Advertisement

AMBIO

, Volume 40, Issue 3, pp 248–255 | Cite as

Habitat Loss, the Dynamics of Biodiversity, and a Perspective on Conservation

  • Ilkka Hanski
Synopsis

Introduction

Habitat loss has been, and still is, the greatest threat to biodiversity (Brooks et al. 2002; Hanski 2005; Groom et al. 2006). According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), more than half of several biomes, including the Mediterranean and temperate forests and tropical and sub-tropical dry broadleaf forests, had been converted by 1990; in Western Europe, only 2–3% of original forests remain in natural or natural-like condition (WWF Report 2001). Zooming into more detailed classifications of habitat does not change the picture. As an example, a recent in-depth assessment of changes in the quality and quantity of 368 habitat types in Finland (Raunio et al. 2008) classified the vast majority either as threatened (189 habitat types) or near threatened (105), while only 74 habitat types were considered to be of least concern. The conversion of natural habitats to agricultural land, pastures, plantations, built areas and infrastructure continues, propelled by...

Keywords

Protected Area Forest Cover Habitat Loss Deleterious Mutation Fragmented Landscape 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

I thank Renata Pardini for advice on the occurrence of small mammals in the Brazilian Atlantic forest region, Sami Ojanen for preparing the figures, and Anni Arponen, Mar Cabeza, Heini Kujala, Russ Lande, Joona Lehtomäki, Laura Meller, Reed Noss, Otso Ovaskainen, Renata Pardini, and Eeva Primmer for comments on the manuscript.

References

  1. Anderson, R.M., and R.M. May. 1991. Infectious diseases of humans: Dynamics and control. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Andrén, H. 1994. Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: A review. Oikos 71: 355–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Austin, A., O. Ovaskainen, and I. Hanski. In press. Size and genetic composition of the colonizing propagules in a butterfly metapopulation. Oikos.Google Scholar
  4. Brooks, T.M., R.A. Mittermeier, C.G. Mittermeier, G.A.B. da Fonseca, A.B. Rylands, W.R. Konstant, P. Flick, J. Pilgrim, et al. 2002. Habitat loss and extinction in the hotspots of biodiversity. Conservation Biology 16: 909–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Butchart, S., M. Walpole, B. Collen, A. van Strien, J.P.W. Scharlemann, R.E.A. Almond, J.E.M. Baillie, B. Bomhard, et al. 2010. Global biodiversity: Indicators of recent decline. Science 328: 1164–1168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Curtis, J.T. 1956. The modification of mid-latitude grasslands and forests by man. In Man’s role in changing the face of the earth, ed. W.L. Thomas, 721–736. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Daily, G. 1997. Countryside biogeography and the provision of ecosystem services. In Nature and human society: The quest for a sustainable world, ed. P. Raven, 104–113. Washington: National Research Council, National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  8. DeFries, R., and C. Rosenzweig. 2010. Toward a whole-landscape approach for sustainable land use in the tropics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107: 19627–19632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ellegren, H., P. Savolainen, and B. Rosen. 1996. The genetical history of an isolated population of the endangered grey wolf Canis lupus: A study of nuclear and mitochondrial polymorphisms. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 351: 1661–1669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fahrig, L. 1997. Relative effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on population extinction. Journal of Wildlife Management 61: 603–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fahrig, L. 2003. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 34: 487–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Forman, R.T.T., and L.E. Alexander. 1998. Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 29: 207–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frankham, R., J.D. Ballou, and D.A. Briscoe. 2002. Introduction to conservation genetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Gaston, K.J., S.F. Jackson, A. Nagy, L. Cantú-Salazar, and M. Johnson. 2008. Protected areas in Europe. Principles and practice. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1134: 97–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gilpin, M.E., and M.E. Soulé. 1986. Minimum viable populations: Process of species extinction. In Conservation biology: The science of scarcity and diversity, ed. M.E. Soulé, 19–34. Sunderland: Sinauer.Google Scholar
  16. Groom, M.J., and T.E. Preuninger. 2001. Inbreeding depression is not diminished in isolated subpopulations of Clarkia concinna concinna (Onagraceae). Evolutionary Ecology 15: 81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Groom, M.J., G.K. Meffe, and C.R. Carroll. 2006. Principles of conservation biology. Sunderland: Sinauer.Google Scholar
  18. Gurd, D.B., T.D. Nudds, and D.H. Rivard. 2001. Conservation of mammals in eastern North American wildlife reserves: How small is too small? Conservation Biology 15: 1355–1363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gyllenberg, M., K. Parvinen, and U. Dieckmann. 2002. Evolutionary suicide and evolution of dispersal in structured metapopulations. Journal of Mathematical Biology 45: 79–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Haikola, S., W. Fortelius, R.B. O′Hara, M. Kuussaari, N. Wahlberg, I.J. Saccheri, M.C. Singer, and I. Hanski. 2001. Inbreeding depression and the maintenance of genetic load in Melitaea cinxia metapopulations. Conservation Genetics 2: 325–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hanski, I. 1999. Metapopulation ecology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hanski, I. 2005. The shrinking world: Ecological consequences of habitat loss. Oldendorf/Luhe: International Ecology Institute.Google Scholar
  23. Hanski, I., and O. Ovaskainen. 2000. The metapopulation capacity of a fragmented landscape. Nature 404: 755–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hanski, I., and O. Ovaskainen. 2002. Extinction debt at extinction threshold. Conservation Biology 16: 666–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hanski, I., and O.E. Gaggiotti (eds.). 2004. Ecology, genetics, and evolution of metapopulations. Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic Press.Google Scholar
  26. Harris, L.F. 1984. The fragmented forest. Chicago: The Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Hedrick, P.W. 1995. Gene flow and genetic restoration—The Florida panther as a case study. Conservation Biology 9: 996–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Heino, M., and I. Hanski. 2001. Evolution of migration rate in a spatially realistic metapopulation model. American Naturalist 157: 495–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Heller, N.E., and E.S. Zavaleta. 2009. Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: A review of 22 years of recommendations. Biological Conservation 142: 14–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Higgins, K., and M. Lynch. 2001. Metapopulation extinction caused by mutation accumulation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 98: 2928–2933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jennings, M.D. 2000. Gap analysis: Concepts, methods, and recent results. Landscape Ecology 15: 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kermack, W.O., and A.G. McKendrick. 1927. A contribution to the mathematical theory of epidemics. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A 155: 700–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lande, R. 1988. Genetics and demography in biological conservation. Science 241: 1455–1460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lande, R. 1993. Risks of population extinction from demographic and environmental stochasticity and random catastrophes. American Naturalist 142: 911–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lande, R. 1994. Risk of population extinction from fixation of new deleterious mutations. Evolution 48: 1460–1469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lande, R. 1998. Anthropogenic, ecological and genetic factors in extinction and conservation. Researches on Population Ecology 40: 259–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lynch, M., J. Conery, and R. Buerger. 1995. Mutation accumulation and the extinction of small populations. American Naturalist 146: 489–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. MacArthur, R.H., and E.O. Wilson. 1967. The theory of island biogeography. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Madsen, T., B. Stille, and R. Shine. 1996. Inbreeding depression in an isolated population of adders Vipera berus. Biological Conservation 75: 113–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Metzger, J.P., A.C. Martensen, M. Dixo, L.C. Bernacci, M.C. Ribeiro, A.M.G. Teixeira, and R. Pardini. 2009. Time-lag in biological responses to landscape changes in a highly dynamic Atlantic forest region. Biological Conservation 142: 1166–1177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington: Island Press.Google Scholar
  42. Nieminen, M., M.C. Singer, W. Fortelius, K. Schöps, and I. Hanski. 2001. Experimental confirmation that inbreeding depression increases extinction risk in butterfly populations. American Naturalist 157: 237–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Opdam, P., J. Verboom, and R. Pouwels. 2003. Landscape cohesion: An index for the conservation potential of landscapes for biodiversity. Landscape Ecology 18: 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Pardini, R., A.D. Bueno, T.A. Gardner, P.I. Prado, and J.P. Metzger. 2010. Beyond the fragmentation threshold hypothesis: Regime shifts in biodiversity across fragmented landscapes. Plos One 5: e13666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Primmer, E., and H. Karppinen. 2010. Professional judgment in non-industrial private forestry: Forester attitudes and social norms influencing biodiversity conservation. Forest Policy and Economics 12: 136–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Prugh, L.R., K.E. Hodges, A.R.E. Sinclair, and J.S. Brashares. 2008. Effect of habitat area and isolation on fragmented animal populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105: 20770–20775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Raunio, A., A. Schulman, and T. Kontula (eds.). 2008. Assessment of threatened habitat types in Finland. Helsinki, Finland: Suomen Ympäristökeskus.Google Scholar
  49. Rodrigues, A.S.L., S.J. Andelman, et al. 2004. Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity. Nature 428: 640–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Roger, E., S.W. Laffan, and D. Ramp. 2011. Road impacts a tipping point for wildlife populations in threatened landscapes. Population Ecology 53: 215–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ronce, O., and I. Olivieri. 2004. Life history evolution in metapopulations. In Ecology, genetics, and evolution of metapopulations, ed. I. Hanski, and O.E. Gaggiotti, 227–257. Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Saccheri, I.J., M. Kuussaari, M. Kankare, P. Vikman, W. Fortelius, and I. Hanski. 1998. Inbreeding and extinction in a butterfly metapopulation. Nature 392: 491–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sato, T. 2006. Occurrence of deformed fish and their fitness-related traits in Kirikuchi charr, Salvelinus leucomaenis japonicus, the southernmost population of the genus Salvelinus. Zoological Science 23: 593–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Scott, J.M., F.W. Davis, R.G. McGhie, R.G. Wright, C. Groves, and J. Estes. 2001. Nature reserves: Do they capture the full range of America’s biological diversity? Ecological Applications 11: 999–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Soulé, M.E., J.A. Estes, J. Berger, and C.M. Del Rio. 2003. Ecological effectiveness: Conservation goals for interactive species. Conservation Biology 17: 1238–1250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tilman, D., R.M. May, C.L. Lehman, and M.A. Nowak. 1994. Habitat destruction and the extinction debt. Nature 371: 65–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Westemeier, R.L., J.D. Brawn, S.A. Simpson, T.L. Esker, R.W. Jansen, J.W. Walk, E.L. Kershner, J.L. Bouzat, et al. 1998. Tracking the long-term decline and recovery of an isolated population. Science 282: 1695–1698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Whitlock, M.C., and N.H. Barton. 1997. The effective size of a subdivided population. Genetics 146: 427–441.Google Scholar
  59. WWF report. 2001. Insight into Europe’s forest protection. Gland, Switzerland: WWF.Google Scholar
  60. Virkkala, R., K.T. Korhonen, R. Haapanen, and K. Aapala. 2000. Metsien ja soiden suojelutilanne metsä- ja suokasvillisuusvyöhykkeittäin valtakunnan metsien 8. inventoinnin perusteella. Helsinki, Finland: Suomen Ympäristökeskus, Metsäntutkimuslaitos.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiosciencesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations