SpringerLink
Log in

An early synthesis of the habitat amount hypothesis

  • Short Communication
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Context

The ecological literature is filled with studies highlighting the importance of both habitat loss and fragmentation on biodiversity. The patch concept has been central to these findings, being also at the heart of many ecological theories. Recently, the habitat amount hypothesis has been proposed as an alternative, where the patch concept is put to a rest, and both patch size and patch isolation effects on species richness are reduced to a single gradient: habitat loss in the landscape.

Objectives

As this theory stated clear predictions that could be experimentally tested, many formal tests of the hypothesis have been published recently and this study aims at synthesizing their results.

Methods

A meta-analysis of 13 tests of the habitat amount hypothesis was conducted, to produce a single combined test of the theory.

Results

The 13 tests combined suggest that effects of patch size and isolation, while controlling for habitat amounts, do exist although their overall effect is weak (r = 0.158).

Conclusions

Literal interpretations of the habitat amount hypothesis, where patch size and isolation have absolutely no effect on species richness, are probably oversimplifications of the processes at work. Still, the theory could prove useful as a baseline of the effects of habitat loss, against which patch size and isolation effects must be contrasted.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Germany)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  • Andrén H (1994) Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71:355–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bender DJ, Contreras TA, Fahrig L (1998) Habitat loss and population decline: a meta-analysis of the patch size effect. Ecology 79:517–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR (2009) Introduction to meta-analysis. Wiley, Chichester

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Briers RA (2002) Incorporating connectivity into reserve selection procedures. Biol Conserv 103:77–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Camargo RX, Boucher-Lalonde V, Currie DJ (2018) At the landscape level, birds respond strongly to habitat amount but weakly to fragmentation. Divers Distrib 24:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Didham RK, Kapos V, Ewers RM (2012) Rethinking the conceptual foundations of habitat fragmentation research. Oikos 121:161–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evju M, Sverdrup-Thygeson A (2016) Spatial configuration matters: a test of the habitat amount hypothesis for plants in calcareous grasslands. Landscape Ecol 31:1891–1902

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L (2013) Rethinking patch size and isolation effects: the habitat amount hypothesis. J Biogeogr 40:1649–1663

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L (2015) Just a hypothesis: a reply to Hanski. J Biogeogr 42:993–994

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L (2017) Ecological responses to habitat fragmentation Per Se. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 48:1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman H (1982) Simplified determination of statistical power, magnitude of effect and research sample sizes. Educ Psychol Meas 42:521–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haddad NM, Brudvig LA, Clobert J, Gonzalez KF, Holt RD, Cook WM (2015) Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems. Sci Adv 1:e1500052–e1500052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haddad NM, Gonzalez A, Brudvig LA, Burt MA, Levey DJ, Damschen EI (2017) Experimental evidence does not support the Habitat Amount Hypothesis. Ecography (Cop) 40:48–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanski I (2015) Habitat fragmentation and species richness. J Biogeogr 42:989–993

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubbell SP (2001) The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Law BS, Dickman CR (1998) The use of habitat mosaics by terrestrial vertebrate fauna: implications for conservation and management. Biodivers Conserv 7:323–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leibold MA, Holyoak M, Mouquet N, Amarasekare P, Chase JM, Hoopes MF, Loreau M (2004) The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-scale community ecology. Ecol Lett 7:601–613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levins R (1969) Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental heterogeneity for biological control. Bull Entomol Soc Am 15:237–240

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindgren JP, Cousins SAO (2017) Island biogeography theory outweighs habitat amount hypothesis in predicting plant species richness in small grassland remnants. Landscape Ecol 32:1895–1906

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald ZG, Anderson ID, Acorn JH, Nielsen SE (2018) Decoupling habitat fragmentation from habitat loss: butterfly species mobility obscures fragmentation effects in a naturally fragmented landscape of lake islands. Oecologia 186:11–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margules C, Pressey R (2000) Systematic Conservation Planning. Nature 405:243–253

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Melo GL, Sponchiado J, Cáceres NC, Fahrig L (2017) Testing the habitat amount hypothesis for South American small mammals. Biol Conserv 209:304–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreira EF, da Santos RL, Silveira MS, Boscolo D, Neves ELD, Viana BF (2017) Influence of landscape structure on Euglossini composition in open vegetation environments. Biota Neotrop 17:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piano E, Isaia M, Falasco E, La Morgia V, Soldato G, Bona F (2017) Local versus landscape spatial influence on biodiversity: a case study across five European industrialized areas. Environ Monit Assess 189:126

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pimm SL, Russell GJ, Gittleman JL, Brooks TM (1995) The Future of Biodiversity. Science 269:347–350

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Prugh LR, Hodges KE, Sinclair ARE, Brashares JS (2008) Effect of habitat area and isolation on fragmented animal populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:20770–20775

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pulsford SA, Lindenmayer DB, Driscoll DA (2017) Reptiles and frogs conform to multiple conceptual landscape models in an agricultural landscape. Divers Distrib 23:1408–1422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team (2017) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Core Team, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabelo RM, Bicca-Marques JC, Aragón S, Nelson BW (2017) Are fluvial islands “real” islands for arboreal mammals? Uncovering the effect of patch size under the species–area relationship. J Biogeogr 44:1802–1812

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg KV, Rohrbaugh RW, Barker SE, Hames RS, Lowe JD, Dhondt AA (1999) Land manager’s guide to improving habitat for scarlet tanagers and other forest-interior birds

  • Sala OE, Chapin FS III, Armesto JJ, Berlow E, Bloomfield J, Dirzo R, Leemans R (2000) Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287:1770–1774

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Seibold S, Bässler C, Brandl R, Fahrig L, Förster B, Heurich M, Müller J (2017) An experimental test of the habitat-amount hypothesis for saproxylic beetles in a forested region. Ecology 98:1613–1622

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seiferling I, Proulx R, Wirth C (2014) Disentangling the environmental-heterogeneity–species-diversity relationship along a gradient of human footprint. Ecology 95:2084–2095

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein A, Gerstner K, Kreft H (2014) Environmental heterogeneity as a universal driver of species richness across taxa, biomes and spatial scales. Ecol Lett 17:866–880

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterne JA, Egger M (2005) Regression methods to detect publication and other bias in meta-analysis. In: Rothstein HR, Sutton AJ, Borenstein M (eds) Publication bias in meta-analysis. Prevention, assessment and adjustments. Wiley, Chichester, pp 99–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Strobl S (1998) Towards a list of science priorities for the conservation and management of southern Ontario forests—Results of a workshop. For Chron 74:838–849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tews J, Brose U, Grimm V, Tielbörger K, Wichmann M, Schwager M, Jeltsch F (2004) Animal species diversity driven by habitat heterogeneity/diversity: the importance of keystone structures. J Biogeogr 31:79–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thiele J, Kellner S, Buchholz S, Schirmel J (2018) Connectivity or area: what drives plant species richness in habitat corridors? Landscape Ecol 33:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson FR III, Donovan TM, DeGraaf RM, Faaborg J, Robinson SK (2002) A multi-scale perspective of the effects of forest fragmentation on birds in eastern forests. Stud Avian Biol 25:8–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Torrenta R, Villard MA (2017) A test of the habitat amount hypothesis as an explanation for the species richness of forest bird assemblages. J Biogeogr 44:1791–1801

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viechtbauer W (2010) Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw 36:1–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson DS (1992) Complex interactions in metacommunities, with implications for biodiversity and higher levels of selection. Ecology 73:1984–2000

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Raphaël Proulx, Vincent Maire and Lael Parrott for stimulating discussions on the subject. This manuscript was greatly improved by insightful reviews from Lenore Fahrig, Nick Haddad and Jessica Lindgren. The author acknowledges a grant from Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Chaire de recherche du Canada en Intégrité Écologique, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, 3351, boul. Des Forges, C.P. 500, Trois-Rivières, QC, G9A 5H7, Canada

    Charles A. Martin

Authors
  1. Charles A. Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charles A. Martin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Martin, C.A. An early synthesis of the habitat amount hypothesis. Landscape Ecol 33, 1831–1835 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-018-0716-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-018-0716-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation