At the landscape level, birds respond strongly to habitat amount but weakly to fragmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim It is usually thought that habitat fragmentation acts negatively on species survival, and consequently, on biodiversity. Recent literature challenges whether habitat fragmentation per se affects species richness, beyond the effect of habitat area. Theoretical studies have suggested that fragmentation may matter most when the amount of available habitat is small or at intermediate levels. However, a recent review suggests that the effect of fragmentation on species richness is usually positive. Here, we dissect the richness–fragmentation relationship. What is the effect size? Does it depend upon the amount of habitat cover? How do individual species respond to fragmentation? Methods Applying a macroecological approach, we empirically related avian richness and the probability of occurrence (pocc) of individual species to fragmentation (number of patches), after controlling for habitat amount in 991 landscapes, each 100‐km2, in southern Ontario, Canada. Results Species richness was strongly related to total habitat amount, but habitat fragmentation had no detectable additional effect. Individual species’ pocc related strongly to habitat amount. For some species, pocc also related secondarily to habitat fragmentation within landscapes. Logistic models revealed that pocc related significantly negatively to fragmentation after controlling for habitat amount for only ~13% of forest‐ and 18% of open‐habitat species bird species. However, pocc related significantly positively to fragmentation for even greater proportions of species, including some red‐listed species. Fragmentation effects were not stronger at low or intermediate levels of habitat amount within landscapes. Conclusion In earlier studies, negative effects of isolation were observed at the patch level in experimental manipulations. However, at the landscape level, avian species richness in southern Ontario apparently responds primarily to habitat amount and negligibly to fragmentation. We argue that the evidence is inconsistent with the hypothesis that reducing habitat fragmentation per se would be an effective conservation strategy for birds at the landscape level.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".