) Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: a synthesis. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 16:265–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB, Fazey I (2004) Appreciating ecological complexity: habitat contours as a conceptual landscape model. Conserv Biol 18:1245–1253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fleishman E, Ray C, Sjoêgren-Gulve P, Boggs CL, Murphy DD (2002) Assessing the roles of patch quality, area, and isolation in predicting metapopulation dynamics. Conserv Biol 16:706–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Franken RJ, Hik DS (2004) Influence of habitat quality, patch size and connectivity on colonization and extinction dynamics of collared pikas Ochotona collaris. J Anim Ecol 73:889–896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fred MS, Brommer JE (2003) Influence of habitat quality and patch size on occupancy and persistence in two populations of the Apollo butterfly (Parnassius apollo). J Insect Conserv 7:85–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Griffen BD, Drake JM (2008) Effects of habitat quality and size on extinction in experimental populations. Proc R Soc B Biol 275:2251–2256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grundel R, Pavlovic NB (2007) Resource availability, matrix quality, microclimate, and spatial pattern as predictors of patch use by the Karner blue butterfly. Biol Conserv 135:135–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Guevara S, Laborde J, Sanchez G (1998) Are isolated remnant trees in pastures a fragmented canopy? Selbyana 19:34–43Google Scholar
  23. Gyllenberg M, Hanski I (1997) Habitat deterioration, habitat destruction, and metapopulation persistence in a heterogenous landscape. Theor Popul Biol 52:198–215CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Hall LS, Krausman PR, Morrison ML (1997) The habitat concept and a plea for standard terminology. Wildlife Soc Bull 25:173–182Google Scholar
  25. Hanski I, Gaggiotti O (eds) (2004) Ecology genetics and evolution of metapopulations. Elsevier, BurlingtonGoogle Scholar
  26. Hanski I, Moilanen A, Pakkala T, Kuussaari M (1996) The quantitative incidence function model and persistence of an endangered butterfly metapopulation. Conserv Biol 10:578–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harrison S, Bruna E (1999) Habitat fragmentation and large scale conservation: what do we know for sure? Ecography 22:225–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hazell D, Hero JM, Lindenmayer D, Cunningham R (2004) A comparison of constructed and natural habitat for frog conservation in an Australian agricultural landscape. Biol Conserv 119:61–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Heisswolf A, Reichmann S, Poethke HJ, Schrader B, Obermaier E (2009) Habitat quality matters for the distribution of an endangered leaf beetle and its egg parasitoid in a fragmented landscape. J Insect Conserv 13:165–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hill D, Fasham M, Tucker G, Shewry M, Shaw P (2005) Handbook of biodiversity methods. Survey, evaluation and monitoring. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  31. Hodgson JA, Moilanen A, Thomas CD (2009a) Metapopulation responses to patch connectivity and quality are masked by successional habitat dynamics. Ecology 90:1608–1619CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Hodgson JA, Thomas CD, Wintle BA, Moilanen A (2009b) Climate change, connectivity and conservation decision making: back to basics. J Appl Ecol 46:964–969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Holland GJ, Bennett AF (2007) Occurrence of small mammals in a fragmented landscape: the role of vegetation heterogeneity. Wildl Res 34:387–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jaquiéry J, Guélat J, Broquet T, Berset-Brändli L, Pellegrini E, Moresi R, Hirzel AH, Perrin N (2008) Habitat-quality effects on metapopulation dynamics in greater white-toothed shrews, Crocidura russula. Ecology 89:2777–2785CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Johnson MD (2007) Measuring habitat quality: a review. Condor 109:489–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kawecki TD (2004) Ecological and evolutionary consequences of source-sink population dynamics. In: Hanski I, Gaggiotti O (eds) Ecology, genetics, and evolution of metapopulations. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 387–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kindvall O (1996) Habitat heterogeneity and survival in a bush cricket metapopulation. Ecology 77:207–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Krauss J, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2004) Landscape occupancy and local population size depends on host plant distribution in the butterfly Cupido minimus. Biol Conserv 120:359–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Krauss J, Steffan-Dewenter I, Muêller CB, Tscharntke T (2005) Relative importance of resource quantity, isolation and habitat quality for landscape distribution of a monophagous butterfly. Ecography 28:465–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kuussaari M, Nieminen M, Hanski I (1996) An experimental study of migration in the Glanville fritillary butterfly Melitaea cinxia. J Anim Ecol 65:791–801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lima SL, Zollner PA (1996) Towards a behavioral ecology of ecological landscapes. Trends Ecol Evol 11:131–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lindenmayer DB, Fischer J (2007) Tackling the habitat fragmentation panchreston. Trends Ecol Evol 22:127–132CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Lindenmayer D, Hobbs RJ, Montague-Drake R, Alexandra J, Bennett A, Burgman M, Cale P, Calhoun A, Cramer V, Cullen P, Driscoll D, Fahrig L, Fischer J, Franklin J, Haila Y, Hunter M, Gibbons P, Lake S, Luck G, MacGregor C, McIntyre S, Nally RM, Manning A, Miller J, Mooney H, Noss R, Possingham H, Saunders D, Schmiegelow F, Scott M, Simberloff D, Sisk T, Tabor G, Walker B, Wiens J, Woinarski J, Zavaleta E (2008) A checklist for ecological management of landscapes for conservation. Ecol Lett 11:78–91PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Lloyd H (2008) Influence of within-patch habitat quality on high-Andean Polylepis bird abundance. Ibis 150:735–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Luck GW, Daily GC (2003) Tropical countryside bird assemblages: richness composition and foraging differ by landscape context. Ecol Appl 13:235–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Marsh DM, Trenham PC (2001) Metapopulation dynamics and amphibian conservation. Conserv Biol 15:40–49Google Scholar
  47. Matter SF, Ezzeddine M, Duermit E, Mashburn J, Hamilton R, Lucas T, Roland J (2009) Interactions between habitat quality and connectivity affect immigration but not abundance or population growth of the butterfly, Parnassius smintheus. Oikos 118:1461–1470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Moilanen A, Hanski I (1998) Metapopulation dynamics: effects of habitat quality and landscape structure. Ecology 79:2503–2515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mortelliti A, Boitani L (2008) Interaction of food resources and landscape structure in determining the probability of patch use by carnivores in fragmented landscapes. Lands Ecol 23:285–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mortelliti A, Amori G, Annesi F, Boitani L (2009) Testing for the relative contribution of patch neighborhood, patch internal structure, and presence of predators and competitor species in determining distribution patterns of rodents in a fragmented landscape. Can J Zool 87:662–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. North A, Ovaskainen O (2007) Interactions between dispersal, competition, and landscape heterogeneity. Oikos 116:1106–1119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ovaskainen O, Luoto M, Ikonen L, Rekola H, Meyke E, Kuussaari M (2008) An Empirical test of a diffusion model: predicting clouded apollo movements in a novel environment. Am Nat 171:610–619CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Peters RH (1991) A critique for ecology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  54. Pöyry J, Paukkunen J, Heliölä J, Kuussaari M (2009) Relative contribution of local and regional factors to species richness and total density of butterflies and moths in semi-natural grasslands. Oecologia 160:577–587CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Pulliam HR (1988) Sources, sinks, and population regulation. Am Nat 132:1–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Quinn G, Keough M (2002) Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  57. Rabasa G, Gutierrez D, Escudero A (2007) Metapopulation structure and habitat quality in modelling dispersal in the butterfly Iolana iolas. Oikos 116:793–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rabasa SG, Gutierrez D, Escudero A (2008) Relative importance of host plant patch geometry and habitat quality on the patterns of occupancy, extinction and density of the monophagous butterfly Iolana iolas. Oecologia 156:491–503CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Root KV (1998) Evaluating the effects of habitat quality, connectivity, and catastrophes on a threatened species. Ecol Appl 8:854–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Runge JP, Runge MC, Nichols JD (2006) The role of local populations within a landscape context: defining and classifying sources and sinks. Am Nat 167:925–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Santos T, Díaz JA, Pérez-tris J, Carbonell R, Tellería JL (2008) Habitat quality predicts the distribution of a lizard in fragmented woodlands better than habitat fragmentation. Anim Conserv 11:46–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schooley RL, Branch LC (2007) Spatial heterogeneity in habitat quality and cross-scale interactions in metapopulations. Ecosystems 10:846–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schooley RL, Wiens JA (2003) Finding habitat patches and directional connectivity. Oikos 102:559–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sergio F, Newton I (2003) Occupancy as a measure of territory quality. J Anim Ecol 72:857–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Summerville KS, Crist TO (2004) Contrasting effects of habitat quantity and quality on moth communities in fragmented landscapes. Ecography 27:3–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Swihart RK, Lusk JJ, Duchamp JE, Rizkalla CE, Moore JE (2006) The roles of landscape context, niche breadth, and range boundaries in predicting species responses to habitat alteration. Divers Distrib 12:277–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tabarelli M, Gascon C (2005) Lessons from fragmentation research: improving management and policy guidelines for biodiversity conservation. Conserv Biol 19:734–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Taylor PD, Fahrig L, Henein K, Merriam G (1993) Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68:571–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Taylor PD, Fahrig L, With KA (2006) Landscape connectivity: a return to the basics. In: Crooks K, Sanjayan M (eds) Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 29–43Google Scholar
  70. Thomas CD, Kunin WE (1999) The spatial structure of populations. J Anim Ecol 68:647–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Thomas JA, Bourn NAD, Clarke RT, Stewart KE, Simcox DJ, Pearman GS, Curtis R, Goodger B (2001) The quality and isolation of habitat patches both determine where butterflies persist in fragmented landscapes. Proc R Soc B Biol 268:1791–1796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Van Horne B (1983) Density as a misleading indicator of habitat quality. J Wildl Manag 47:893–901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Verboom J, Schotman A, Opdam P, Metz JAJ (1991) European nuthatch metapopulations in a fragmented agricultural landscape. Oikos 61:149–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Verbeylen G, Wauters LA. De Bruyn L, Matthysen E (2009) Woodland fragmentation affects space use of Eurasian red squirrels. Acta Oecol 35:94–103Google Scholar
  75. Virgos E (2001) Role of isolation and habitat quality in shaping species abundance: a test with badgers (Meles meles L.) in a gradient of forest fragmentation. J Biogeogr 28:381–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Visconti P, Elkin C (2009) Using connectivity metrics in conservation planning: when does habitat quality matter? Divers Distrib 15:602–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wettstein W, Schmid B (1999) Conservation of arthropod diversity in montane wetlands effect of altitude, habitat quality and habitat fragmentation on butterflies and grasshoppers. J Appl Ecol 36:363–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wiens J (2001) The landscape context of dispersal. In: Clobert J, Danchin E, Dhondt AA, Nichols JD (eds) Dispersal. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 96–109Google Scholar
  79. Zheng C, Pennanen J, Ovaskainen O (2009) Modelling dispersal with diffusion and habitat selection: analytical results for highly fragmented landscapes. Ecol Model 220:1495–1505CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alessio Mortelliti
    • 1
    • 2
  • Giovanni Amori
    • 1
  • Luigi Boitani
    • 2
  1. 1.CNR Institute for Ecosystem Studies c/o Department of Animal and Human BiologySapienza University of RomeRomeItaly
  2. 2.Department of Animal and Human BiologySapienza University of RomeRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations