Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 33, Issue 11, pp 1831–1835 | Cite as

An early synthesis of the habitat amount hypothesis

  • Charles A. Martin
Short Communication

Abstract

Context

The ecological literature is filled with studies highlighting the importance of both habitat loss and fragmentation on biodiversity. The patch concept has been central to these findings, being also at the heart of many ecological theories. Recently, the habitat amount hypothesis has been proposed as an alternative, where the patch concept is put to a rest, and both patch size and patch isolation effects on species richness are reduced to a single gradient: habitat loss in the landscape.

Objectives

As this theory stated clear predictions that could be experimentally tested, many formal tests of the hypothesis have been published recently and this study aims at synthesizing their results.

Methods

A meta-analysis of 13 tests of the habitat amount hypothesis was conducted, to produce a single combined test of the theory.

Results

The 13 tests combined suggest that effects of patch size and isolation, while controlling for habitat amounts, do exist although their overall effect is weak (r = 0.158).

Conclusions

Literal interpretations of the habitat amount hypothesis, where patch size and isolation have absolutely no effect on species richness, are probably oversimplifications of the processes at work. Still, the theory could prove useful as a baseline of the effects of habitat loss, against which patch size and isolation effects must be contrasted.

Keywords

Habitat amount hypothesis Fragmentation Meta-analysis Biodiversity Species richness 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Raphaël Proulx, Vincent Maire and Lael Parrott for stimulating discussions on the subject. This manuscript was greatly improved by insightful reviews from Lenore Fahrig, Nick Haddad and Jessica Lindgren. The author acknowledges a grant from Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).

References

  1. Andrén H (1994) Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71:355–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bender DJ, Contreras TA, Fahrig L (1998) Habitat loss and population decline: a meta-analysis of the patch size effect. Ecology 79:517–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR (2009) Introduction to meta-analysis. Wiley, ChichesterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Briers RA (2002) Incorporating connectivity into reserve selection procedures. Biol Conserv 103:77–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. De Camargo RX, Boucher-Lalonde V, Currie DJ (2018) At the landscape level, birds respond strongly to habitat amount but weakly to fragmentation. Divers Distrib 24:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Didham RK, Kapos V, Ewers RM (2012) Rethinking the conceptual foundations of habitat fragmentation research. Oikos 121:161–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Evju M, Sverdrup-Thygeson A (2016) Spatial configuration matters: a test of the habitat amount hypothesis for plants in calcareous grasslands. Landscape Ecol 31:1891–1902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fahrig L (2013) Rethinking patch size and isolation effects: the habitat amount hypothesis. J Biogeogr 40:1649–1663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fahrig L (2015) Just a hypothesis: a reply to Hanski. J Biogeogr 42:993–994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fahrig L (2017) Ecological responses to habitat fragmentation Per Se. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 48:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Friedman H (1982) Simplified determination of statistical power, magnitude of effect and research sample sizes. Educ Psychol Meas 42:521–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haddad NM, Brudvig LA, Clobert J, Gonzalez KF, Holt RD, Cook WM (2015) Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems. Sci Adv 1:e1500052–e1500052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haddad NM, Gonzalez A, Brudvig LA, Burt MA, Levey DJ, Damschen EI (2017) Experimental evidence does not support the Habitat Amount Hypothesis. Ecography (Cop) 40:48–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hanski I (2015) Habitat fragmentation and species richness. J Biogeogr 42:989–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hubbell SP (2001) The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  17. Law BS, Dickman CR (1998) The use of habitat mosaics by terrestrial vertebrate fauna: implications for conservation and management. Biodivers Conserv 7:323–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Leibold MA, Holyoak M, Mouquet N, Amarasekare P, Chase JM, Hoopes MF, Loreau M (2004) The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-scale community ecology. Ecol Lett 7:601–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Levins R (1969) Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental heterogeneity for biological control. Bull Entomol Soc Am 15:237–240Google Scholar
  20. Lindgren JP, Cousins SAO (2017) Island biogeography theory outweighs habitat amount hypothesis in predicting plant species richness in small grassland remnants. Landscape Ecol 32:1895–1906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. MacDonald ZG, Anderson ID, Acorn JH, Nielsen SE (2018) Decoupling habitat fragmentation from habitat loss: butterfly species mobility obscures fragmentation effects in a naturally fragmented landscape of lake islands. Oecologia 186:11–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Margules C, Pressey R (2000) Systematic Conservation Planning. Nature 405:243–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Melo GL, Sponchiado J, Cáceres NC, Fahrig L (2017) Testing the habitat amount hypothesis for South American small mammals. Biol Conserv 209:304–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Moreira EF, da Santos RL, Silveira MS, Boscolo D, Neves ELD, Viana BF (2017) Influence of landscape structure on Euglossini composition in open vegetation environments. Biota Neotrop 17:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Piano E, Isaia M, Falasco E, La Morgia V, Soldato G, Bona F (2017) Local versus landscape spatial influence on biodiversity: a case study across five European industrialized areas. Environ Monit Assess 189:126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pimm SL, Russell GJ, Gittleman JL, Brooks TM (1995) The Future of Biodiversity. Science 269:347–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Prugh LR, Hodges KE, Sinclair ARE, Brashares JS (2008) Effect of habitat area and isolation on fragmented animal populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:20770–20775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pulsford SA, Lindenmayer DB, Driscoll DA (2017) Reptiles and frogs conform to multiple conceptual landscape models in an agricultural landscape. Divers Distrib 23:1408–1422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. R Core Team (2017) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Core Team, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  30. Rabelo RM, Bicca-Marques JC, Aragón S, Nelson BW (2017) Are fluvial islands “real” islands for arboreal mammals? Uncovering the effect of patch size under the species–area relationship. J Biogeogr 44:1802–1812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rosenberg KV, Rohrbaugh RW, Barker SE, Hames RS, Lowe JD, Dhondt AA (1999) Land manager’s guide to improving habitat for scarlet tanagers and other forest-interior birdsGoogle Scholar
  32. Sala OE, Chapin FS III, Armesto JJ, Berlow E, Bloomfield J, Dirzo R, Leemans R (2000) Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287:1770–1774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Seibold S, Bässler C, Brandl R, Fahrig L, Förster B, Heurich M, Müller J (2017) An experimental test of the habitat-amount hypothesis for saproxylic beetles in a forested region. Ecology 98:1613–1622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Seiferling I, Proulx R, Wirth C (2014) Disentangling the environmental-heterogeneity–species-diversity relationship along a gradient of human footprint. Ecology 95:2084–2095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stein A, Gerstner K, Kreft H (2014) Environmental heterogeneity as a universal driver of species richness across taxa, biomes and spatial scales. Ecol Lett 17:866–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sterne JA, Egger M (2005) Regression methods to detect publication and other bias in meta-analysis. In: Rothstein HR, Sutton AJ, Borenstein M (eds) Publication bias in meta-analysis. Prevention, assessment and adjustments. Wiley, Chichester, pp 99–110Google Scholar
  37. Strobl S (1998) Towards a list of science priorities for the conservation and management of southern Ontario forests—Results of a workshop. For Chron 74:838–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tews J, Brose U, Grimm V, Tielbörger K, Wichmann M, Schwager M, Jeltsch F (2004) Animal species diversity driven by habitat heterogeneity/diversity: the importance of keystone structures. J Biogeogr 31:79–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Thiele J, Kellner S, Buchholz S, Schirmel J (2018) Connectivity or area: what drives plant species richness in habitat corridors? Landscape Ecol 33:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Thompson FR III, Donovan TM, DeGraaf RM, Faaborg J, Robinson SK (2002) A multi-scale perspective of the effects of forest fragmentation on birds in eastern forests. Stud Avian Biol 25:8–19Google Scholar
  41. Torrenta R, Villard MA (2017) A test of the habitat amount hypothesis as an explanation for the species richness of forest bird assemblages. J Biogeogr 44:1791–1801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Viechtbauer W (2010) Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw 36:1–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wilson DS (1992) Complex interactions in metacommunities, with implications for biodiversity and higher levels of selection. Ecology 73:1984–2000CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chaire de recherche du Canada en Intégrité ÉcologiqueUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresTrois-RivièresCanada

Personalised recommendations