{"title":"在质量更高、基质更均匀的景观中,破碎化本身对斑块占有率的影响更强、更积极","authors":"Carmen Galán-Acedo, Lenore Fahrig","doi":"10.1111/ecog.07462","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Habitat fragmentation per se - independent of habitat amount - often increases patch occupancy, possibly because patches are closer together in landscapes with higher fragmentation per se, which should increase dispersal success. Here, we ask whether this effect is influenced by the quality and/or heterogeneity of the landscape matrix, i.e. the non-habitat portion of the landscape. Specifically, we expect the positive effect of fragmentation per seshould be accentuated when matrix quality is high, reducing dispersal mortality. In contrast, when matrix quality is low, high dispersal mortality should lead to fewer colonisations, and accumulation of extinctions across the smaller patches in a more-fragmented landscape could lead to negative effects of fragmentation per se. Additionally, matrix heterogeneity could obscure fragmentation effects, as the link between habitat spatial distribution and between-patch dispersal becomes less predictable. We test these ideas using Glanville fritillary butterfly <i>Melitaea cinxia</i> occupancy data for 4291 habitat patches in the Åland Islands, Finland. Habitat patches for the study species are discrete and well-defined areas where at least one of the two host species occurs. Adult individuals disperse from habitat patches, spending time in the landscape matrix while searching for new habitat patches. Our predictions were mostly supported. Fragmentation effects were more strongly positive when matrix quality was high; however, we did not see the predicted negative effect of fragmentation per se in landscapes with low matrix quality. As predicted, fragmentation effects on patch occupancy were weaker in landscapes with a more heterogeneous matrix. Our findings may explain why fragmentation effects are often weak. They also suggest that the moderating effects of matrix quality and heterogeneity should be explicitly considered when interpreting effects of habitat fragmentation per se on species distributions.","PeriodicalId":51026,"journal":{"name":"Ecography","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The effects of fragmentation per se on patch occupancy are stronger and more positive in a landscape with a higher quality and more homogeneous matrix\",\"authors\":\"Carmen Galán-Acedo, Lenore Fahrig\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ecog.07462\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Habitat fragmentation per se - independent of habitat amount - often increases patch occupancy, possibly because patches are closer together in landscapes with higher fragmentation per se, which should increase dispersal success. Here, we ask whether this effect is influenced by the quality and/or heterogeneity of the landscape matrix, i.e. the non-habitat portion of the landscape. Specifically, we expect the positive effect of fragmentation per seshould be accentuated when matrix quality is high, reducing dispersal mortality. In contrast, when matrix quality is low, high dispersal mortality should lead to fewer colonisations, and accumulation of extinctions across the smaller patches in a more-fragmented landscape could lead to negative effects of fragmentation per se. Additionally, matrix heterogeneity could obscure fragmentation effects, as the link between habitat spatial distribution and between-patch dispersal becomes less predictable. We test these ideas using Glanville fritillary butterfly <i>Melitaea cinxia</i> occupancy data for 4291 habitat patches in the Åland Islands, Finland. Habitat patches for the study species are discrete and well-defined areas where at least one of the two host species occurs. Adult individuals disperse from habitat patches, spending time in the landscape matrix while searching for new habitat patches. Our predictions were mostly supported. Fragmentation effects were more strongly positive when matrix quality was high; however, we did not see the predicted negative effect of fragmentation per se in landscapes with low matrix quality. As predicted, fragmentation effects on patch occupancy were weaker in landscapes with a more heterogeneous matrix. Our findings may explain why fragmentation effects are often weak. They also suggest that the moderating effects of matrix quality and heterogeneity should be explicitly considered when interpreting effects of habitat fragmentation per se on species distributions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51026,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ecography\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ecography\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.07462\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecography","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.07462","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
The effects of fragmentation per se on patch occupancy are stronger and more positive in a landscape with a higher quality and more homogeneous matrix
Habitat fragmentation per se - independent of habitat amount - often increases patch occupancy, possibly because patches are closer together in landscapes with higher fragmentation per se, which should increase dispersal success. Here, we ask whether this effect is influenced by the quality and/or heterogeneity of the landscape matrix, i.e. the non-habitat portion of the landscape. Specifically, we expect the positive effect of fragmentation per seshould be accentuated when matrix quality is high, reducing dispersal mortality. In contrast, when matrix quality is low, high dispersal mortality should lead to fewer colonisations, and accumulation of extinctions across the smaller patches in a more-fragmented landscape could lead to negative effects of fragmentation per se. Additionally, matrix heterogeneity could obscure fragmentation effects, as the link between habitat spatial distribution and between-patch dispersal becomes less predictable. We test these ideas using Glanville fritillary butterfly Melitaea cinxia occupancy data for 4291 habitat patches in the Åland Islands, Finland. Habitat patches for the study species are discrete and well-defined areas where at least one of the two host species occurs. Adult individuals disperse from habitat patches, spending time in the landscape matrix while searching for new habitat patches. Our predictions were mostly supported. Fragmentation effects were more strongly positive when matrix quality was high; however, we did not see the predicted negative effect of fragmentation per se in landscapes with low matrix quality. As predicted, fragmentation effects on patch occupancy were weaker in landscapes with a more heterogeneous matrix. Our findings may explain why fragmentation effects are often weak. They also suggest that the moderating effects of matrix quality and heterogeneity should be explicitly considered when interpreting effects of habitat fragmentation per se on species distributions.
期刊介绍:
ECOGRAPHY publishes exciting, novel, and important articles that significantly advance understanding of ecological or biodiversity patterns in space or time. Papers focusing on conservation or restoration are welcomed, provided they are anchored in ecological theory and convey a general message that goes beyond a single case study. We encourage papers that seek advancing the field through the development and testing of theory or methodology, or by proposing new tools for analysis or interpretation of ecological phenomena. Manuscripts are expected to address general principles in ecology, though they may do so using a specific model system if they adequately frame the problem relative to a generalized ecological question or problem.
Purely descriptive papers are considered only if breaking new ground and/or describing patterns seldom explored. Studies focused on a single species or single location are generally discouraged unless they make a significant contribution to advancing general theory or understanding of biodiversity patterns and processes. Manuscripts merely confirming or marginally extending results of previous work are unlikely to be considered in Ecography.
Papers are judged by virtue of their originality, appeal to general interest, and their contribution to new developments in studies of spatial and temporal ecological patterns. There are no biases with regard to taxon, biome, or biogeographical area.