Loss of the world's smallest forests

Contrasting range changes and drivers of four forest foundation species under future climate change in China

Forest foundation species, vital for shaping community structure and dynamics through non-trophic level interactions, are key to forest succession and sustainability. Despite their ecological importance, the habitat ranges of these species in China and their responses to future climate change remain unclear. Our study employed the optimal MaxEnt model to assess the range shifts and their essential drivers of four typical forest foundation species from three climatic zones in China under climate scenarios, including Acer tegmentosum, Acer pseudo-sieboldianum (temperate zone), Quercus glandulifera (subtropical zone), and Ficus hispida (tropical zone). The optimal MaxEnt model exhibited high evaluation indices (AUC values > 0.90) for the four foundation species, indicating excellent predictive performance. Currently, we observed that A. tegmentosum and A. pseudo-sieboldianum are predominantly inhabited temperate forest areas in northeastern China, Q. glandulifera is primarily concentrated in subtropical forests in southeastern China, and F. hispida is mainly distributed across the tropical forests in southern China. Climate factors, particularly temperature, emerged as the primary environmental factors influencing the potential range of forest foundation species. Moreover, precipitation strongly influenced the potential range of A. tegmentosum and A. pseudo-sieboldianum, while elevation exhibited a greater impact on the range of Q. glandulifera and F. hispida. Under future climate scenarios, suitable areas for A. tegmentosum and A. pseudo-sieboldianum tend to expand southward, F. hispida tends to expand northward, while Q. glandulifera exhibited a tendency to contract towards the center. This study advances our understanding of the spatial and temporal dynamics of forest foundation species in China under climate change, providing critical insights for conservation efforts and sustainable forest management practices.

Overcoming confusion and stigma in habitat fragmentation research

Anthropogenic habitat loss is widely recognized as a primary environmental concern. By contrast, debates on the effects of habitat fragmentation persist. To facilitate overcoming these debates, here we: (i) review the state of the literature on habitat fragmentation, finding widespread confusion and stigma; (ii) identify consequences of this for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem management; and (iii) suggest ways in which research can move forward to resolve these problems. Confusion is evident from the 25 most-cited fragmentation articles published between 2017 and 2021. These articles use five distinct concepts of habitat fragmentation, only one of which clearly distinguishes habitat fragmentation from habitat area and other factors ('fragmentation per se'). Stigmatization is evident from our new findings that fragmentation papers are more charged with negative sentiments when compared to papers from other subfields in the environmental sciences, and that fragmentation papers with more negative sentiments are cited more. While most empirical studies of habitat fragmentation per se find neutral or positive effects on species and biodiversity outcomes, which implies that small habitat patches have a high cumulative value, confusion and stigma in reporting and discussing such results have led to suboptimal habitat protection policy. For example, government agencies, conservation organizations, and land trusts impose minimum habitat patch sizes on habitat protection. Given the high cumulative value of small patches, such policies mean that many opportunities for conservation are being missed. Our review highlights the importance of reducing confusion and stigma in habitat fragmentation research. To this end, we propose implementing study designs in which multiple sample landscapes are selected across independent gradients of habitat amount and fragmentation, measured as patch density. We show that such designs are possible for forest habitat across Earth's biomes. As such study designs are adopted, and as language becomes more precise, we expect that confusion and stigma in habitat fragmentation research will dissipate. We also expect important breakthroughs in understanding the situations where effects of habitat fragmentation per se are neutral, positive, or negative, and the reasons for these differences. Ultimately this will improve efficacy of area-based conservation policies, to the benefit of biodiversity and people.

Principles for area-based biodiversity conservation

Recent international agreements have strengthened and expanded commitments to protect and restore native habitats for biodiversity protection ("area-based biodiversity conservation"). Nevertheless, biodiversity conservation is hindered because how such commitments should be implemented has been strongly debated, which can lead to suboptimal habitat protection decisions. We argue that, despite the debates, there are three essential principles for area-based biodiversity conservation. These principles are related to habitat geographic coverage, amount, and connectivity. They emerge from evidence that, while large areas of nature are important and must be protected, conservation or restoration of multiple small habitat patches is also critical for global conservation, particularly in regions with high land use. We contend that the many area-based conservation initiatives expected in the coming decades should follow the principles we identify, regardless of ongoing debates. Considering the importance of biodiversity for maintenance of ecosystem services, we suggest that this would bring widespread societal benefits.

Seasonal patterns and protection status of stopover hotspots for migratory landbirds in the eastern United States

Migratory landbirds in North America are experiencing dramatic population declines. Although considerable research and conservation attention have been directed toward these birds' breeding and wintering grounds, far less is known about the areas used as stopover sites during migration. To address this knowledge gap, we used 5 years of weather surveillance radar data to map seasonal stopover densities of landbirds across the eastern United States during spring and autumn migration. We identified stopover hotspots covering 2.47 million ha that consistently support high densities of migratory landbirds in spring or autumn. However, only 16.7% of these sites are hotspots in both seasons. The distribution of hotspots is shifted eastward in autumn compared with spring. Deciduous forest is the most important habitat type in both seasons, with deciduous forest fragments embedded in broadly deforested regions having the highest probability of being hotspots. The concentration of birds in these forest fragments is stronger in spring, especially in the agricultural Midwest. We found generally higher stopover densities in protected areas than in unprotected areas in both seasons. Nonetheless, only one-third of identified stopover hotspots have some sort of protected status, and more than half of these protected hotspots are subject to extractive uses. A well-distributed network of well-protected stopover areas, complementing conservation efforts on the breeding and wintering grounds, is essential to sustaining healthy populations of migratory landbirds in North America.

Obstruction of biodiversity conservation by minimum patch size criteria

Minimum patch size criteria for habitat protection reflect the conservation principle that a single large (SL) patch of habitat has higher biodiversity than several small (SS) patches of the same total area (SL > SS). Nonetheless, this principle is often incorrect, and biodiversity conservation requires placing more emphasis on protection of large numbers of small patches (SS > SL). We used a global database reporting the abundances of species across hundreds of patches to assess the SL > SS principle in systems where small patches are much smaller than the typical minimum patch size criteria applied for biodiversity conservation (i.e., ∼85% of patches <100 ha). The 76 metacommunities we examined included 4401 species in 1190 patches. From each metacommunity, we resampled species-area accumulation curves to evaluate how biodiversity responded to habitat existing as a few large patches or as many small patches. Counter to the SL > SS principle and consistent with previous syntheses, species richness accumulated more rapidly when adding several small patches (45.2% SS > SL vs. 19.9% SL > SS) to reach the same cumulative area, even for the very small patches in our data set. Responses of taxa to habitat fragmentation differed, which suggests that when a given total area of habitat is to be protected, overall biodiversity conservation will be most effective if that habitat is composed of as many small patches as possible, plus a few large ones. Because minimum patch size criteria often require larger patches than the small patches we examined, our results suggest that such criteria hinder efforts to protect biodiversity.

Combining environmental niche models, multi-grain analyses, and species traits identifies pervasive effects of land use on butterfly biodiversity across Italy

Understanding how species respond to human activities is paramount to ecology and conservation science, one outstanding question being how large-scale patterns in land use affect biodiversity. To facilitate answering this question, we propose a novel analytical framework that combines environmental niche models, multi-grain analyses, and species traits. We illustrate the framework capitalizing on the most extensive dataset compiled to date for the butterflies of Italy (106,514 observations for 288 species), assessing how agriculture and urbanization have affected biodiversity of these taxa from landscape to regional scales (3-48 km grains) across the country while accounting for its steep climatic gradients. Multiple lines of evidence suggest pervasive and scale-dependent effects of land use on butterflies in Italy. While land use explained patterns in species richness primarily at grains ≤12 km, idiosyncratic responses in species highlighted "winners" and "losers" across human-dominated regions. Detrimental effects of agriculture and urbanization emerged from landscape (3-km grain) to regional (48-km grain) scales, disproportionally affecting small butterflies and butterflies with a short flight curve. Human activities have therefore reorganized the biogeography of Italian butterflies, filtering out species with poor dispersal capacity and narrow niche breadth not only from local assemblages, but also from regional species pools. These results suggest that global conservation efforts neglecting large-scale patterns in land use risk falling short of their goals, even for taxa typically assumed to persist in small natural areas (e.g., invertebrates). Our study also confirms that consideration of spatial scales will be crucial to implementing effective conservation actions in the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. In this context, applications of the proposed analytical framework have broad potential to identify which mechanisms underlie biodiversity change at different spatial scales.

Landscape-scale habitat fragmentation is positively related to biodiversity, despite patch-scale ecosystem decay

Positive effects of habitat patch size on biodiversity are often extrapolated to infer negative effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity at landscape scales. However, such cross-scale extrapolations typically fail. A recent, landmark, patch-scale analysis (Chase et al., 2020, Nature 584, 238-243) demonstrates positive patch size effects on biodiversity, that is, 'ecosystem decay' in small patches. Other authors have already extrapolated this result to infer negative fragmentation effects, that is, higher biodiversity in a few large than many small patches of the same cumulative habitat area. We test whether this extrapolation is valid. We find that landscape-scale patterns are opposite to their analogous patch-scale patterns: for sets of patches with equal total habitat area, species richness and evenness decrease with increasing mean size of the patches comprising that area, even when considering only species of conservation concern. Preserving small habitat patches will, therefore, be key to sustain biodiversity amidst ongoing environmental crises.