The Habitat Amount Hypothesis implies negative effects of habitat fragmentation on species richness and occurrence

Abstract

The Habitat Amount Hypothesis (HAH) predicts that species richness, abundance or occurrence in a habitat site increases with the amount of habitat in the 'local landscape' defined by an appropriate distance around the site, with no distinct effects of the size of the habitat patch in which the site is located. It has been stated that a consequence of the HAH, if supported, would be that it is unnecessary to consider habitat configuration to predict or manage biodiversity patterns, and that conservation strategies should focus on habitat amount regardless of fragmentation. Here, I assume that the HAH holds and apply the HAH predictions to all habitat sites over entire landscapes that have the same amount of habitat but differ in habitat configuration. By doing so, I show that the HAH actually implies clearly negative effects of habitat fragmentation, and of other spatial configuration changes, on species richness, abundance or occurrence in all or many of the habitat sites in the landscape, and that these habitat configuration effects are distinct from those of habitat amount in the landscape. I further show that, contrary to current interpretations, the HAH is compatible with a steeper slope of the species-area relationship for fragmented than for continuous habitat, and with higher species richness or abundance for a single large patch than for several small patches with the same total area (SLOSS). This suggests the need to revise the ways in which the HAH has been interpreted and can be actually tested. The misinterpretation of the HAH has arisen from confounding and overlooking the differences in the spatial scales involved: the individual habitat site at which the HAH gives predictions, the local landscape around an individual site, and the landscapes or regions (with multiple habitat sites and different local landscapes) that need to be analysed and managed. The HAH has been erroneously viewed as negating or diminishing the relevance of fragmentation effects, while it actually supports the importance of habitat configuration for biodiversity. I conclude that, even in the cases where the HAH holds, habitat fragmentation and configuration are important for understanding and managing species distributions in the landscape.Understanding how habitat amount and configuration affect species richness, occurrence or abundance has been one of the major focuses of research in ecology and biogeography, given its central importance for conservation planning and for landscape (or seascape) management. In particular, there is a long-standing and vigorous debate on the relative importance of habitat amount (total area of habitat) and habitat spatial configuration (the spatial arrangement of the habitat) for biodiversity patterns and persistence (Wilcox & Murphy, 1985;Fahrig, 2013;Fahrig, 2015;Haddad et al., 2015;Hanski, 2015; Martin, 2018). The most widely accepted conceptual model, and the predominant consensus among ecologists, has been that both habitat amount and configuration (e.g. fragmentation) matter and need to ...