The DOI matches its Crossref record; 93 of the 93 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
REVIEW: Beyond the fragmentation debate: a conceptual model to predict when habitat configuration really matters
Open accessAbstract
Summary: Research addressing the effects of habitat fragmentation on species, assemblages or ecosystems has been fraught with difficulties, from its conceptual foundation to statistical analyses and interpretation. Yet, it is critical to address such challenges as ecosystems are rapidly being altered across the world. Many studies have concluded that effects of habitat loss exceed those of fragmentation per se, that is, the degree to which a given amount of habitat is broken apart. There is also evidence from different biomes and taxa that habitat configuration, that is, the spatial arrangement of habitat at a given time, may influence several landscape processes such as functional connectivity, edge and matrix effects, and thus population viability. Instead of focusing attention on the relative influence of either habitat loss or fragmentation, we must identify portions of the gradient in habitat amount where configuration effects are most likely to be observed. Here, we suggest that all species are, to a certain degree, sensitive to landscape change and that, assuming a homogeneous matrix, habitat configuration will have a higher influence on species at intermediate values of habitat amount, where configuration has potentially the greatest variability. On the basis of empirical studies and simulations, we expect that species that are relatively tolerant to fragmentation of their habitat will exhibit a wider band where amount and configuration interact compared to species less tolerant to fragmentation. Synthesis and applications. Reducing habitat loss should be a top priority for conservation planners. However, researchers should also investigate the indirect impacts of habitat loss on biodiversity through fragmentation effects. This research aims to identify windows of opportunity where habitat configuration can mitigate to some extent the effects of habitat loss, particularly through the maintenance of functional connectivity.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Effects of Habitat Fragmentation on Biodiversity
Fahrig, L. (2003) · Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132419 · Cited by 7,879
Global Biodiversity: Indicators of Recent Declines
Butchart, S. H. M., Walpole, M., Collen, B., van Strien, A., Scharlemann, J. P. W., Almond, R. E. A., Baillie, J. E. M., Bomhard, B., Brown, C., Bruno, J., et al. (2010) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1187512 · Cited by 4,892
Andrén, H., & Andren, H. (1994) · Oikos · doi:10.2307/3545823 · Cited by 3,037
Primary forests are irreplaceable for sustaining tropical biodiversity
Gibson, L., Lee, T. M., Koh, L. P., Brook, B. W., Gardner, T. A., Barlow, J., Peres, C. A., Bradshaw, C. J. A., Laurance, W. F., Lovejoy, T. E., et al. (2011) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature10425 · Cited by 2,147
Landscape moderation of biodiversity patterns and processes ‐ eight hypotheses
Tscharntke, T., Tylianakis, J. M., Rand, T. A., Didham, R. K., Fahrig, L., Batáry, P., Bengtsson, J., Clough, Y., Crist, T. O., Dormann, C. F., et al. (2012) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1469-185x.2011.00216.x · Cited by 2,134
Ecological Processes That Affect Populations in Complex Landscapes
Dunning, J. B., Danielson, B. J., & Pulliam, H. R. (1992) · Oikos · doi:10.2307/3544901 · Cited by 2,027
Metapopulation Biology: Ecology, Genetics, and Evolution.
Ray, C., Hoopes, M., Hanski, I., & Gilpin, M. E. (1997) · Ecology · doi:10.2307/2265966 · Cited by 1,995
Bowler, D. E., & Benton, T. G. (2005) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1017/s1464793104006645 · Cited by 1,904
Ecosystem Decay of Amazonian Forest Fragments: a 22‐Year Investigation
Laurance, W. F., Lovejoy, T. E., Vasconcelos, H. L., Bruna, E. M., Didham, R. K., Stouffer, P. C., Gascon, C., Bierregaard, R. O., Laurance, S. G., & Sampaio, E. (2002) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.01025.x · Cited by 1,847
Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change
Rosenzweig, C., Karoly, D., Vicarelli, M., Neofotis, P., Wu, Q., Casassa, G., Menzel, A., Root, T. L., Estrella, N., Seguin, B., et al. (2008) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature06937 · Cited by 1,521
Cited by
Is habitat fragmentation good for biodiversity?
Fletcher, R. J., Didham, R. K., Banks-Leite, C., Barlow, J., Ewers, R. M., Rosindell, J., Holt, R. D., Gonzalez, A., Pardini, R., Damschen, E. I., et al. (2018) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2018.07.022 · Cited by 760
Kennedy, C. M., Oakleaf, J. R., Theobald, D. M., Baruch‐Mordo, S., & Kiesecker, J. (2019) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.14549 · Cited by 722
Arroyo-Rodríguez, V., Melo, F. P. L., Martínez-Ramos, M., Bongers, F., Chazdon, R. L., Meave, J. A., Norden, N., Santos, B. A., Leal, I. R., & Tabarelli, M. (2017) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/brv.12231 · Cited by 688
Importance of spatio–temporal connectivity to maintain species experiencing range shifts
Huang, J., Andrello, M., Martensen, A. C., Saura, S., Liu, D., He, J., & Fortin, M. (2020) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/ecog.04716 · Cited by 62
V. H. Safar, N., van der Sande, M., G. R. Schaefer, C. E., S. Magnago, L. F., Martins, S. V., Simonelli, M., & Poorter, L. (2022) · Forest Ecology and Management · doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2022.120395 · Cited by 15
Metadata
- Authors
- Villard, M., & Metzger, J. P.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-01-07
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 309-318
- ISSN
- 0021-8901 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2664
- OpenAlex
- W2026742653
- Cited by
- 403
- References
- 93
- FWCI
- 20.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: REVIEW: Beyond the fragmentation debate: a conceptual model to predict when habitat configuration really matters. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1365-2664.12190
- The paper
- Villard, M., & Metzger, J. P. (2014). REVIEW: Beyond the fragmentation debate: a conceptual model to predict when habitat configuration really matters. Journal of Applied Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12190
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
