In a review of landscape-scale empirical studies, Fahrig (2017a) found that ecological responses to habitat fragmentation per se (fragmentation independent of habitat amount) were usually non-significant (> 70% of responses) and that 76% of significant relationships were positive, with species abundance, occurrence, richness, and other response variables increasing with habitat fragmentation per se. Fahrig concluded that to date there is no empirical evidence supporting the widespread assumption that a group of small habitat patches generally has lower ecological value than large patches of the same total area. Fletcher et al.(2018) dispute this conclusion, arguing that the literature to date indicates generally negative ecological effects of habitat fragmentation per se. They base their argument largely on extrapolation from patchscale patterns and mechanisms (effects of patch size and isolation, and edge effects) to landscape-scale effects of habitat fragmentation. We argue that such extrapolation is unreliable because: (1) it ignores other mechanisms, especially those acting at landscape scales (e.g., increased habitat diversity, spreading of risk, landscape complementation) that can counteract effects of the documented patch-scale mechanisms; and (2) extrapolation of a small-scale mechanism to a large-scale pattern is not evidence of that pattern but, rather a prediction that must be tested at the larger scale. Such tests were the subject of Fahrig's review. We find no support for Fletcher et al.'s claim that biases in Fahrig's review would alter its conclusions. We encourage further landscape-scale empirical studies of effects of habitat fragmentation per se, and research aimed at uncovering the mechanisms that underlie positive fragmentation effects.

Agriculture and development transform forest ecosystems to human-modified landscapes. Decades of research in ecology have generated myriad concepts for the appropriate management of these landscapes. Yet, these concepts are often contradictory and apply at different spatial scales, making the design of biodiversity-friendly landscapes challenging. Here, we combine concepts with empirical support to design optimal landscape scenarios for forest-dwelling species. The supported concepts indicate that appropriately sized landscapes should contain ≥ 40% forest cover, although higher percentages are likely needed in the tropics. Forest cover should be configured with c. 10% in a very large forest patch, and the remaining 30% in many evenly dispersed smaller patches and semi-natural treed elements (e.g. vegetation corridors). Importantly, the patches should be embedded in a high-quality matrix. The proposed landscape scenarios represent an optimal compromise between delivery of goods and services to humans and preserving most forest wildlife, and can therefore guide forest preservation and restoration strategies.

No abstract

The colors of fruits and flowers are traditionally viewed as an adaptation to increase the detectability of plant organs to animal vectors. The detectability of visual signals increases with increasing contrasts between target and background. Contrasts consist of a chromatic aspect (color) and an achromatic aspect (light intensity), which are perceived separately by animals. To evaluate the relative importance of fruits' chromatic and achromatic contrasts for the detection by avian fruit consumers we conducted an experiment with artificial fruits of four different colors in a tropical forest. We displayed the fruits against two different backgrounds, an artificial background and a natural one, because they differed in achromatic properties. We found no effect of the type of background on fruit detection rates. Detection rates differed for the four fruit colors. The probability of detection was explained by the chromatic contrast between fruits and their background, not by the achromatic contrasts. We suggest that birds attend primarily to chromatic contrast probably because these are more reliably detected under variable light conditions. Consistent with this hypothesis, we found habitat-specific differences in the conspicuousness of natural fruit colors in the study area. Fruits of understory species that are subjected to the variable light conditions within a forest displayed higher chromatic contrasts than species growing in the open restinga forest with constant bright illumination. There was no such difference for achromatic contrasts. In sum, we suggest that fruit colors differ between habitats because fruit colors that have strong chromatic contrasts against background can increase plants' reproductive success, particularly under variable light conditions.

SummaryThe colors of fleshy fruits are considered to be a signal to seed-dispersing animals, but their diversity remains poorly understood. Using an avian color space to derive a sensory morphospace for fruit color, we tested four hypotheses of fruit color diversity: fruit colors occupy a limited area of the color space; they are less diverse than flower colors; fruit colors within localities are similar to each other; and fruit color diversity reflects phylogeny.The global fruit color diversity of 948 primarily bird-dispersed plant species and the color diversity of localities were compared with null models of random, unconstrained evolution of fruit color. Fruit color diversity was further compared with the diversity of 1300 flower colors. Tests of phylogenetic effects on fruit color were used to assess the degree of correspondence with phylogeny.Global and local fruit color diversity was limited compared with null models and fruits have achieved only half the color diversity of flowers. Interestingly, we found little indication of phylogenetic conservatism.Constraints resulting from the chemical properties of pigments probably limit global fruit and flower color diversity. Different types of selection on fruits and flowers may further explain the smaller color diversity of fruits.