2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108368
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Indirect effects of habitat loss via habitat fragmentation: A cross-taxa analysis of forest-dependent species

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

5
61
0
8

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 104 publications
(79 citation statements)
references
References 70 publications
5
61
0
8
Order By: Relevance
“…We tested how within‐patch dynamics—particularly the early life stages of seedling recruitment—played a role in long‐term maintenance of tree diversity in fragments. As expected, edge effects reduced diversity (Püttker et al., 2020): intact forest and large fragments had higher diversity (Figure 3) than small fragments and fragments without interior habitat. Rather than demographic stochasticity or fitness differences, diversity loss occurred due to a weakening of the stabilizing effect of conspecific negative density dependence (CNDD, Figure 5).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 75%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…We tested how within‐patch dynamics—particularly the early life stages of seedling recruitment—played a role in long‐term maintenance of tree diversity in fragments. As expected, edge effects reduced diversity (Püttker et al., 2020): intact forest and large fragments had higher diversity (Figure 3) than small fragments and fragments without interior habitat. Rather than demographic stochasticity or fitness differences, diversity loss occurred due to a weakening of the stabilizing effect of conspecific negative density dependence (CNDD, Figure 5).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 75%
“…We also found that many small patches maintained less diversity than one large patch (Figure 3), highlighting the importance of habitat quality (Haddad, Gonzalez, et al., 2017; Püttker et al., 2020). Thus, ‘high‐quality’ habitat can be qualified as areas where edge effects do not compromise the mechanisms of species coexistence.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 59%
“…Other anthropogenic disturbances also affect mammal guild structure and trophic organization (e.g., 10 , 83 85 ). Although accounting for only weak explanatory power (e.g., 6%; p = 0.04), high-intensity fire disturbance (> 200 hotpixels per 1-km grid cell) on average amplified the level of defaunation by ~ 10%.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, since the European conquest over five centuries ago, Neotropical biodiversity has been gradually depleted in many major ecoregions (e.g., 6 8 ). Several chronic anthropogenic drivers, including habitat loss, overhunting, intentional or accidental wildfires, diseases and the introduction of alien species 9 , 10 increasingly threaten the Neotropical mammal fauna. A large body of evidence to date reveals the overwhelming decline of local to regional scale Neotropical mammal diversity, except for some of the most remote areas far removed from human settlements such as large tracts of roadless Amazonian forests 11 .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although the Atlantic Forest has only 13% of its original area covered by native vegetation, the corridor along the AFT is relatively well maintained. Habitat amount in landscapes has emerged as the most important determinant of species richness of all groups of organisms worldwide [ 54 ], particularly in the Atlantic Forest of South America [ 55 , 56 ]. Forest cover may be a proxy for habitat amount at large spatial scales, such as the whole Atlantic Forest biome, even though at local spatial scales this assumption may not hold [ 57 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%