Global synthesis of conservation studies reveals the importance of small habitat patches for biodiversity

Wintle, Brendan A.; Kujala, Heini; Whitehead, Amy; Cameron, A.; Veloz, Sam; Kukkala, Aija S.; Moilanen, Atte; Gordon, Ascelin; Lentini, Pia E.; Cadenhead, Natasha C. R.; Bekessy, Sarah A.

doi:10.1073/pnas.1813051115

Cited by 387 publications

(271 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

247

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The findings of this review suggest that this bias towards large, contiguous areas does a disservice to the conservation of biodiversity. Some authors have even argued that small patches have a particularly important role for biodiversity (Bennett & Arcese, ; Wintle et al, ). The results of this review support the notion that much more emphasis should be placed on conservation of small patches than is currently the case.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Fahrig

2020

Global Ecol Biogeogr

193

148

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The principle that a single large habitat patch should hold more species than several small patches totalling the same area (SL > SS) is used by conservation agencies to favour protection of large, contiguous areas. Previous reviews of empirical studies have found the opposite, SS > SL, creating the single large or several small (SLOSS) debate. Aims Review the empirical and theoretical SLOSS literature; identify potential mechanisms underlying the SS > SL pattern; evaluate these where possible. Location Global. Time period 1976–2018. Major taxa Plants, invertebrates, vertebrates. Methods Literature review. Results Like previous reviews, I found that SS > SL dominates empirical findings. This pattern remained, although it was somewhat weakened, in studies where sampling intensity was proportional to patch size. I found six classes of theory, and conducted five preliminary evaluations of theory. None of the predictions was supported. The SS > SL pattern held for specialist species groups, suggesting it does not result from incursion by generalists into small patches. I found no evidence for the prediction that the reverse pattern (SL > SS) becomes more common over time since patch creation, through gradual species losses from SS. I found no difference between results for natural and anthropogenic patches. There was also no evidence for predictions that SL > SS is more common when the matrix is more hostile, or for stable than ephemeral patches. Main conclusions Most empirical comparisons find SS > SL. While there are several potential causes, more empirical work is needed to identify those at play. Meanwhile, conservation practitioners should understand that there is no ecological evidence supporting a general principle to preserve large, contiguous habitat areas rather than multiple small areas of the same total size.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Fahrig

2020

Global Ecol Biogeogr

193

148

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Consequently, the future of biodiversity in many regions of Europe may be determined more by the fate of these small patches than by changes to the usage of the matrix (Wessely et al, 2017;Wintle et al, 2019 (Giupponi, Ramanzin, Sturaro, & Fuser, 2006;Henle et al, 2008). As a consequence, major changes to land-use patterns and thus species distributions are unlikely unless legal or economical frameworks change more drastically than supposed in the SSP scenarios and our ABM assumptions.…”

Section: Do We Need Land-use Scenarios For Predicting Future Speciementioning

confidence: 96%

A socio‐ecological model for predicting impacts of land‐use and climate change on regional plant diversity in the Austrian Alps

Dullinger

Gattringer

Wessely

et al. 2020

Global Change Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate and land‐use change jointly affect the future of biodiversity. Yet, biodiversity scenarios have so far concentrated on climatic effects because forecasts of land use are rarely available at appropriate spatial and thematic scales. Agent‐based models (ABMs) represent a potentially powerful but little explored tool for establishing thematically and spatially fine‐grained land‐use scenarios. Here, we use an ABM parameterized for 1,329 agents, mostly farmers, in a Central European model region, and simulate the changes to land‐use patterns resulting from their response to three scenarios of changing socio‐economic conditions and three scenarios of climate change until the mid of the century. Subsequently, we use species distribution models to, first, analyse relationships between the realized niches of 832 plant species and climatic gradients or land‐use types, respectively, and, second, to project consequent changes in potential regional ranges of these species as triggered by changes in both the altered land‐use patterns and the changing climate. We find that both drivers determine the realized niches of the studied plants, with land use having a stronger effect than any single climatic variable in the model. Nevertheless, the plants' future distributions appear much more responsive to climate than to land‐use changes because alternative future socio‐economic backgrounds have only modest impact on land‐use decisions in the model region. However, relative effects of climate and land‐use changes on biodiversity may differ drastically in other regions, especially where landscapes are still dominated by natural or semi‐natural habitat. We conclude that agent‐based modelling of land use is able to provide scenarios at scales relevant to individual species distribution and suggest that coupling ABMs with models of species' range change should be intensified to provide more realistic biodiversity forecasts.

show abstract

“…In addition, a small number of large protected areas may increase the chance that the whole network becomes dominated by a few highly competitive species (Schippers et al ). Given the potentially negative outcomes for a small number of large protected areas, managers may instead opt for a large number of smaller protected areas (Higgs & Usher ; Simberloff & Abele ; Wintle et al ). However, a large number of smaller locations may be unable to support species with large resource requirements, and runs contrary to principles from species–area relationships and the theory of island biogeography (Diamond ; Tjørve ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Imperfect detection alters the outcome of management strategies for protected areas

Hammill

Clements

2020

Ecology Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Designing protected area configurations to maximise biodiversity is a critical conservation goal. The configuration of protected areas can significantly impact the richness and identity of the species found there; one large patch supports larger populations but can facilitate competitive exclusion. Conversely, many small habitats spreads risk but may exclude predators that typically require large home ranges. Identifying how best to design protected areas is further complicated by monitoring programs failing to detect species. Here we test the consequences of different protected area configurations using multi‐trophic level experimental microcosms. We demonstrate that for a given total size, many small patches generate higher species richness, are more likely to contain predators, and have fewer extinctions compared to single large patches. However, the relationship between the size, number of patches, and species richness was greatly affected by insufficient monitoring, and could lead to incorrect conservation decisions, especially for higher trophic levels.

show abstract

Global synthesis of conservation studies reveals the importance of small habitat patches for biodiversity

Cited by 387 publications

References 45 publications

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

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

A socio‐ecological model for predicting impacts of land‐use and climate change on regional plant diversity in the Austrian Alps

Imperfect detection alters the outcome of management strategies for protected areas

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About