Advertisement

A mathematical partitioning of the effects of habitat loss and habitat degradation on species abundance

  • Avi Bar-MassadaEmail author
  • Anthony R. Ives
  • Van Butsic
Short Communication

Abstract

Context

Worldwide, anthropogenic habitat loss and degradation have led to substantial biodiversity declines. Preserving biodiversity requires an understanding of how habitat loss and degradation interact to impact species populations, and how land-use decisions can limit these losses.

Objectives

We present a mathematical partitioning of changes in landscape-level population abundance in response to land-use change using a modified version of the Price equation from evolutionary biology.

Methods

The Price equation partitions changes in species abundance into multiple drivers related to habitat loss, habitat degradation, and their interaction. We describe its development and exemplify its applicability using simulated data.

Results

Applying the Price equation to simulated data reveals the roles of habitat loss, habitat degradation, and their interaction in driving population change in patchy landscapes undergoing complex land-use change processes.

Conclusions

The Price equation is a theoretical tool that may enhance our understanding of the effects of land-use change on populations by accounting for the specific processes by which land-use change operates across landscapes.

Keywords

Price equation Land-use change Species abundance Habitat loss 

Supplementary material

10980_2018_764_MOESM1_ESM.docx (655 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 654 kb)
10980_2018_764_MOESM2_ESM.rar (6 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (RAR 6 kb)

References

  1. Cobb CW, Douglas PH (1928) A theory of production. Am Econ Rev 18:139–165Google Scholar
  2. Cushman SA (2006) Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on amphibians: a review and prospectus. Biol Conserv 128:231–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Fahrig L (2017) Forty years of bias in habitat fragmentation research. In: Kareiva P, Marvier M, Silliman B (eds) Effective conservation science: data not dogma. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Fletcher RJ, Orrock JL, Robertson BA (2012) How the type of anthropogenic change alters the consequences of ecological traps. Proc Biol Sci 279(1738):2546–2552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Foley JA, Ramankutty N, Brauman KA, Cassidy ES, Gerber JS, Johnston M, Mueller ND, O’Connell C, Ray DK, West PC, Balzer C, Bennett EM, Carpenter SR, Hill J, Monfreda C, Polasky S, Rockström J, Sheehan J, Siebert S, Tilman D, Zaks DPM (2011) Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478:337–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fox JW (2006) Using the price equation to partition the effects of biodiversity loss on ecosystem function. Ecology 87:2687–2696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fox JW (2010) Partitioning the effects of species loss on community variability using multi-level selection theory. Oikos 119:1823–1833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fox JW, Kerr B (2011) Analyzing the effects of species gain and loss on ecosystem function using the extended price equation partition. Oikos 121:290–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gilroy JJ, Edwards DP (2017) Source-sink dynamics: a neglected problem for landscape-scale biodiversity conservation in the tropics. Curr Landsc Ecol Rep 2(1):51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Green RE, Cornell SJ, Scharlemann JPW, Balmford A (2005) Farming and the fate of wild nature. Science 307:550–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hanski I (1999) Metapopulation ecology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. IUCN (2012) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. http://www.iucnredlist.org/. Accessed 21 Dec 2012
  13. Johnson MD (2007) Measuring habitat quality: a review. Condor 109:489–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Loreau M, Hector A (2001) Partitioning selection and complementarity in biodiversity experiments. Nature 412:72–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Luque VJ (2017) One equation to rule them all: a philosophical analysis of the Price equation. Biol Philos 32:97–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  17. Perfecto I, Vandermeer J (2010) The agroecological matrix as alternative to the land-sparing/agriculture intensification model. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107:5786–5791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Price GR (1970) Selection and covariance. Nature 227:520–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Prugh LR, Hodges KE, Sinclair ARE, Brashares JS (2008) Effect of habitat area and isolation on fragmented animal populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105:20770–20775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schauber EM, Goodwin BJ, Jones CG, Ostfeld RS (2007) Spatial selection and inheritance: applying evolutionary concepts to population dynamics in heterogeneous space. Ecology 88:1112–1118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Van Horne B (1983) Density as a misleading indicator of habitat quality. J Wildl Manag 47:893–901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. van Veelen M (2005) On the use of the Price equation. J Theor Biol 237:412–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Winfree R, Fox JW, Williams NM, Reilly JR, Cariveau DP (2015) Abundance of common species, not species richness, drives delivery of a real-world ecosystem service. Ecol Lett 18:626–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biology and EnvironmentUniversity of Haifa at OranimKiryat TivonIsrael
  2. 2.Department of ZoologyUniversity of Wisconsin – MadisonMadisonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Environmental Policy and ManagementUniversity of California BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations