No abstract

Habitat loss is the principal threat to species. How much habitat remains-and how quickly it is shrinking-are implicitly included in the way the International Union for Conservation of Nature determines a species' risk of extinction. Many endangered species have habitats that are also fragmented to different extents. Thus, ideally, fragmentation should be quantified in a standard way in risk assessments. Although mapping fragmentation from satellite imagery is easy, efficient techniques for relating maps of remaining habitat to extinction risk are few. Purely spatial metrics from landscape ecology are hard to interpret and do not address extinction directly. Spatially explicit metapopulation models link fragmentation to extinction risk, but standard models work only at small scales. Counterintuitively, these models predict that a species in a large, contiguous habitat will fare worse than one in 2 tiny patches. This occurs because although the species in the large, contiguous habitat has a low probability of extinction, recolonization cannot occur if there are no other patches to provide colonists for a rescue effect. For 4 ecologically comparable bird species of the North Central American highland forests, we devised metapopulation models with area-weighted self-colonization terms; this reflected repopulation of a patch from a remnant of individuals that survived an adverse event. Use of this term gives extra weight to a patch in its own rescue effect. Species assigned least risk status were comparable in long-term extinction risk with those ranked as threatened. This finding suggests that fragmentation has had a substantial negative effect on them that is not accounted for in their Red List category.

Habitat loss and attendant fragmentation threaten the existence of many species. Conserving these species requires a straightforward and objective method that quantifies how these factors affect their survival. Therefore, we compared a variety of metrics that assess habitat fragmentation in bird ranges, using the geographical ranges of 127 forest endemic passerine birds inhabiting the Atlantic Forest of Brazil. A common, non-biological metric — cumulative area of size-ranked fragments within a species range — was misleading, as the least threatened species had the most habitat fragmentation. Instead, we recommend a modified version of metapopulation capacity. The metric links detailed spatial information on fragment sizes and spatial configuration to the birds’ abilities to occupy and disperse across large areas (100,000+ km2). In the Atlantic Forest, metapopulation capacities were largely bimodal, in that most species’ ranges had either low capacity (high risk of extinction) or high capacity (very small risk of extinction). This pattern persisted within taxonomically and ecologically homogenous groups, indicating that it is driven by fragmentation patterns and not differences in species ecology. Worryingly, we found IUCN considers some 28 of 58 species in the low metapopulation capacity cluster to not be threatened. We propose that assessing the effect of fragmentation will separate species more clearly into distinct risk categories than does a simple assessment of remaining habitat.