There is increasing empirical evidence that the quality of habitat patches (determined by either habitat degradation or natural heterogeneity in the quality of habitat) plays an important role in determining species distribution patterns and in regulating spatial dynamics in fragmented landscapes. However, to date, most of the debate has focused on whether or not to include habitat variables in fragmentation studies, and we still lack general conclusions as well as standard and robust research approaches. In this paper we show how a weak conceptualization of "patch quality" and the inappropriate choice of target surrogate variables (e.g., density is often used as an indicator of patch quality) have mainly produced case-specific results, rather than general conclusions. We then identify weaknesses in the inclusion of habitat quality measurements within fragmentation studies. In particular, we focus on: (1) the lack of appropriate experimental design, outlining how few studies have actually included a gradient of habitat quality in their sample; (2) the lack of fundamental information provided (e.g., lack of standard outputs), which in turn hampers the possibility of carrying out meta-analyses. We finally synthesize available knowledge from empirical studies and highlight the different conceptual frameworks needed for patch occupancy versus patch use studies.

The role of habitat quality in fragmented landscapes: a conceptual overview and prospectus for future research / Mortelliti, Alessio; Amori, Giovanni; Boitani, Luigi. - In: OECOLOGIA. - ISSN 0029-8549. - 163:2(2010), pp. 535-547. [10.1007/s00442-010-1623-3]

The role of habitat quality in fragmented landscapes: a conceptual overview and prospectus for future research

MORTELLITI, Alessio;AMORI, GIOVANNI;BOITANI, Luigi
2010

Abstract

There is increasing empirical evidence that the quality of habitat patches (determined by either habitat degradation or natural heterogeneity in the quality of habitat) plays an important role in determining species distribution patterns and in regulating spatial dynamics in fragmented landscapes. However, to date, most of the debate has focused on whether or not to include habitat variables in fragmentation studies, and we still lack general conclusions as well as standard and robust research approaches. In this paper we show how a weak conceptualization of "patch quality" and the inappropriate choice of target surrogate variables (e.g., density is often used as an indicator of patch quality) have mainly produced case-specific results, rather than general conclusions. We then identify weaknesses in the inclusion of habitat quality measurements within fragmentation studies. In particular, we focus on: (1) the lack of appropriate experimental design, outlining how few studies have actually included a gradient of habitat quality in their sample; (2) the lack of fundamental information provided (e.g., lack of standard outputs), which in turn hampers the possibility of carrying out meta-analyses. We finally synthesize available knowledge from empirical studies and highlight the different conceptual frameworks needed for patch occupancy versus patch use studies.
2010
patch quality; habitat degradation; habitat loss; patch structure; habitat fragmentation
01 Pubblicazione su rivista::01a Articolo in rivista
The role of habitat quality in fragmented landscapes: a conceptual overview and prospectus for future research / Mortelliti, Alessio; Amori, Giovanni; Boitani, Luigi. - In: OECOLOGIA. - ISSN 0029-8549. - 163:2(2010), pp. 535-547. [10.1007/s00442-010-1623-3]
File allegati a questo prodotto
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11573/99425
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 18
  • Scopus 193
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 184
social impact