Habitat loss is a primary threat to biodiversity across the planet, yet contentious debate has ensued on the importance of habitat fragmentation 'per se' (i.e., altered spatial configuration of habitat for a given amount of habitat loss). Based on a review of landscape-scale investigations, Fahrig (2017; Ecological responses to habitat fragmentation per se. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 48:1-23) reports that biodiversity responses to habitat fragmentation Highlights  Habitat loss and fragmentation have long been considered to have negative effects on biodiversity, yet recent review by Fahrig (2017) argues that in fact habitat fragmentation has largely positive effects on biodiversity.  We highlight several key shortcomings to the approach taken in Fahrig (2017) that limits conclusions regarding habitat fragmentation effects.  Several sources of counter evidence not considered in Fahrig (2017) illustrate that negative effects of habitat fragmentation are common and that positive effects can be misleading or not of conservation importance.  We provide six key reasons why the conclusions in Fahrig (2017) should not be used in conservation decision-making.

Ecological set-asides are a promising strategy for conserving biodiversity in human-modified landscapes; however, landowner participation is often precluded by financial constraints. We assessed the ecological benefits and economic costs of paying landowners to set aside private land for restoration. Benefits were calculated from data on nearly 25,000 captures of Brazilian Atlantic Forest vertebrates, and economic costs were estimated for several restoration scenarios and values of payment for ecosystem services. We show that an annual investment equivalent to 6.5% of what Brazil spends on agricultural subsidies would revert species composition and ecological functions across farmlands to levels found inside protected areas, thereby benefiting local people. Hence, efforts to secure the future of this and other biodiversity hotspots may be cost-effective.

SummaryForest edges influence more than half the world’s forests and contribute to worldwide declines in biodiversity and ecosystem functions. However, predicting these declines is challenging in heterogeneous fragmented landscapes. We assembled an unmatched global dataset on species responses to fragmentation and developed a new statistical approach for quantifying edge impacts in heterogeneous landscapes to quantify edge-determined changes in abundance of 1673 vertebrate species. We show that 85% of species’ abundances are affected, either positively or negatively, by forest edges. Forest core species, which were more likely to be listed as threatened by the IUCN, only reached peak abundances at sites farther than 200-400 m from sharp high-contrast forest edges. Smaller-bodied amphibians, larger reptiles and medium-sized non-volant mammals experienced a larger reduction in suitable habitat than other forest core species. Our results highlight the pervasive ability of forest edges to restructure ecological communities on a global scale.

Theoretical and empirical studies demonstrate that the total amount of forest and the size and connectivity of fragments have nonlinear effects on species survival. We tested how habitat amount and configuration affect understory bird species richness and abundance. We used mist nets (almost 34,000 net hours) to sample birds in 53 Atlantic Forest fragments in southeastern Brazil. Fragments were distributed among 3 10,800-ha landscapes. The remaining forest in these landscapes was below (10% forest cover), similar to (30%), and above (50%) the theoretical fragmentation threshold (approximately 30%) below which the effects of fragmentation should be intensified. Species-richness estimates were significantly higher (F= 3715, p = 0.00) where 50% of the forest remained, which suggests a species occurrence threshold of 30-50% forest, which is higher than usually occurs (<30%). Relations between forest cover and species richness differed depending on species sensitivity to forest conversion and fragmentation. For less sensitive species, species richness decreased as forest cover increased, whereas for highly sensitive species the opposite occurred. For sensitive species, species richness and the amount of forest cover were positively related, particularly when forest cover was 30-50%. Fragment size and connectivity were related to species richness and abundance in all landscapes, not just below the 30% threshold. Where 10% of the forest remained, fragment size was more related to species richness and abundance than connectivity. However, the relation between connectivity and species richness and abundance was stronger where 30% of the landscape was forested. Where 50% of the landscape was forested, fragment size and connectivity were both related to species richness and abundance. Our results demonstrated a rapid loss of species at relatively high levels of forest cover (30-50%). Highly sensitive species were 3-4 times more common above the 30-50% threshold than below it; however, our results do not support a unique fragmentation threshold.

BackgroundTropical forest species are among the most sensitive to changing climatic conditions, and the forest they inhabit helps to buffer their microclimate from the variable climatic conditions outside the forest. However, habitat fragmentation and edge effects exposes vegetation to outside microclimatic conditions, thereby reducing the ability of the forest to buffer climatic variation. In this paper, we ask what proportion of forest in a fragmented ecosystem is impacted by altered microclimate conditions driven by edge effects, and extrapolate these results to the whole Atlantic Forest biome, one of the most disturbed biodiversity hotspots. To address these questions, we collected above and below ground temperature for a full year using temperature sensors placed in forest fragments of different sizes, and at different distances from the forest edge.Principal FindingsIn the Atlantic forests of Brazil, we found that the buffering effect of forests reduced maximum outside temperatures by one third or more at ground level within a forest, with the buffering effect being stronger below-ground than one metre above-ground. The temperature buffering effect of forests was, however, reduced near forest edges with the edge effect extending up to 20 m inside the forest. The heavily fragmented nature of the Brazilian Atlantic forest means that 12% of the remaining biome experiences altered microclimate conditions.ConclusionsOur results add further information about the extent of edge effects in the Atlantic Forest, and we suggest that maintaining a low perimeter-to-area ratio may be a judicious method for minimizing the amount of forest area that experiences altered microclimatic conditions in this ecosystem.

Habitat loss is the primary driver of biodiversity decline worldwide, but the effects of fragmentation (the spatial arrangement of remaining habitat) are debated. We tested the hypothesis that forest fragmentation sensitivity—affected by avoidance of habitat edges—should be driven by historical exposure to, and therefore species’ evolutionary responses to disturbance. Using a database containing 73 datasets collected worldwide (encompassing 4489 animal species), we found that the proportion of fragmentation-sensitive species was nearly three times as high in regions with low rates of historical disturbance compared with regions with high rates of disturbance (i.e., fires, glaciation, hurricanes, and deforestation). These disturbances coincide with a latitudinal gradient in which sensitivity increases sixfold at low versus high latitudes. We conclude that conservation efforts to limit edges created by fragmentation will be most important in the world’s tropical forests.

Bird communities in tropical forests are strongly aff ected by both patch area and habitat edges. Th e fact that both eff ects are intrinsically confounded in space raises questions about how these two widely reported ecological patterns interact, and whether they are independent or simply diff erent spatial manifestations of the same phenomenon. Moreover, do small patches of secondary forest, in landscapes where the most sensitive species have gone locally extinct, exhibit similar patterns to those previously observed in fragmented and continuous primary forests? We addressed these questions by testing edge-related diff erences in vegetation structure and bird community composition at 31 sites in fragmented and continuous landscapes in the imperilled Atlantic forest of Brazil. Over a two-year period, birds were captured with mist nets to a standardized eff ort of 680 net-hours at each site (~22 000 net-hours resulting in 3381 captures from 114 species). We found that the bird community in patches of secondary forest was degraded in species composition compared to primary continuous forest, but still exhibited a strong response to edge eff ects. In fragmented secondary forests, edge and area eff ects also interacted, such that the magnitude of edge to interior diff erences on bird community composition declined markedly with patch size. Th e change in bird species composition between forest interiors and edges was similar to the change in community composition between large and small patches (because species had congruent responses to edge and area), but after controlling for edge eff ects community composition was no longer aff ected by patch area. Our results show that although secondary forests hold an impoverished bird community, ecological patterns such as area and edge eff ects are similar to those reported for primary forests. Our data provide further evidence that edge eff ects are the main drivers of area eff ects in fragmented landscapes.

1. In recent years, there has been a fast development of models that adjust for imperfect detection. These models have revolutionized the analysis of field data, and their use has repeatedly demonstrated the importance of sampling design and data quality. There are, however, several practical limitations associated with the use of detectability models which restrict their relevance to tropical conservation science.2. We outline the main advantages of detectability models, before examining their limitations associated with their applicability to the analysis of tropical communities, rare species and large-scale data sets. Finally, we discuss whether detection probability needs to be controlled before and/or after data collection.3. Models that adjust for imperfect detection allow ecologists to assess data quality by estimating uncertainty and to obtain adjusted ecological estimates of populations and communities. Importantly, these models have allowed informed decisions to be made about the conservation and management of target species.4. Data requirements for obtaining unadjusted estimates are substantially lower than for detectability-adjusted estimates, which require relatively high detection/recapture probabilities and a number of repeated surveys at each location. These requirements can be difficult to meet in large-scale environmental studies where high levels of spatial replication are needed, or in the tropics where communities are composed of many naturally rare species. However, while imperfect detection can only be adjusted statistically, covariates of detection probability can also be controlled through study design. Using three study cases where we controlled for covariates of detection probability through sampling design, we show that the variation in unadjusted ecological estimates from nearly 100 species was qualitatively the same as that obtained from adjusted estimates. Finally, we discuss that the decision as to whether one should control for covariates of detection probability through study design or statistical analyses should be dependent on study objectives.5. Synthesis and applications. Models that adjust for imperfect detection are an important part of an ecologist's toolkit, but they should not be uniformly adopted in all studies. Ecologists should never let the constraints of models dictate which questions should be pursued or how the data should be analysed, and detectability models are no exception. We argue for pluralism in scientific methods, particularly where cost-effective applied ecological science is needed to inform conservation policy at a range of different scales and in many different systems.