Why do several small patches hold more species than few large patches?

Fahrig, Lenore

doi:10.1111/geb.13059

Cited by 181 publications

(183 citation statements)

References 96 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

148

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Such a spatial configuration can increase connectivity and resource availability at the landscape scale, improving conservation outcomes (Fahrig et al . 2019; Fahrig 2020). By maintaining a large percentage (~60%) of landscape area in productive lands, the proposed landscape structure should help to reconcile conservation planning with policymaking, land management and priorities of local communities.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, when significant, most responses to fragmentation per se are positive (Fahrig 2017; Table 1). Second, evidence from empirical SLOSS (Single Large or Several Small) studies shows that for a given amount of habitat, more small patches protect more species than fewer large patches (Simberloff & Abele 1982; Quinn & Harrison 1988; Fahrig 2020). Therefore, we suggest that distributing most (e.g.…”

Section: How Should Forest Be Arranged In a Landscape?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2012; Arroyo‐Rodríguez et al . 2013; Liu & Slik 2014; Fahrig 2020). This is particularly valuable in the tropics, where species turnover among localities is very high (Arroyo‐Rodríguez et al .…”

Section: How Should Forest Be Arranged In a Landscape?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We cannot overlook that some forest species are negatively affected by fragmentation per se (Fahrig 2017). In fact, there are a few examples of species groups that do better in single large than in several small patches (Fahrig 2020). Some authors infer that forest interior species in the tropics may require large blocks of natural forest cover (Fletcher et al .…”

Section: How Should Forest Be Arranged In a Landscape?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2019b); (2) embedding productive lands into forest ecosystems (land sharing; Perfecto & Vandermeer 2010); (3) isolating forest from areas used by humans (land sparing; Phalan 2018); (4) creating ecological corridors between forest patches (Gilbert‐Norton et al . 2010); (5) maintaining a small number of large forest patches (Diamond 1975); (6) maintaining a large number of small forest patches (Simberloff & Abele 1982; Fahrig 2017, 2020) and (7) improving the quality of the anthropogenic matrix by reducing agricultural intensification (Hendershot et al . 2020), pesticide use (Sánchez‐Bayo & Wyckhuys 2019) and hunting (Deere et al 2020), and implementing measures to mitigate wildlife road‐kill (Rytwinski & Fahrig 2015; Alamgir et al .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Designing optimal human‐modified landscapes for forest biodiversity conservation

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: How Should Forest Be Arranged In a Landscape?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: How Should Forest Be Arranged In a Landscape?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: How Should Forest Be Arranged In a Landscape?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Designing optimal human‐modified landscapes for forest biodiversity conservation

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Restored kelp facilitates lobster recruitment but not other mid‐trophic macroinvertebrates

Shelamoff

Layton

2022

Aquatic Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. The patch dynamics of foundation species profoundly affects community assembly and thus has important implications for ecosystem restoration.However, it is unclear how restored kelp patches that vary in size and density will influence the establishment of mid-trophic level (MTL) macroinvertebrates, a key functional group in coastal ecosystems.2. Artificial reefs with transplants of the canopy-forming kelp, Ecklonia radiata, were used to quantify the effect of patch size and kelp density on the densities of MTL macroinvertebrates (primarily decapod crustaceans) and on the recruitment of an ecologically important and commercially valuable lobster species.3. Densities of MTL macroinvertebrates, which were dominated by hermit crabs, decreased with increasing patch size but responded inconsistently to kelp density.There was, however, an overall positive relationship between MTL macroinvertebrates and the density of small epifaunal grazers (a potential food source), along with a negative association with cover of understorey foliose algae. 4. In contrast, the total abundance and density of lobster recruits was higher on larger reefs, and reefs with kelp had up to double the number of recruits relative to reefs with no kelp. After 12 months, most of the surviving lobster recruits occurred on reefs supporting low and medium densities of kelp.5. These results show that patchy reef substratum is effective in supporting high densities of some MTL macroinvertebrates, irrespective of kelp presence. Although conversely, larger reefs with restored kelp at naturalor even relatively lowdensities appear critical to the recruitment of lobsters, which could motivate and provide positive feedback for kelp restoration projects in some locations.6. Patch dynamics may be used to support restoration efforts by helping to accelerate the recovery of key species and ecosystem services; however, tradeoffs will exist through different taxa responding to patch characteristics in different ways, some positive and some negative.

show abstract

Environmental filtering and biotic interactions act on different facets of the diversity of benthic assemblages associated with eelgrass

Muller,

Dubois,

Boyé

et al. 2023

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Eelgrass supports diverse benthic communities that ensure a variety of ecosystem functions. To better understand the ecological processes that shape community composition in eelgrass at local and regional scales, taxonomic and functional α‐ and β‐diversity were quantified for communities inhabiting five meadows in France. The extent to which environmental factors affected local and regional benthic communities was quantified by considering their direct and indirect effects (through morphological traits of eelgrass) using piecewise structural equation modeling (pSEM). Communities supported by eelgrass had higher species abundances, as well as taxonomic and functional diversity compared to nearby bare sediments. No significant differences were found between communities from the center relative to the edges of meadows, indicating that both habitats provide similar benefits to biodiversity. The presence of a few abundant species and traits suggests moderate levels of habitat filtering and close associations of certain species with eelgrass. Nevertheless, high turnover of a large number of rare species and traits was observed among meadows, resulting in meadows being characterized by their own distinct communities. High turnover indicates that much of the community is not specific to eelgrass, but rather reflects local species pools. pSEM showed that spatial variation in community composition (β‐diversity) was primarily affected by environmental conditions, with temperature, current velocity, and tidal amplitude being the most significant explanatory variables. Local richness and abundance (α‐diversity) were affected by both environment and morphological traits. Importantly, morphological traits of Zostera marina were also influenced by environmental conditions, revealing cascading effects of the environment on assemblages. In sum, the environment exerted large effects on community structure at both regional and local scales, while plant traits were only pertinent in explaining local diversity. This complex interplay of processes acting at multiple scales with indirect effects should be accounted for in conservation efforts that target the protection of biodiversity.

show abstract

Why do several small patches hold more species than few large patches?

Cited by 181 publications

References 96 publications

Designing optimal human‐modified landscapes for forest biodiversity conservation

Designing optimal human‐modified landscapes for forest biodiversity conservation

Restored kelp facilitates lobster recruitment but not other mid‐trophic macroinvertebrates

Environmental filtering and biotic interactions act on different facets of the diversity of benthic assemblages associated with eelgrass

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About