Editing Habitat fragmentation

{{Short description|Discontinuities in an organism's environment causing population fragmentation}}
[[File:Grasp africa-vi.png|thumb|right|Predicted fragmentation and destruction of [[Hominidae|Great Ape]] habitat in [[Central Africa]], from the [[GLOBIO Model|GLOBIO]]<ref>{{cite web|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051030100748/http://www.globio.info/region/africa/|archive-date=30 Oct 2005|url-status=dead|url=http://www.globio.info/region/africa/|website=GLOBIO|title=GLOBIO: Africa}}</ref> and GRASP projects in 2002. Areas shown in black and red delineate areas of severe and moderate habitat loss, respectively.]]
[[File:Deforestation central Europe - Rodungen Mitteleuropa.jpg|thumb|250px|[[Deforestation]] in [[Europe]]. France is the most deforested country in Europe, with only 15% of the native vegetation remaining.]]
[[File:Sugarcane Deforestation, Bolivia, 2016-06-15 by Planet Labs.jpg|thumb|250px|[[Deforestation]] in [[Bolivia]], 2016.]]
'''Habitat fragmentation''' describes the emergence of discontinuities (fragmentation) in an organism's preferred [[Environment (biophysical)|environment]] ([[Habitat (ecology)|habitat]]), causing [[population fragmentation]] and  [[ecosystem decay]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Schlaepfer |first1=Daniel R. |last2=Braschler |first2=Brigitte |last3=Rusterholz |first3=Hans-Peter |last4=Baur |first4=Bruno |date=October 2018 |title=Genetic effects of anthropogenic habitat fragmentation on remnant animal and plant populations: a meta-analysis |journal=Ecosphere |language=en |volume=9 |issue=10 |doi=10.1002/ecs2.2488 |bibcode=2018Ecosp...9E2488S |issn=2150-8925|doi-access=free }}</ref> Causes of habitat fragmentation include [[geological]] processes that slowly alter the layout of the physical environment<ref name="SahneyBentonFerry2010LinksDiversityVertebrates">{{cite journal|author=Sahney|first1=S.|last2=Benton|first2=M. J.|last3=Falcon-Lang|first3=H. J.|date=1 December 2010|title=Rainforest collapse triggered Pennsylvanian tetrapod diversification in Euramerica|url=http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/38/12/1079|format=PDF|journal=Geology|volume=38|issue=12|pages=1079–1082|bibcode=2010Geo....38.1079S|doi=10.1130/G31182.1|url-access=subscription}}</ref> (suspected of being [[allopatric speciation|one of the major causes]] of [[speciation]]<ref name="SahneyBentonFerry2010LinksDiversityVertebrates" />), and human activity such as [[Conservation development|land conversion]], which can alter the environment much faster and causes the [[extinction]] of many species. More specifically, [[habitat]] fragmentation is a process by which large and contiguous habitats get divided into smaller, isolated patches of habitats.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Fahrig|first=Lenore|date=2019|title=Habitat fragmentation: A long and tangled tale|journal=Global Ecology and Biogeography|language=en|volume=28|issue=1|pages=33–41|doi=10.1111/geb.12839|bibcode=2019GloEB..28...33F |s2cid=91260144|issn=1466-8238}}</ref><ref name="Fahrig2003" />

==Definition==
The term habitat fragmentation includes five discrete phenomena:
* Reduction in the total area of the habitat
* Decrease of the interior: [[edge effect|edge]] ratio
* Isolation of one habitat fragment from other areas of habitat
* Breaking up of one patch of habitat into several smaller patches
* Decrease in the average size of each patch of habitat

"fragmentation ... not only causes loss of the amount of habitat but by creating small, isolated patches it also changes the properties of the remaining habitat" (van den Berg et al. 2001){{Failed verification|date=April 2018}}. Habitat fragmentation is the landscape level of the phenomenon, and patch level process. Thus meaning, it covers; the patch areas, edge effects, and patch shape complexity.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=van den Berg |first1=Leon J.L. |last2=Bullock |first2=James.M. |last3=Clarke |first3=Ralph T. |last4=Langston |first4=Rowena H.W. |last5=Rose |first5=Rob J. |date=October 2001 |title=Territory selection by the Dartford warbler (Sylvia undata) in Dorset, England: the role of vegetation type, habitat fragmentation and population size |url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0006320701000696 |journal=Biological Conservation |language=en |volume=101 |issue=2 |pages=217–228 |doi=10.1016/S0006-3207(01)00069-6|bibcode=2001BCons.101..217V |url-access=subscription }}</ref>

In scientific literature, there is some debate whether the term "habitat fragmentation" applies in cases of [[habitat loss]], or whether the term primarily applies to the phenomenon of habitat being cut into smaller pieces without significant reduction in habitat area. Scientists who use the stricter definition of "habitat fragmentation" per se<ref name="Fahrig2003" /> would refer to the loss of habitat area as "habitat loss" and explicitly mention both terms if describing a situation where the habitat becomes less connected and there is less overall habitat.

Furthermore, habitat fragmentation is considered as an invasive threat to [[biodiversity]], due to its implications of affecting large number of [[species]] than [[Invasive species|biological invasions]], [[overexploitation]], or [[pollution]].<ref name="Haddad2015" />

Additionally, the effects of habitat fragmentation damage the ability for species, such as [[native plant]]s, to be able to effectively adapt to their changing environments. Ultimately, this prevents [[gene flow]] from one generation of [[Population genetics|population]] to the next, especially for species living in smaller population sizes. Whereas, for species of larger populations have more [[Mutation|genetic mutations]] which can arise and [[genetic recombination]] impacts which can increase species survival in those environments. Overall, habitat fragmentation results in habitat disintegration and [[Habitat destruction|habitat loss]] which both tie into destructing [[biodiversity]] as a whole.

== Causes ==

===Natural causes===
Evidence of [[habitat destruction]] through natural processes such as [[volcanism]], fire, and [[climate variability and change|climate change]] is found in the fossil record.<ref name="SahneyBentonFerry2010LinksDiversityVertebrates" />{{Failed verification|date=February 2018}}Studies have demonstrated the impacts of individual species at the landscape level<ref name="auto">{{Cite journal |last1=McLachlan |first1=S.M |last2=Bazely |first2=D.R |date=October 2003 |title=Outcomes of longterm deciduous forest restoration in southwestern Ontario, Canada |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0006-3207(02)00248-3 |journal=Biological Conservation |volume=113 |issue=2 |pages=159–169 |doi=10.1016/s0006-3207(02)00248-3 |bibcode=2003BCons.113..159M |issn=0006-3207|url-access=subscription }}</ref> For example, From research the results show that the impact of deer herbivory on forest plant communities can be observed at the landscape level at the Rondeau Provincial park for the period of 1955-1978<ref name="auto"/> and also,  [[Carboniferous rainforest collapse|habitat fragmentation of tropical rainforests in Euramerica]] 300 million years ago led to a great loss of amphibian diversity, but simultaneously the drier climate spurred on a burst of diversity among reptiles.<ref name="SahneyBentonFerry2010LinksDiversityVertebrates" />

===Human causes===
Habitat fragmentation is frequently caused by humans when [[native plant]]s are cleared for human activities such as [[agriculture]], [[Subdivision (land)|rural development]], [[urbanization]] and the creation of [[hydroelectric]] reservoirs. Habitats which were once continuous become divided into separate fragments. Due to human activities, many tropical and temperate habitats have already been severely fragmented, and in the near future, the degree of fragmentation will significantly rise.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Templeton |first1=Alan R. |last2=Shaw |first2=Kerry |last3=Routman |first3=Eric |last4=Davis |first4=Scott K. |date=1990 |title=The Genetic Consequences of Habitat Fragmentation |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/2399621 |journal=Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden |volume=77 |issue=1 |pages=13–27 |doi=10.2307/2399621 |jstor=2399621 |bibcode=1990AnMBG..77...13T |issn=0026-6493}}</ref> After intensive clearing, the separate fragments tend to be very small islands isolated from each other by cropland, pasture, pavement, or even barren land. The latter is often the result of [[slash and burn]] farming in [[tropical forest]]s.  In the wheat belt of central-western [[New South Wales]], [[Australia]], 90% of the native vegetation has been cleared and over 99% of the [[tall grass prairie]] of [[North America]] has been cleared, resulting in extreme habitat fragmentation.

=== Endogenous vs. exogenous  ===
The two types of processes that can lead to habitat fragmentation are known as endogenous processes and exogenous processes. Endogenous is a process that develops as a part of species biology so they typically include changes in biology, behavior, and interactions within or between species. Endogenous threats can result in changes to breeding patterns or migration patterns and are often triggered by exogenous processes. Exogenous processes are independent of species biology and can include habitat degradation, habitat subdivision or habitat isolation. These processes can have a substantial impact on endogenous processes by fundamentally altering species behavior. Habitat subdivision or isolation can lead to changes in dispersal or movement of species including changes to seasonal migration. These changes can lead to a decrease in a density of species, increased competition or even increased predation.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Fischer|first1=Joern|last2=Lindenmayer|first2=David B.|date=February 7, 2007|title=Landscape Modification and Habitat Fragmentation: A synthesis|journal=Global Ecology and Biogeography|volume=16|issue=3|pages=265–280|doi=10.1111/j.1466-8238.2007.00287.x|bibcode=2007GloEB..16..265F |ref=1|doi-access=free}}</ref>

==Implications ==

=== Habitat and biodiversity loss ===
{{Main|biodiversity loss}}
One of the major ways that habitat fragmentation affects [[biodiversity]] is by reducing the amount of suitable habitat available for organisms. Habitat fragmentation often involves both [[habitat destruction]] and the subdivision of previously continuous habitat.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Fahrig|first1=Lenore|title=Effects of Habitat Fragmentation on Biodiversity|journal=Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics|date=November 2003|volume=34|issue=1|pages=487–515|doi=10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132419}}</ref> Plants and other [[Sessility (zoology)|sessile]] organisms are disproportionately affected by some types of habitat fragmentation because they cannot respond quickly to the altered spatial configuration of the habitat.<ref name="Lienert2004">{{cite journal|last1=Lienert|first1=Judit|title=Habitat fragmentation effects on fitness of plant populations – a review|journal=Journal for Nature Conservation|date=July 2004|volume=12|issue=1|pages=53–72|doi=10.1016/j.jnc.2003.07.002|bibcode=2004JNatC..12...53L }}</ref> Habitat fragmentation consistently reduces biodiversity by 13 to 75% and impairs key ecosystem functions by decreasing biomass and altering [[nutrient cycle]]s. This underscores the severe and lasting ecological impacts of fragmentation, which could be highlighted in the sections discussing the consequences of fragmentation.<ref name="ReferenceA">{{Cite journal |last1=Haddad |first1=Nick M. |last2=Brudvig |first2=Lars A. |last3=Clobert |first3=Jean |last4=Davies |first4=Kendi F. |last5=Gonzalez |first5=Andrew |last6=Holt |first6=Robert D. |last7=Lovejoy |first7=Thomas E. |last8=Sexton |first8=Joseph O. |last9=Austin |first9=Mike P. |last10=Collins |first10=Cathy D. |last11=Cook |first11=William M. |last12=Damschen |first12=Ellen I. |last13=Ewers |first13=Robert M. |last14=Foster |first14=Bryan L. |last15=Jenkins |first15=Clinton N. |date=2015-03-06 |title=Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth's ecosystems |journal=Science Advances |language=en |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=e1500052 |doi=10.1126/sciadv.1500052 |issn=2375-2548 |pmc=4643828 |pmid=26601154|bibcode=2015SciA....1E0052H }}</ref>

Habitat loss, which can occur through the process of habitat fragmentation, is considered to be the greatest threat to species.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Wilcove | first1 = David S. |display-authors=etal | year = 1998 | title = Quantifying Threats to Imperiled Species in the United States | jstor = 1313420 | journal = BioScience | volume = 48 | issue = 8| pages = 607–615 | doi=10.2307/1313420| doi-access = free}}</ref> But, the effect of the configuration of habitat patches within the landscape, independent of the effect of the amount of habitat within the landscape (referred to as fragmentation per se<ref name="Fahrig2003">{{cite journal | last1 = Fahrig | first1 = L | year = 2003 | title = Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity | journal = Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics | volume = 34 | pages = 487–515 | doi=10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132419}}</ref>), has been suggested to be small.<ref name="Fahrig2013">{{cite journal | last1 = Fahrig | first1 = L | year = 2013 | title = Rethinking patch size and isolation effects: the habitat amount hypothesis | journal = J. Biogeogr. | volume = 40 | issue = 9| pages = 1649–1663 | doi = 10.1111/jbi.12130 | bibcode = 2013JBiog..40.1649F | doi-access = free}}</ref> A review of empirical studies found that, of the 381 reported significant effect of habitat fragmentation per se on species occurrences, abundances or diversity in the scientific literature, 76% were positive whereas 24% were negative.<ref name="Fahrig2017">{{cite journal | last1 = Fahrig | first1 = L | year = 2017 | title = Ecological Responses to Habitat Fragmentation Per Se | journal = Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics | volume = 48 | pages = 1–23 | doi = 10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110316-022612}}</ref> Despite these results, the scientific literature tends to emphasize negative effects more than positive effects.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Fahrig |first=Lenore |url=https://academic.oup.com/book/26688/chapter/195480099 |title=Forty years of bias in habitat fragmentation research |date=2017-12-21 |publisher=Oxford University Press |volume=1 |language=en |doi=10.1093/oso/9780198808978.003.0005|isbn=978-0-19-880897-8 }}</ref> Positive effects of habitat fragmentation per se imply that several small patches of habitat can have higher conservation value than a single large patch of equivalent size.<ref name="Fahrig2017" /> Land sharing strategies could therefore have more positive impacts on species than land sparing strategies.<ref name="Fahrig2017" /> Although the negative effects of habitat loss are generally viewed to be much larger than that of habitat fragmentation, the two events are heavily connected and observations are not usually independent of one another.<ref>{{Cite journal |doi=10.1016/j.biocon.2018.07.022| s2cid=52839843 | title=Is habitat fragmentation good for biodiversity? | year=2018 | last1=Fletcher | first1=Robert J. | last2=Didham | first2=Raphael K. | last3=Banks-Leite | first3=Cristina | last4=Barlow | first4=Jos | last5=Ewers | first5=Robert M. | last6=Rosindell | first6=James | last7=Holt | first7=Robert D. | last8=Gonzalez | first8=Andrew | last9=Pardini | first9=Renata | last10=Damschen | first10=Ellen I. | last11=Melo | first11=Felipe P.L. | last12=Ries | first12=Leslie | last13=Prevedello | first13=Jayme A. | last14=Tscharntke | first14=Teja | last15=Laurance | first15=William F. | last16=Lovejoy | first16=Thomas | last17=Haddad | first17=Nick M. | journal=Biological Conservation | volume=226 | pages=9–15 | bibcode=2018BCons.226....9F | url=https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/126675/1/Fletcher_etal_2018_Biological_Conservation.pdf }}</ref>[[File:Indiana Dunes Habitat Fragmentation.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Habitat fragmented by numerous roads near the [[Indiana Dunes National Park]].]]
Area is the primary determinant of the number of species in a fragment<ref name="Rosenzweig">{{cite book | last = Rosenzweig | first = Michael L. | author-link = Michael Rosenzweig | title = Species diversity in space and time | year = 1995 | publisher = [[Cambridge University Press]] | location = Cambridge}}</ref> and the relative contributions of demographic and genetic processes to the risk of global population extinction depend on habitat configuration, stochastic environmental variation and species features.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Robert | first1 = A | year = 2011 | title = Find the weakest link. A comparison between demographic, genetic and demo-genetic metapopulation extinction times | journal = BMC Evolutionary Biology | volume = 11 | issue = 1 | page = 260 | doi = 10.1186/1471-2148-11-260 | pmid = 21929788 | pmc = 3185286 | bibcode = 2011BMCEE..11..260R | doi-access = free }}</ref> Minor fluctuations in climate, resources, or other factors that would be unremarkable and quickly corrected in large populations can be catastrophic in small, isolated populations. Thus fragmentation of habitat is an important cause of species extinction.<ref name="Rosenzweig" /> Population dynamics of subdivided populations tend to vary [[wikt:asynchronous|asynchronous]]ly. In an unfragmented landscape a declining population can be "rescued" by immigration from a nearby expanding population. In fragmented landscapes, the distance between fragments may prevent this from happening. Additionally, unoccupied fragments of habitat that are separated from a source of [[Colonisation (biology)|immigrants]] by some barrier are less likely to be repopulated than adjoining fragments. Even small species such as the [[Columbia spotted frog]] are reliant on the [[rescue effect]]. Studies showed 25% of juveniles travel a distance over 200m compared to 4% of adults. Of these, 95% remain in their new locale, demonstrating that this journey is necessary for survival.<ref>{{cite journal |author1=Funk W.C. |author2=Greene A.E. |author3=Corn P.S. |author4=Allendorf F.W. | year = 2005 | title = High dispersal in a frog species suggests that it is vulnerable to habitat fragmentation | journal = [[Biology Letters|Biol. Lett.]] | volume = 1 | issue = 1| pages = 13–6 | doi=10.1098/rsbl.2004.0270|pmid=17148116 |pmc=1629065|bibcode=2005BiLet...1...13F }}</ref>

Additionally, habitat fragmentation leads to [[edge effect]]s. Microclimatic changes in light, temperature, and wind can alter the ecology around the fragment, and in the interior and exterior portions of the fragment.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Magnago|first1=Luiz Fernando Silva|last2=Rocha|first2=Mariana Ferreira|last3=Meyer|first3=Leila|last4=Martins|first4=Sebastião Venâncio|last5=Meira-Neto|first5=João Augusto Alves|date=September 2015|title=Microclimatic conditions at forest edges have significant impacts on vegetation structure in large Atlantic forest fragments|journal=Biodiversity and Conservation|language=en|volume=24|issue=9|pages=2305–2318|doi=10.1007/s10531-015-0961-1|bibcode=2015BiCon..24.2305M |s2cid=16927557|issn=0960-3115|url=http://www.locus.ufv.br/handle/123456789/21347|url-access=subscription}}</ref> [[wildfire|Fires]] become more likely in the area as humidity drops and temperature and wind levels rise. Exotic and pest species may establish themselves easily in such disturbed environments, and the proximity of domestic animals often upsets the natural ecology. Also, habitat along the edge of a fragment has a different climate and favours different species from the interior habitat. Small fragments are therefore unfavourable for species that require interior habitat. The percentage preservation of contiguous habitats is closely related to both genetic and species biodiversity preservation. Generally a 10% remnant contiguous habitat will result in a 50% [[biodiversity loss]].<ref>{{Cite book |last=Quammen |first=David |title=The song of the dodo: Island biogeography in an age of extinctions |date=2004 |publisher=Scribner |isbn=978-0-684-82712-4 |location=New York, NY}}</ref>

Much of the remaining terrestrial [[wildlife]] habitat in many third world countries has experienced fragmentation through the development of [[Urban sprawl|urban expansion]] such as roads interfering with [[habitat loss]]. Aquatic species’ habitats have been fragmented by [[dam]]s and [[Interbasin transfer|water diversions]].<ref name="Habitat Loss">{{Cite web|url=https://www.nwf.org/Home/Educational-Resources/Wildlife-Guide/Threats-to-Wildlife/Habitat-Loss|title=Habitat Loss|website=National Wildlife Federation|language=en|access-date=2020-03-06}}</ref> These fragments of habitat may not be large or connected enough to support species that need a large territory where they can find mates and food. The loss and fragmentation of habitats makes it difficult for migratory species to find places to rest and feed along their migration routes.<ref name="Habitat Loss" />

The effects of current fragmentation will continue to emerge for decades. Extinction debts are likely to come due, although the counteracting immigration debts may never fully be paid. Indeed, the experiments here reveal ongoing losses of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning two decades or longer after fragmentation occurred. Understanding the relationship between transient and long-term dynamics is a substantial challenge that ecologists must tackle, and fragmentation experiments will be central for relating observation to theory.<ref name="Haddad2015"/>

===Informed conservation===
Habitat fragmentation is often a cause of species becoming [[threatened]] or [[endangered]].<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Crooks|first1=Kevin R.|last2=Burdett|first2=Christopher L.|last3=Theobald|first3=David M.|last4=King|first4=Sarah R. B.|last5=Di Marco|first5=Moreno|last6=Rondinini|first6=Carlo|last7=Boitani|first7=Luigi|date=2017-07-18|title=Quantification of habitat fragmentation reveals extinction risk in terrestrial mammals|journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences|language=en|volume=114|issue=29|pages=7635–7640|doi=10.1073/pnas.1705769114|issn=0027-8424|pmc=5530695|pmid=28673992|bibcode=2017PNAS..114.7635C |doi-access=free}}</ref> The existence of viable habitat is critical to the survival of any species, and in many cases, the fragmentation of any remaining habitat can lead to difficult decisions for conservation biologists. Given a limited amount of resources available for conservation is it preferable to protect the existing isolated patches of habitat or to buy back land to get the largest possible contiguous piece of land. In rare cases, a [[conservation reliant species]] may gain some measure of disease protection by being distributed in isolated habitats, and when controlled for overall habitat loss some studies have shown a positive relationship between species richness and fragmentation; this phenomenon has been called the habitat amount hypothesis, though the validity of this claim has been disputed.<ref name="Fahrig2013" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hanski|first=Ilkka|date=May 2015|editor-last=Triantis|editor-first=Kostas|title=Habitat fragmentation and species richness|journal=Journal of Biogeography|language=en|volume=42|issue=5|pages=989–993|doi=10.1111/jbi.12478|bibcode=2015JBiog..42..989H |s2cid=84220990 |doi-access=}}</ref> The ongoing debate of what size fragments are most relevant for conservation is often referred to as [[SLOSS debate|SLOSS]] (Single Large or Several Small). Habitat loss in a biodiversity hotspot can result in a localized extinction crisis, generally speaking habitat loss in a hotspot location can be a good indicator or predictor of the number of threatened and extinct endemic species.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Brooks |first1=Thomas M. |last2=Mittermeier |first2=Russell A. |last3=Mittermeier |first3=Cristina G. |last4=da Fonseca |first4=Gustavo A. B. |last5=Rylands |first5=Anthony B. |last6=Konstant |first6=William R. |last7=Flick |first7=Penny |last8=Pilgrim |first8=John |last9=Oldfield |first9=Sara |last10=Magin |first10=Georgina |last11=Hilton-Taylor |first11=Craig |date=August 2002 |title=Habitat Loss and Extinction in the Hotspots of Biodiversity |url=https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00530.x |journal=Conservation Biology |volume=16 |issue=4 |pages=909–923 |doi=10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00530.x |bibcode=2002ConBi..16..909B |s2cid=44009934 |issn=0888-8892|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

One solution to the problem of habitat fragmentation is to link the fragments by preserving or planting [[Habitat corridor|corridors]] of native vegetation. In some cases, a bridge or underpass may be enough to join two fragments.<ref>{{cite web|title=Wildlife Crossings: Animals survive with bridges and tunnels|url=http://www.wilderutopia.com/environment/wildlife/wildlife-crossings-animals-survive-bridges-tunnels/|publisher=Wilder Eutopia|access-date=19 December 2017|date=2013-05-19}}</ref> This has the potential to mitigate the problem of isolation but not the loss of interior habitat. Wildlife corridors can help animals to move and occupy new areas when food sources or other natural resources are lacking in their core habitat, and animals can find new mates in neighbouring regions so that [[genetic diversity]] can increase. Species that relocate seasonally can do so more safely and effectively when it does not interfere with human development barriers.

Due to the continuous expansion of urban landscapes, current research is looking at [[green roof]]s being possible vectors of habitat corridors.  A recent study has found that green roofs are beneficial in connecting the habitats of arthropods, specifically bees and weevils.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Braaker |first1=S. |last2=Ghazoul |first2=J. |last3=Obrist |first3=M. K. |last4=Moretti |first4=M. |date=April 2014 |title=Habitat connectivity shapes urban arthropod communities: the key role of green roofs |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/13-0705.1 |journal=Ecology |volume=95 |issue=4 |pages=1010–1021 |doi=10.1890/13-0705.1 |pmid=24933819 |bibcode=2014Ecol...95.1010B |s2cid=41070926 |issn=0012-9658}}</ref>

Another mitigation measure is the enlargement of small remnants to increase the amount of interior habitat. This may be impractical since developed land is often more expensive and could require significant time and effort to restore.

The best solution is generally dependent on the particular species or ecosystem that is being considered. More mobile species, like most birds, do not need connected habitat while some smaller animals, like rodents, may be more exposed to predation in open land. These questions generally fall under the headings of [[metapopulation]]s [[island biogeography]].

=== Genetic risks ===
As the remaining habitat patches are smaller, they tend to support smaller populations of fewer species.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Simberloff|first1=Daniel|date=1 January 1998|chapter=Small and Declining Populations|title=Conservation Science and Action|language=en|pages=116–134|doi=10.1002/9781444313499.ch6|isbn=978-1-4443-1349-9}}</ref> Small populations are at an increased risk of a variety of genetic consequences that influence their long-term survival.<ref>{{cite book|title=Introduction to conservation genetics|last1=Frankham|first1=Richard|last2=Ballou|first2=Jonathan D.|last3=Briscoe|first3=David A.|date=2009|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-70271-3|edition=2nd|location=Cambridge}}</ref> Remnant populations often contain only a subset of the genetic diversity found in the previously continuous habitat. In these cases, processes that act upon underlying genetic diversity, such as [[adaptation]], have a smaller pool of fitness-maintaining alleles to survive in the face of environmental change. However, in some scenarios, where subsets of genetic diversity are partitioned among multiple habitat fragments, almost all original genetic diversity can be maintained despite each individual fragment displaying a reduced subset of diversity.<ref name="Borrell2018">{{cite journal |last1=Borrell |first1=James S. |last2=Wang |first2=Nian |last3=Nichols |first3=Richard A. |last4=Buggs |first4=Richard J. A. |title=Genetic diversity maintained among fragmented populations of a tree undergoing range contraction |journal=Heredity |date=15 August 2018 |volume=121 |issue=4 |pages=304–318 |doi=10.1038/s41437-018-0132-8 |pmid=30111882 |pmc=6134035|bibcode=2018Hered.121..304B }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Mustajärvi |first1=Kaisa |last2=Siikamäki |first2=Pirkko |last3=Rytkönen |first3=Saara |last4=Lammi |first4=Antti |date=2001 |title=Consequences of plant population size and density for plant-pollinator interactions and plant performance: Plant-pollinator interactions |journal=Journal of Ecology |language=en |volume=89 |issue=1 |pages=80–87 |doi=10.1046/j.1365-2745.2001.00521.x|s2cid=84923092 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

==== Gene Flow and Inbreeding ====
[[Gene flow]] occurs when individuals of the same species exchange genetic information through reproduction. Populations can maintain genetic diversity through [[Animal migration|migration]]. When a habitat becomes fragmented and reduced in area, gene flow and migration are typically reduced. Fewer individuals will migrate into the remaining fragments, and small disconnected populations that may have once been part of a single large population will become reproductively isolated. Scientific evidence that gene flow is reduced due to fragmentation depends on the study species. While trees that have long-range pollination and dispersal mechanisms may not experience reduced gene flow following fragmentation,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Kramer |first1=Andrea T. |last2=Ison |first2=Jennifer L. |last3=Ashley |first3=Mary V. |last4=Howe |first4=Henry F. |title=The Paradox of Forest Fragmentation Genetics |journal=Conservation Biology |date=August 2008 |volume=22 |issue=4 |pages=878–885 |doi=10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00944.x |pmid=18544089|bibcode=2008ConBi..22..878K |s2cid=1665248 }}</ref> most species are at risk of reduced gene flow following habitat fragmentation.<ref name="Lienert2004" />

Reduced gene flow, and reproductive isolation can result in [[inbreeding]] between related individuals. Inbreeding does not always result in negative fitness consequences, but when inbreeding is associated with fitness reduction it is called [[inbreeding depression]]. Inbreeding becomes of increasing concern as the level of [[homozygosity]] increases, facilitating the expression of deleterious alleles that reduce the fitness. Habitat fragmentation can lead to inbreeding depression for many species due to reduced gene flow.<ref name="Pavolva2017">{{cite journal |last1=Pavlova |first1=Alexandra |last2=Beheregaray |first2=Luciano B. |last3=Coleman |first3=Rhys |last4=Gilligan |first4=Dean |last5=Harrisson |first5=Katherine A. |last6=Ingram |first6=Brett A. |last7=Kearns |first7=Joanne |last8=Lamb |first8=Annika M. |last9=Lintermans |first9=Mark |last10=Lyon |first10=Jarod |last11=Nguyen |first11=Thuy T. T. |last12=Sasaki |first12=Minami |last13=Tonkin |first13=Zeb |last14=Yen |first14=Jian D. L. |last15=Sunnucks |first15=Paul |title=Severe consequences of habitat fragmentation on genetic diversity of an endangered Australian freshwater fish: A call for assisted gene flow |journal=Evolutionary Applications |date=July 2017 |volume=10 |issue=6 |pages=531–550 |doi=10.1111/eva.12484 |pmid=28616062 |pmc=5469170|bibcode=2017EvApp..10..531P }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Wang |first1=W |last2=Qiao |first2=Y |last3=Li |first3=S |last4=Pan |first4=W |last5=Yao |first5=M |title=Low genetic diversity and strong population structure shaped by anthropogenic habitat fragmentation in a critically endangered primate, Trachypithecus leucocephalus |journal=Heredity |date=15 February 2017 |volume=118 |issue=6 |pages=542–553 |doi=10.1038/hdy.2017.2 |pmid=28198816 |pmc=5436025|bibcode=2017Hered.118..542W }}</ref> Inbreeding depression is associated with conservation risks, like local extinction.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Hedrick|first1=Philip W.|last2=Kalinowski|first2=Steven T.|date=November 2000|title=Inbreeding Depression in Conservation Biology|journal=Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics|language=en|volume=31|issue=1|pages=139–162|doi=10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.31.1.139|bibcode=2000AnRES..31..139H |issn=0066-4162}}</ref>

==== Genetic drift ====
Small populations are more susceptible to [[genetic drift]]. Genetic drift is random changes to the genetic makeup of populations and leads to reductions in genetic diversity. The smaller the population is, the more likely genetic drift will be a driving force of evolution rather than natural selection. Because genetic drift is a random process, it does not allow species to become more adapted to their environment. Habitat fragmentation is associated with increases to genetic drift in small populations which can have negative consequences for the genetic diversity of the populations.<ref name="Pavolva2017" /> However, research suggests that some tree species may be resilient to the negative consequences of genetic drift until population size is as small as ten individuals or less.<ref name="Borrell2018" />

===== Genetic consequences of habitat fragmentation for plant populations =====

Habitat fragmentation decreases the size and increases plant populations' spatial isolation. With [[genetic variation]] and increased methods of inter-population [[genetic divergence]] due to increased effects of [[Genetic drift|random genetic drift]], elevating [[inbreeding]] and reducing gene flow within plant species. While genetic variation may decrease with remnant population size, not all fragmentation events lead to genetic losses and different types of genetic variation. Rarely, fragmentation can also increase gene flow among remnant populations, breaking down local genetic structure.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Young|first1=Andrew|last2=Boyle|first2=Tim|last3=Brown|first3=Tony|date=1996|title=The population genetic consequences of habitat fragmentation for plants|journal=Trends in Ecology & Evolution|language=en|volume=11|issue=10|pages=413–418|doi=10.1016/0169-5347(96)10045-8|pmid=21237900|bibcode=1996TEcoE..11..413Y }}</ref>

==== Adaptation ====
In order for populations to evolve in response to natural selection, they must be large enough that natural selection is a stronger evolutionary force than genetic drift. Recent studies on the impacts of habitat fragmentation on adaptation in some plant species have suggested that organisms in fragmented landscapes may be able to adapt to fragmentation.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Matesanz |first1=Silvia |last2=Rubio Teso |first2=María Luisa |last3=García-Fernández |first3=Alfredo |last4=Escudero |first4=Adrián |title=Habitat Fragmentation Differentially Affects Genetic Variation, Phenotypic Plasticity and Survival in Populations of a Gypsum Endemic |journal=Frontiers in Plant Science |date=26 May 2017 |volume=8 |pages=843 |doi=10.3389/fpls.2017.00843 |pmid=28603529 |pmc=5445106|doi-access=free |bibcode=2017FrPS....8..843M }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Dubois |first1=Jonathan |last2=Cheptou |first2=Pierre-Olivier |title=Effects of fragmentation on plant adaptation to urban environments |journal=Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences |date=5 December 2016 |volume=372 |issue=1712 |pages=20160038 |doi=10.1098/rstb.2016.0038 |pmid=27920383 |pmc=5182434}}</ref> However, there are also many cases where fragmentation reduces adaptation capacity because of small population size.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Legrand |first1=Delphine |last2=Cote |first2=Julien |last3=Fronhofer |first3=Emanuel A. |last4=Holt |first4=Robert D. |last5=Ronce |first5=Ophélie |last6=Schtickzelle |first6=Nicolas |last7=Travis |first7=Justin M. J. |last8=Clobert |first8=Jean |title=Eco-evolutionary dynamics in fragmented landscapes |journal=Ecography |date=January 2017 |volume=40 |issue=1 |pages=9–25 |doi=10.1111/ecog.02537 |url=http://aura.abdn.ac.uk/bitstream/2164/9606/1/Legrand_et_al_2016_Ecography.pdf |hdl=2164/9606|doi-access=free |bibcode=2017Ecogr..40....9L }}</ref>

==== Examples of impacted species ====
Some species that have experienced genetic consequences due to habitat fragmentation are listed below: 
[[File:Macquarie perch.jpg|thumb|Macquarie perch]]

* ''[[Macquaria australasica]]''<ref name="Pavolva2017" /><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://fishesofaustralia.net.au/home/species/1594|title=Macquaria australasica|website=fishesofaustralia.net.au|language=en|access-date=2018-06-06}}</ref>
*''[[Fagus sylvatica]]''<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Jump |first1=A. S. |last2=Penuelas |first2=J. |title=Genetic effects of chronic habitat fragmentation in a wind-pollinated tree |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |date=12 May 2006 |volume=103 |issue=21 |pages=8096–8100 |doi=10.1073/pnas.0510127103 |pmid=16698935 |pmc=1472435 |bibcode=2006PNAS..103.8096J|doi-access=free }}</ref>
*''[[Betula nana]]''<ref name="Borrell2018" />
*''[[Rhinella ornata]]''<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Dixo |first1=Marianna |last2=Metzger |first2=Jean Paul |last3=Morgante |first3=João S. |last4=Zamudio |first4=Kelly R. |title=Habitat fragmentation reduces genetic diversity and connectivity among toad populations in the Brazilian Atlantic Coastal Forest |journal=Biological Conservation |date=August 2009 |volume=142 |issue=8 |pages=1560–1569 |doi=10.1016/j.biocon.2008.11.016|bibcode=2009BCons.142.1560D }}</ref>
*''[[Ochotona princeps]]''<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Peacock |first1=Mary M. |last2=Smith |first2=Andrew T. |title=The effect of habitat fragmentation on dispersal patterns, mating behavior, and genetic variation in a pika ( Ochotona princeps ) metapopulation |journal=Oecologia |date=24 November 1997 |volume=112 |issue=4 |pages=524–533 |doi=10.1007/s004420050341 |pmid=28307630 |bibcode=1997Oecol.112..524P |s2cid=2446276}}</ref>
*''[[Uta stansburiana]]''<ref name="Delany2010">{{cite journal |last1=Delaney |first1=Kathleen Semple |last2=Riley |first2=Seth P. D. |last3=Fisher |first3=Robert N. |last4=Fleischer |first4=Robert C. |title=A Rapid, Strong, and Convergent Genetic Response to Urban Habitat Fragmentation in Four Divergent and Widespread Vertebrates |journal=PLOS ONE |date=16 September 2010 |volume=5 |issue=9 |pages=e12767 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0012767 |pmid=20862274 |pmc=2940822 |bibcode=2010PLoSO...512767D|doi-access=free }}</ref>
*''[[Plestiodon skiltonianus]]''<ref name="Delany2010" />
*''[[Sceloporus occidentalis]]''<ref name="Delany2010" />
*''[[Chamaea fasciata]]''<ref name="Delany2010" />

=== Effect on animal behaviours===
Although the way habitat fragmentation affects the genetics and extinction rates of species has been heavily studied, fragmentation has also been shown to affect species' behaviours and cultures as well. This is important because social interactions can determine and have an effect on a species' fitness and survival. Habitat fragmentation alters the resources available and the structure of habitats, as a result, alters the behaviours of species and the dynamics between differing species. Behaviours affected can be within a species such as reproduction, mating, foraging, species dispersal, communication and movement patterns or can be behaviours between species such as predator-prey relationships.<ref name="Banks2007">{{cite journal |last1=Banks |first1=Sam C |last2=Piggott |first2=Maxine P |last3=Stow |first3=Adam J |last4=Taylor |first4=Andrea C |title=Sex and sociality in a disconnected world: a review of the impacts of habitat fragmentation on animal social interactions |journal=Canadian Journal of Zoology |date=2007 |volume=85 |issue=10 |pages=1065–1079 |doi=10.1139/Z07-094}}</ref> In addition, when animals happen to venture into unknown areas in between fragmented forests or landscapes, they can supposedly come into contact with humans which puts them at a great risk and further decreases their chances of survival.<ref name="Haddad2015">{{Cite journal|last1=Haddad|first1=Nick M.|last2=Brudvig|first2=Lars A.|last3=Clobert|first3=Jean|last4=Davies|first4=Kendi F.|last5=Gonzalez|first5=Andrew|last6=Holt|first6=Robert D.|last7=Lovejoy|first7=Thomas E.|last8=Sexton|first8=Joseph O.|last9=Austin|first9=Mike P.|last10=Collins|first10=Cathy D.|last11=Cook|first11=William M.|date=2015-03-01|title=Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth's ecosystems|journal=Science Advances|language=en|volume=1|issue=2|pages=e1500052|doi=10.1126/sciadv.1500052|pmid=26601154|pmc=4643828|bibcode=2015SciA....1E0052H|issn=2375-2548}}{{Creative Commons text attribution notice|cc=by4|from this source=yes}}</ref>

==== Predation behaviours ====
Habitat fragmentation due to anthropogenic activities has been shown to greatly affect the predator-prey dynamics of many species by altering the number of species and the members of those species.<ref name="Banks2007" /> This affects the natural predator-prey relationships between animals in a given community <ref name="Banks2007" /> and forces them to alter their behaviours and interactions, therefore resetting the so-called "behavioral space race".<ref name="Shneider2001">{{cite journal |last1=Shneider |first1=Michael F |title=Habitat loss, fragmentation and predator impact: spatial implications for prey conservation |journal=Journal of Applied Ecology |date=2001 |volume=38 |issue=4 |pages=720–735|doi=10.1046/j.1365-2664.2001.00642.x|bibcode=2001JApEc..38..720S |doi-access=free }}</ref> The way in which fragmentation changes and re-shapes these interactions can occur in many different forms. Most prey species have patches of land that are a refuge from their predators, allowing them the safety to reproduce and raise their young. Human introduced structures such as roads and pipelines alter these areas by facilitating predator activity in these refuges, increasing predator-prey overlap.<ref name="Shneider2001" /> The opposite could also occur in the favour of prey, increasing prey refuge and subsequently decreasing predation rates. Fragmentation may also increase predator abundance or predator efficiency and therefore increase predation rates in this manner.<ref name="Shneider2001" /> Several other factors can also increase or decrease the extent to which the shifting predator-prey dynamics affect certain species, including how diverse a predators diet is and how flexible habitat requirements are for predators and prey.<ref name="Banks2007" /> Depending on which species are affected and these other factors, fragmentation and its effects on predator-prey dynamics may contribute to species extinction.<ref name="Banks2007" /> In response to these new environmental pressures, new adaptive behaviours may be developed. Prey species may adapt to increased risk of predation with strategies such as altering mating tactics or changing behaviours and activities related to food and foraging.<ref name="Banks2007" />

===== Boreal woodland caribous =====
In the boreal woodland caribous of British Columbia, the effects of fragmentation are demonstrated. The species refuge area is peatland bog which has been interrupted by linear features such as roads and pipelines.<ref name="DeMars2017">{{cite journal |last1=DeMars |first1=Craig A |last2=Boutin |first2=Stan |title=Nowhere to hide: Effects of linear features on predator-prey dynamics in a large mammal system |journal=Journal of Animal Ecology |date=September 4, 2017 |volume=87 |issue=1 |pages=274–284 |doi=10.1111/1365-2656.12760|pmid=28940254 |doi-access=free}}</ref> These features have allowed their natural predators, the wolf, and the black bear to more efficiently travel over landscapes and between patches of land.<ref name="DeMars2017" /> Since their predators can more easily access the caribous' refuge, the females of the species attempt to avoid the area, affecting their reproductive behaviours and offspring produced.<ref name="DeMars2017" />

==== Communication behaviours ====
Fragmentation affecting the communication behaviours of birds has been well studied in Dupont's Lark. The Larks primarily reside in regions of Spain and are a small passerine bird which uses songs as a means of cultural transmission between members of the species.<ref name="DeMars2017" /> The Larks have two distinct vocalizations, the song, and the territorial call. The territorial call is used by males to defend and signal territory from other male Larks and is shared between neighbouring territories when males respond to a rivals song.<ref name="Laiolo2005">{{cite journal |last1=Laiolo |first1=Paola |last2=Tella |first2=José L |title=Habitat fragmentation affects culture transmission: patterns of song matching in Dupont's lark |journal=Journal of Applied Ecology |date=2005 |volume=42 |issue=6 |pages=1183–1193 |doi=10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01093.x|bibcode=2005JApEc..42.1183L |hdl=10261/57878 |hdl-access=free}}</ref> Occasionally it is used as a threat signal to signify an impending attack on territory.<ref name="Laiolo2007">{{cite journal |last1=Laiolo |first1=Paola |last2=Tella |first2=José L |title=Erosion of animal cultures in fragmented landscapes |journal= Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment|date=2007 |volume=5 |issue=2 |pages=68–72 |doi=10.1890/1540-9295(2007)5[68:eoacif]2.0.co;2}}</ref> A large song repertoire can enhance a male's ability to survive and reproduce as he has a greater ability to defend his territory from other males, and a larger number of males in the species means a larger variety of songs being transmitted.<ref name="Laiolo2005" /> Fragmentation of the Dupont's Lark territory from agriculture, forestry and urbanization appears to have a large effect on their communication structures.<ref name="Laiolo2007" /> Males only perceive territories of a certain distance to be rivals and so isolation of territory from others due to fragmentation leads to a decrease in territorial calls as the males no longer have any reason to use it or have any songs to match.<ref name="Laiolo2007" />

[[Human]]s have also brought on varying implications into ecosystems which in turn affect animal behaviour and responses generated.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Wong|first1=B. B. M.|last2=Candolin|first2=U.|date=2015-05-01|title=Behavioral responses to changing environments|journal=Behavioral Ecology|language=en|volume=26|issue=3|pages=665–673|doi=10.1093/beheco/aru183|issn=1045-2249|doi-access=free|hdl=10.1093/beheco/aru183|hdl-access=free}}</ref> Although there are some species which are able to survive these kinds of harsh conditions, such as, cutting down wood in the forests for [[Pulp and paper industry|pulp and paper]] industries, there are animals which can survive this change but some that cannot. An example includes, varying [[aquatic insect]]s are able to identify appropriate ponds to lay their eggs with the aid of [[Polarized light pollution|polarized light]] to guide them, however, due to [[ecosystem]] modifications caused by humans they are led onto artificial structures which emit artificial light which are induced by dry asphalt dry roads for an example.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221958968|title=polarized Light Pollution: a new kind of ecological photopollution|website=Research Gate}}</ref>

=== Effect on microorganisms ===
While habitat fragmentation is often associated with its effects on large plant and animal populations and biodiversity, due to the interconnectedness of ecosystems there are also significant effects that it has on the [[microbiota]] of an environment. Increased fragmentation has been linked to reduced populations and diversity of fungi responsible for decomposition, as well as the insects they are host to.<ref name="Nordén2013">{{Cite journal|last1=Nordén|first1=Jenni|last2=Penttilä|first2=Reijo|last3=Siitonen|first3=Juha|last4=Tomppo|first4=Erkki|last5=Ovaskainen|first5=Otso|date=May 2013|editor-last=Thrall|editor-first=Peter|title=Specialist species of wood-inhabiting fungi struggle while generalists thrive in fragmented boreal forests|journal=Journal of Ecology|language=en|volume=101|issue=3|pages=701–712|doi=10.1111/1365-2745.12085|s2cid=85037421 |issn=0022-0477|doi-access=free|bibcode=2013JEcol.101..701N }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Kiesewetter |first1=Kasey N. |last2=Otano |first2=Leydiana |last3=Afkhami |first3=Michelle E. |date=June 2023 |title=Fragmentation disrupts microbial effects on native plant community productivity |url=https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2745.14097 |journal=Journal of Ecology |language=en |volume=111 |issue=6 |pages=1292–1307 |doi=10.1111/1365-2745.14097 |bibcode=2023JEcol.111.1292K |issn=0022-0477}}</ref> This has been linked to simplified food webs in highly fragmented areas compared to old growth forests.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Komonen|first1=Atte|last2=Penttila|first2=Reijo|last3=Lindgren|first3=Mariko|last4=Hanski|first4=Ilkka|date=July 2000|title=Forest fragmentation truncates a food chain based on an old-growth forest bracket fungus|journal=Oikos|language=en|volume=90|issue=1|pages=119–126|doi=10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.900112.x|bibcode=2000Oikos..90..119K |issn=0030-1299}}</ref> Furthermore, edge effects have been shown to result in significantly varied [[Microenvironment (ecology)|microenvironments]] compared to interior forest due to variations in light availability, presence of wind, changes in precipitation, and overall moisture content of leaf litter.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Matlack|first=Glenn R.|date=1993|title=Microenvironment variation within and among forest edge sites in the eastern United States|journal=Biological Conservation|language=en|volume=66|issue=3|pages=185–194|doi=10.1016/0006-3207(93)90004-K|bibcode=1993BCons..66..185M }}</ref> These microenvironments are often not conducive to overall forest health as they enable [[Generalist and specialist species|generalist]] species to thrive at the expense of [[Generalist and specialist species|specialists]] that depend on specific environments.<ref name="Nordén2013" />

=== Effect on mutualistic and antagonistic relationships ===
A [[metadata]] analysis has found that habitat fragmentation greatly affects [[Mutualism (biology)|mutualistic]] relationships while affecting antagonistic relationships, such as [[predation]] and [[Herbivore|herbivory]], to a less degree.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Magrach |first1=Ainhoa |last2=Laurance |first2=William F. |last3=Larrinaga |first3=Asier R. |last4=Santamaria |first4=Luis |date=October 2014 |title=Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Forest Fragmentation on Interspecific Interactions: Forest Fragmentation and Interspecific Interactions |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.12304 |journal=Conservation Biology |language=en |volume=28 |issue=5 |pages=1342–1348 |doi=10.1111/cobi.12304|pmid=24725007 |s2cid=5526322 |url-access=subscription }}</ref> For example, the mutualistic relationship between ''[[Mesogyne insignis]]'' and ''[[Megachile]]''. A study has found greater [[pollination]] and increased fruit production of ''M. insignis'' in unfragmented forests verses fragmented forests.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Olotu |first1=Moses I. |last2=Ndangalasi |first2=Henry J. |last3=Nyundo |first3=Bruno A. |date=March 2012 |title=Effects of forest fragmentation on pollination of Mesogyne insignis (Moraceae) in Amani Nature Reserve forests, Tanzania: Effects of forest fragmentation on pollination of Mesogyne insignis |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2028.2011.01302.x |journal=African Journal of Ecology |language=en |volume=50 |issue=1 |pages=109–116 |doi=10.1111/j.1365-2028.2011.01302.x|url-access=subscription }}</ref>  As for an example of an antagonistic relationship of nest predation, a study found that there is no increase in nest predation on fragmented forests - thus not supporting the [[Edge effects|edge effect]] hypothesis.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Carlson |first1=Allan |last2=Hartman |first2=Göran |date=2001 |title=Tropical forest fragmentation and nest predation – an experimental study in an Eastern Arc montane forest, Tanzania |url=http://link.springer.com/10.1023/A:1016649731062 |journal=Biodiversity and Conservation |volume=10 |issue=7 |pages=1077–1085 |doi=10.1023/A:1016649731062|bibcode=2001BiCon..10.1077C |s2cid=20971928 |url-access=subscription }}</ref>

=== Effect on ecosystem services ===
Habitat fragmentation has profound effects on [[ecosystem service]]s, impacting nutrient retention, species richness, and local biophysical conditions. Fragmentation-mediated processes cause generalizable responses at the [[population]], [[Community (ecology)|community]], and [[ecosystem]] levels, resulting in decreased nutrient retention.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Li |first1=Dehuan |last2=Yang |first2=Yixuan |last3=Xia |first3=Fan |last4=Sun |first4=Wei |last5=Li |first5=Xiao |last6=Xie |first6=Yujing |date=2022-11-01 |title=Exploring the influences of different processes of habitat fragmentation on ecosystem services |url=https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104544 |journal=Landscape and Urban Planning |volume=227 |pages=104544 |doi=10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104544 |bibcode=2022LUrbP.22704544L |issn=0169-2046|url-access=subscription }}</ref> Furthermore, habitat fragmentation alters relationships between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning across multiple scales, affecting both the local loss of [[biodiversity]] and the local loss of function.<ref name="ReferenceA"/> Moreover, fragmentation can change the [[microclimate]] at both local and regional scales, influencing biodiversity through interactions with anthropogenic [[climate change]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Wilson |first1=Maxwell C. |last2=Chen |first2=Xiao-Yong |last3=Corlett |first3=Richard T. |last4=Didham |first4=Raphael K. |last5=Ding |first5=Ping |last6=Holt |first6=Robert D. |last7=Holyoak |first7=Marcel |last8=Hu |first8=Guang |last9=Hughes |first9=Alice C. |last10=Jiang |first10=Lin |last11=Laurance |first11=William F. |last12=Liu |first12=Jiajia |last13=Pimm |first13=Stuart L. |last14=Robinson |first14=Scott K. |last15=Russo |first15=Sabrina E. |date=2016-02-01 |title=Habitat fragmentation and biodiversity conservation: key findings and future challenges |url=https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0312-3 |journal=Landscape Ecology |language=en |volume=31 |issue=2 |pages=219–227 |doi=10.1007/s10980-015-0312-3 |bibcode=2016LaEco..31..219W |issn=1572-9761}}</ref> Overall, habitat fragmentation significantly disrupts ecosystem services by altering nutrient retention, biodiversity, and ecosystem functioning at various spatial and temporal scales.

== Forest fragmentation ==
{{Split section|date=November 2022}}
{{Commons category|Forest fragmentation}}
Forest fragmentation is a form of habitat fragmentation where forests are reduced (either naturally or man-made) to relatively small, isolated patches of forest known as forest fragments or forest remnants.<ref name="SahneyBentonFerry2010LinksDiversityVertebrates" /> The intervening matrix that separates the remaining woodland patches can be natural open areas, [[farmland]], or developed areas. Following the principles of [[island biogeography]], remnant woodlands act like islands of forest in a sea of pastures, fields, subdivisions, shopping malls, etc. These fragments will then begin to undergo the process of [[ecosystem decay]].

Forest fragmentation also includes less subtle forms of discontinuities such as utility right-of-ways (ROWs). Utility ROWs are of ecological interest because they have become pervasive in many forest communities, spanning areas as large as 5 million acres in the United States.<ref name="Russell2005">{{Cite journal|last1=Russell|first1=K. N.|last2=Ikerd|first2=H.|last3=Droege|first3=S.|date=2005-07-01|title=The potential conservation value of unmowed powerline strips for native bees|journal=Biological Conservation|volume=124|issue=1|pages=133–148|doi=10.1016/j.biocon.2005.01.022|bibcode=2005BCons.124..133R }}</ref> Utility ROWs include electricity transmission ROWs, gas pipeline and telecommunication ROWs. Electricity transmission ROWs are created to prevent vegetation interference with transmission lines. Some studies have shown that electricity transmission ROWs harbor more plant species than adjoining forest areas,<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Wagner|first1=David L.|last2=Metzler|first2=Kenneth J.|last3=Leicht-Young|first3=Stacey A.|last4=Motzkin|first4=Glenn|date=2014-09-01|title=Vegetation composition along a New England transmission line corridor and its implications for other trophic levels|journal=Forest Ecology and Management|volume=327|pages=231–239|doi=10.1016/j.foreco.2014.04.026|bibcode=2014ForEM.327..231W }}</ref> due to alterations in the microclimate in and around the corridor. Discontinuities in forest areas associated with utility right-of-ways can serve as biodiversity havens for native bees <ref name="Russell2005" /> and grassland species,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Lampinen |first1=Jussi |last2=Ruokolainen |first2=Kalle |last3=Huhta |first3=Ari-Pekka |last4=Chapman |first4=Maura (Gee) Geraldine |title=Urban Power Line Corridors as Novel Habitats for Grassland and Alien Plant Species in South-Western Finland |journal=PLOS ONE |date=13 November 2015 |volume=10 |issue=11 |pages=e0142236 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0142236 |pmid=26565700 |pmc=4643934 |bibcode=2015PLoSO..1042236L|doi-access=free }}</ref> as the right-of-ways are preserved in an early successional stage.

Forest fragmentation reduces food resources and [[habitat]] sources for animals thus splitting these species apart. Thus, making these animals become much more susceptible to effects of [[predation]] and making them less likely to perform [[Hybrid (biology)|interbreeding]] - lowering genetic diversity.<ref>{{Citation|last1=Bogaert|first1=Jan|title=Forest Fragmentation: Causes, Ecological Impacts and Implications for Landscape Management|date=2011|work=Landscape Ecology in Forest Management and Conservation: Challenges and Solutions for Global Change|pages=273–296|editor-last=Li|editor-first=Chao|publisher=Springer|language=en|doi=10.1007/978-3-642-12754-0_12|isbn=978-3-642-12754-0|last2=Barima|first2=Yao S. S.|last3=Mongo|first3=Léon Iyongo Waya|last4=Bamba|first4=Issouf|last5=Mama|first5=Adi|last6=Toyi|first6=Mireille|last7=Lafortezza|first7=Raffaele|editor2-last=Lafortezza|editor2-first=Raffaele|editor3-last=Chen|editor3-first=Jiquan}}</ref>

Additionally, forest fragmentation affects the native plant species present within the area by dividing large populations into smaller ones. In turn, smaller populations are more inclined to be affected by genetic drift and population performance, as well as experience increases in inbreeding activities.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last1=Leimu |first1=Roosa |last2=Vergeer |first2=Philippine |last3=Angeloni |first3=Francesco |last4=Ouborg |first4=N. Joop |date=May 2010 |title=Habitat fragmentation, climate change, and inbreeding in plants |url=https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05450.x |journal=Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences |language=en |volume=1195 |issue=1 |pages=84–98 |doi=10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05450.x |pmid=20536818 |bibcode=2010NYASA1195...84L |issn=0077-8923|url-access=subscription }}</ref> Moreover, fragmentation can affect the relationship present between animals and plants, such as the relationships regarding seed-dispersal or pollinator-plant relationship.<ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Xiao |first1=Yian |last2=Li |first2=Xiaohong |last3=Cao |first3=Yusong |last4=Dong |first4=Ming |date=2016-07-01 |title=The diverse effects of habitat fragmentation on plant–pollinator interactions |url=https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-016-0608-7 |journal=Plant Ecology |language=en |volume=217 |issue=7 |pages=857–868 |doi=10.1007/s11258-016-0608-7 |bibcode=2016PlEco.217..857X |issn=1573-5052|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

=== Implications ===
Forest fragmentation is one of the greatest threats to [[biodiversity]] in forests, especially in the tropics.<ref>{{cite book | last = Bierregaard | first = Richard | editor = Claude Gascon | editor2 = Thomas E. Lovejoy | editor3 = Rita Mesquita | year = 2001 | title = Lessons from Amazonia: The Ecology and Conservation of a Fragmented Forest | publisher = Yale University Press | isbn = 978-0-300-08483-2 | url-access = registration | url = https://archive.org/details/lessonsfromamazo0000unse}}</ref> The problem of [[habitat destruction]] that caused the fragmentation in the first place is compounded by:
* the inability of individual forest fragments to support viable populations, especially of large vertebrates
* the local [[extinction]] of species that do not have at least one fragment capable of supporting a viable population
* [[edge effect]]s that alter the conditions of the outer areas of the fragment, greatly reducing the amount of true forest interior habitat.<ref>{{cite book | last = Harris | first = Larry D. | year = 1984 | title = The Fragmented Forest: Island Biogeography Theory and the Preservation of Biotic Diversity | publisher = The University of Chicago Press | isbn = 978-0-226-31763-2 | url-access = registration | url = https://archive.org/details/fragmentedforest0000harr}}</ref>

The effect of fragmentation on the [[flora]] and [[fauna]] of a forest patch depends on a) the size of the patch, and b) its degree of isolation.<ref>{{Citation|last=Didham|first=Raphael K|chapter=Ecological Consequences of Habitat Fragmentation|date=2010-11-15|encyclopedia=Encyclopedia of Life Sciences|pages=a0021904|publisher=John Wiley & Sons|language=en|doi=10.1002/9780470015902.a0021904|isbn=978-0-470-01617-6}}</ref>  Isolation depends on the distance to the nearest similar patch, and the contrast with the surrounding areas. For example, if a cleared area is [[reforestation|reforested]] or allowed to [[natural regeneration|regenerate]], the increasing [[structural diversity]] of the [[vegetation]] will lessen the isolation of the forest fragments.  However, when formerly forested lands are converted permanently to pastures, agricultural fields, or human-inhabited developed areas, the remaining forest fragments, and the [[Biota (biology)|biota]] within them, are often highly isolated.

Forest patches that are smaller or more isolated will lose species faster than those that are larger or less isolated. A large number of small forest "islands" typically cannot support the same biodiversity that a single contiguous forest would hold, even if their combined area is much greater than the single forest. However, forest islands in rural landscapes greatly increase their biodiversity.<ref>{{Cite book |url=https://www.pemberleybooks.com/product/ecology-of-forest-islands/2679/ |title=Ecology of Forest Islands by , J. (ed.) |publisher=Bydgoszcz University Press |editor-last=Banaszak |editor-first=J.}}</ref> In the [[Maulino forest]] of Chile fragmentation appear to not affect overall plant diversity much, and tree diversity is indeed higher in fragments than in large continuous forests.<ref>{{cite book|last=Bustamante|first=Ramiro O.|author-last2=Simonetti|author-first2=Javier A.|author-last3=Grez|author-first3=Audrey A.|author-last4=San Martín|author-first4=José|date=2005|title=Historia, biodiversidad y ecología de los bosques costeros de Chile|chapter=Fragmentación y dinámica de regeneración del bosque Maulino: diagnóstico actual y perspectivas futuras|editor-last=Smith|editor-first=C.|editor-last2=Armesto|editor-first2=J.|editor-last3=Valdovinos|editor-first3=C.|chapter-url=http://bdrnap.mma.gob.cl/recursos/SINIA/Biblio_AP/070316BIBLIORNAP_164.pdf|pages=529–539|trans-chapter=Fragmentation and regeneration dynamics of the Maulino forest: present status and future prospects|language=es|access-date=2021-03-08|archive-date=2022-06-22|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220622150414/http://bdrnap.mma.gob.cl/recursos/SINIA/Biblio_AP/070316BIBLIORNAP_164.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref name=Bosque2020-3>{{Cite journal|title=Native and exotic plant species diversity in forest fragments and forestry plantations of a coastal landscape of central Chile|journal=[[Bosque (journal)|Bosque]]|url=https://scielo.conicyt.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0717-92002020000200125&lng=es&nrm=iso&tlng=en|last1=Becerra|first1=Pablo I.|volume=41|last2=Simonetti|first2=Javier A.|publisher=[[Austral University of Chile]]|issue=2|doi=10.4067/S0717-92002020000200125 |year=2020|pages=125–136|doi-access=free}}</ref>

[[McGill University]] in [[Montreal]], [[Quebec]], [[Canada]] released a university based newspaper statement stating that 70% of the world's remaining forest stands within one kilometre of a forest edge putting biodiversity at an immense risk based on research conducted by international scientists.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/channels/news/forest-fragmentation-threatens-biodiversity-243709|title=Forest fragmentation threatens biodiversity|website=Newsroom|language=en|access-date=2020-03-06}}</ref>

Reduced fragment area, increased isolation, and increased edge initiate changes that percolate through all ecosystems. Habitat fragmentation is able to formulate persistent outcomes which can also become unexpected such as an abundance of some species and the pattern that long temporal scales are required to discern many strong system responses.<ref name="Haddad2015" />

=== Sustainable forest management ===

The presence of forest fragments influences the supply of various [[ecosystem]]s in adjacent [[Agriculture|agricultural]] fields (Mitchell et al. 2014). Mitchell et al. (2014), researched on six varying ecosystem factors such as crop production, [[decomposition]], [[pesticide regulation]], carbon storage, [[soil fertility]], and water quality regulation in soybean fields through separate distances by nearby forest fragments which all varied in isolation and size across an agricultural landscape in [[Quebec|Quebec, Canada]]. Sustainable forest management can be achieved in several ways including by managing forests for [[ecosystem service]]s (beyond simple provisioning), through government compensation schemes, and through effective regulation and legal frameworks.<ref>{{Citation|title=Chapter 23 - Sustainable Forest Management|date=2019-01-01|url=https://repozitorij.uni-lj.si/IzpisGradiva.php?id=36180|journal=Sustainable Food and Agriculture|pages=233–236|editor-last=Campanhola|editor-first=Clayton|publisher=Academic Press|doi=10.1016/B978-0-12-812134-4.00023-6|language=en|isbn=978-0-12-812134-4|s2cid=128938268|editor2-last=Pandey|editor2-first=Shivaji|url-access=subscription}}</ref> The only realistic method of conserving forests is to apply and practice sustainable [[forest management]] to risk further loss.

There is a high industrial demand for [[wood]], [[Pulp (paper)|pulp]], [[paper]], and other resources which the [[forest]] can provide with, thus businesses which will want more access to the cutting of forests to gain those resources. The [[Rainforest Alliance|rainforest alliance]] has efficiently been able to put into place an approach to sustainable forest management, and they established this in the late 1980s. Their [[Conservation biology|conservation]] was deemed successful as it has saved over nearly half a billion acres of land around the world.<ref name="What is Sustainable Forestry">{{Cite web|url=https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/articles/what-is-sustainable-forestry|title=What is Sustainable Forestry?|website=Rainforest Alliance|date=28 July 2016|language=en|access-date=2020-03-06}}</ref>

A few approaches and measures which can be taken in order to conserve forests are methods by which erosion can be minimized, waste is properly disposed, conserve native [[tree]] species to maintain [[genetic diversity]], and setting aside forestland (provides habitat for critical [[Species|wildlife species]]).<ref name="What is Sustainable Forestry" /> Additionally, [[Wildfire|forest fires]] can also occur frequently and measures can also be taken to further prevent forest fires from occurring. For example, in [[Guatemala]]’s culturally and ecologically significant [[Petén Department|Petén]] region, researchers were able to find over a 20-year period, actively managed [[Forest Stewardship Council|FSC]]-certified forests experienced substantially lower rates of [[deforestation]] than nearby protected areas, and forest fires only affected 0.1 percent of certified land area, compared to 10.4 percent of protected areas.<ref name="What is Sustainable Forestry" /> However, it must be duly noted that short term decisions regarding forest sector employment and harvest practices can have long-term effects on biodiversity.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/pubs/gtr/gtr_nrs90/gtr-nrs-90-chapter-4.pdf|title=Strategies for Sustainable Forest Management|website=fed.us}}</ref> Planted forests become increasingly important as they supply approximately a quarter of global industrial roundwood production and are predicted to account for 50% of global output within two decades (Brown, 1998; Jaakko Poyry, 1999).<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Siry|first1=Jacek P.|last2=Cubbage|first2=Frederick W.|last3=Ahmed|first3=Miyan Rukunuddin|date=2005-05-01|title=Sustainable forest management: global trends and opportunities|journal=Forest Policy and Economics|language=en|volume=7|issue=4|pages=551–561|doi=10.1016/j.forpol.2003.09.003|bibcode=2005ForPE...7..551S |issn=1389-9341}}</ref> Although there have been many difficulties, the implementation of forest certification has been quite prominent in being able to raise effective awareness and disseminating knowledge on a holistic concept, embracing economic, environmental and social issues, worldwide. While also providing a tool for a range of other applications than assessment of [[sustainability]], such as e.g. verifying [[Carbon sink|carbon sinks.]]<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Rametsteiner|first1=Ewald|last2=Simula|first2=Markku|date=2003-01-01|title=Forest certification—an instrument to promote sustainable forest management?|journal=Journal of Environmental Management|series=Maintaining Forest Biodiversity|language=en|volume=67|issue=1|pages=87–98|doi=10.1016/S0301-4797(02)00191-3|pmid=12659807|bibcode=2003JEnvM..67...87R |issn=0301-4797}}</ref>

== Approaches to understanding habitat fragmentation ==
Two approaches are typically used to understand habitat fragmentation and its ecological impacts.

=== Species-oriented approach ===
The species-oriented approach focuses specifically on individual species and how they each respond to their environment and habitat changes with in it. This approach can be limited because it does only focus on individual species and does not allow for a broad view of the impacts of habitat fragmentation across species.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Fischer|first1=Joern|last2=Lindenmayer|first2=David B.|title=Landscape Modification and Habitat Fragmentation: A synthesis|journal=Global Ecology and Biogeography|date=February 7, 2007|volume=16|issue=3|pages=265–280|doi=10.1111/j.1466-8238.2007.00287.x|bibcode=2007GloEB..16..265F |ref=1|doi-access=free}}</ref>

==== Pattern-oriented approach ====
The pattern-oriented approach is based on land cover and its patterning in correlation with species occurrences. One model of study for landscape patterning is the patch-matrix-corridor model developed by [[Richard Forman]] The pattern-oriented approach focuses on land cover defined by human means and activities. This model has stemmed from [[island biogeography]] and tries to infer causal relationships between the defined landscapes and the occurrence of species or groups of species within them. The approach has limitations in its collective assumptions across species or landscapes which may not account for variations amongst them.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Fischer |first1=Joern |last2=Lindenmayer |first2=David B. |date=May 2007 |title=Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: a synthesis |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2007.00287.x |journal=Global Ecology and Biogeography |language=en |volume=16 |issue=3 |pages=265–280 |doi=10.1111/j.1466-8238.2007.00287.x |bibcode=2007GloEB..16..265F |issn=1466-822X}}</ref>

==== Variegation model ====
The other model is the variegation model. Variegated landscapes retain much of their natural vegetation but are intermixed with gradients of modified habitat <ref>{{cite web|title=Landscape Ecology and Landscape Change|url=http://www.veac.vic.gov.au/reports/Chapter%202%20-%20Landscape%20Ecology%20and%20Landscape%20Change.pdf|access-date=March 22, 2018|ref=2}}</ref> This model of habitat fragmentation typically applies to landscapes that are modified by agriculture. In contrast to the fragmentation model that is denoted by isolated patches of habitat surrounded by unsuitable landscape environments, the variegation model applies to landscapes modified by agriculture where small patches of habitat remain near the remnant original habitat. In between these patches are a matrix of grassland that is often modified versions of the original habitat. These areas do not present as much of a barrier to native species.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=McIntyre |first1=S. |last2=Barrett |first2=G. W. |title=Habitat Variegation, An Alternative to Fragmentation |journal=Conservation Biology |date=1992 |volume=6 |issue=1 |pages=146–147 |jstor=2385863 |doi=10.1046/j.1523-1739.1992.610146.x|bibcode=1992ConBi...6..146M }}</ref>

==See also==
{{Portal|Environment|Ecology|Earth sciences|Biology}}
{{Div col|colwidth=30em}}
* [[Empty forest]]
* [[Extinction vortex]]
* [[Gene pool]]
* [[Genetic erosion]]
* [[Habitat conservation]]
* [[Habitat corridor]]
* [[Habitat destruction]]
* [[Landscape connectivity]]
* [[Landscape ecology]]
* [[Patch dynamics]]
* [[Reproductive isolation]]
* [[Restoration ecology]]
* [[Road kill]]
* [[Wildlife corridor]]
* [[Wildlife crossing]]
{{div col end}}

== Bibliography ==
* Lindenmayer D.B & Fischer J (2013) ''Habitat Fragmentation and Landscape Change: An Ecological and Conservation Synthesis'' (Island Press)

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
{{Commons category|Ecological fragmentation}}
*[http://www.globio.info GLOBIO], an ongoing programme to map the past, current and future impacts of human activities on the natural environment, specifically highlighting larger wilderness areas and their fragmentation
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20120217000742/http://vlab.infotech.monash.edu.au/simulations/cellular-automata/population-genetics/ Monash Virtual Laboratory] – Simulations of habitat fragmentation and population genetics online at Monash University's Virtual Laboratory.
*[http://www.mma.es/portal/secciones/biodiversidad/desarrollo_rural_paisaje/fragmentacion_rural/pdf/2_Desfragmentacion_Belgica.pdf Defragmentation in Belgium (Flanders) – Connecting nature, connecting people. Accessed: Jan 22, 2009]{{Dead link|date=March 2024 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}
*[http://www.mma.es/portal/secciones/biodiversidad/desarrollo_rural_paisaje/fragmentacion_rural/pdf/1_Desfragmentacion_Holanda.pdf Wildlife passages – De-Fragmentation in the Netherlands – How to evaluate their effectiveness? Accessed: Jan 22, 2009]{{Dead link|date=March 2024 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}
*[http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/landscape-fragmentation-in-europe Landscape Fragmentation in Europe] The technical report from 2006 - the result of a collaboration between the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) and the European Environment Agency (EEA). Accessed: Feb 22, 2016
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24229723 Kinver, Mark. (2013, September 26). "Forest fragmentation triggers 'ecological Armageddon'", BBC News.]

{{Modelling ecosystems|expanded=other}}
{{Authority control}}
{{Conservation of species}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Habitat Fragmentation}}
[[Category:Habitats| Fragmentation]]
[[Category:Habitat|Fragmentation]]
[[Category:Ecological connectivity]]
[[Category:Conservation biology]]
[[Category:Environmental conservation]]
[[Category:Sustainable forest management]]