Ecological Consequences of Habitat Fragmentation


Habitat fragmentation is the process by which habitat loss results in the division of large, continuous habitats into smaller, more isolated remnants. Thousands of scientific studies now show unequivocal evidence for the impacts of patch area, edge effects, patch shape complexity, isolation and landscape matrix contrast on community structure and ecosystem functioning. However, striking disparities in the results of these studies have raised considerable debate about the relative importance of different mechanisms underlying fragmentation effects, and even about the utility of the ‘fragmentation’ concept in general. Resolution of this debate lies in clear discrimination of direct versus indirect causal relationships among patch and landscape variables. The most important recent advances in our understanding of fragmentation effects all stem from recognition of strong context‐dependence in ecosystem responses, including spatial context‐dependence at multiple scales, time‐lagged population declines, trait‐dependent species responses and synergistic interactions between fragmentation and other components of global environmental change.

Key Concepts:

  • Habitat fragmentation is an umbrella term describing the complete process by which habitat loss results in the division of large, continuous habitats into a greater number of smaller patches of lower total area, isolated from each other by a matrix of dissimilar habitats, and is not just the pattern of spatial arrangement of remaining habitat.

  • Habitat loss and habitat fragmentation are not independent drivers of ecological change – habitat loss acts via the change in habitat arrangement, not independently of it.

  • Habitat fragmentation is a landscape‐level phenomenon, and patch‐level processes (patch area, edge effects and patch shape complexity) can only be understood within a landscape context (isolation and matrix structure).

  • A dominant effect of increasing habitat loss is a reduction in patch area, with resulting declines in population density and species richness, and significant alterations to community composition, species interactions and ecosystem functioning.

  • The habitat edge is not a discrete boundary line around a patch, it is a fuzzy three‐dimensional zone that straddles both sides of the patch‐matrix boundary, and the intensity of edge influence may be variable and asymmetrical around the physical vegetation boundary.

  • Quantification of edge impact requires explicit discrimination of two distinct components of edge influence: edge extent (i.e. the distance over which a statistical difference in response can be detected between the matrix and the patch) and edge magnitude (i.e. the degree of difference in response between the patch interior and the matrix interior).

  • Increasing patch shape complexity substantially reduces the availability of ‘core’ habitat area unaffected by edge effects.

  • Patch isolation reduces population connectivity and reduces the probability of population persistence, but geographic isolation is not an absolute quantity and can only be interpreted in the light of matrix permeability, the dispersal traits of the species in question and the time‐scale over which effects might become apparent.

  • Matrix quality and surrounding landscape composition have a dominant influence on population dynamics, species diversity and ecosystem processes in habitat patches.

  • Habitat fragmentation interacts strongly with other components of global environmental change, including species invasions, land‐use intensification and climate change.

Keywords: connectivity; context‐dependence; edge effects; habitat area; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss; isolation; landscape structure; matrix contrast; patch shape

Figure 1.

Land‐use change in a fragmented tropical forest landscape in the highlands near Sapa, Vietnam, showing the scale of habitat loss, the altered spatial arrangement of remaining rainforest habitats and the mosaic of human land‐use intensification in the surrounding landscape matrix. Copyright © Ashley Whitworth, reproduced with permission from, file no. 3280280 (

Figure 2.

Defining habitat fragmentation. There is strong debate about whether the term ‘habitat fragmentation’ should be used to describe: (a) the entire spatio‐temporal process by which habitat loss leads to the subdivision of large, continuous habitats into a greater number of smaller patches of lower total area, isolated from each other by a matrix of dissimilar habitats; or (b) solely the differences that occur due to the differing pattern of spatial arrangement of remaining habitat after the amount of habitat remaining in the landscape has been taken into account. The satellite images in (a) show typical correlated changes in habitat loss and habitat fragmentation in the same landscape east of Santa Cruz, Bolivia, over three time intervals (images reproduced courtesy of NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio; The satellite images in (b) show three different landscapes in southern Mato Grosso, Brazil, with approximately the same amount of habitat loss, but very differing spatial arrangement (images reproduced courtesy of Jacques Descloitres, MODIS Land Rapid Response Team, NASA/GSFC, 29 May 2001;

Figure 3.

A schematic representation of the problem of attributing causality to ‘habitat loss’ versus ‘habitat fragmentation’. (a) In modified landscapes, all measures of spatial habitat configuration are strongly intercorrelated with the amount of remaining habitat, making separation of ‘independent’ effects impossible. (b) The reason for the strong intercorrelation is that the effects of habitat amount do not only operate directly and separately from the effects of habitat fragmentation, they predominantly operate through indirect pathways mediated by altered spatial configuration. For clarity, not all possible indirect pathways are shown in (b).

Figure 4.

Widely held generalisations about community responses to habitat fragmentation. Predictions of how species richness typically changes as the five main components of the spatial context of habitat fragments are altered. Reproduced with permission from Ewers and Didham .

Figure 5.

Edge effects can only be quantified by measuring ecological responses on both sides of the physical vegetation boundary. The ‘edge’ itself is not a simple boundary line around a patch, but is a fuzzy three‐dimensional zone of edge influence, that can be measured in terms of both edge extent (DEI, ) and edge magnitude (MEI, ). The edge zone is frequently asymmetrical around the physical vegetation boundary, and studies that take a ‘one‐sided’ approach in measuring edge effects can obtain quite different estimates of edge extent and edge magnitude than studies taking a two‐sided approach (DEIpatch vs DEImatrix and MEIpatch vs MEImatrix).



Bhattacharya M, Primack RB and Gerwein J (2003) Are roads and railroads barriers to bumblebee movement in a temperate suburban conservation area? Biological Conservation 109: 37–45.

Bierregaard RO, Lovejoy TE, Kapos V, Santos AA and Hutchings RW (1992) The biological dynamics of tropical forest fragments. A prospective comparison of fragments and continuous forest. BioScience 42: 859–866.

Brooks TM, Pimm SL and Oyugi JO (1999) Time lag between deforestation and bird extinction in tropical forest fragments. Conservation Biology 13: 1140–1150.

Cadenasso ML, Pickett STA, Weathers KC and Jones CG (2003) A framework for a theory of ecological boundaries. BioScience 53: 750–758.

Chen J, Saunders SC, Crow TR et al. (1999) Microclimate in forest ecosystem and landscape ecology. BioScience 49: 288–297.

Collinge SK (2000) Effects of grassland fragmentation on insect species loss, colonization, and movement patterns. Ecology 81: 2211–2226.

Collinge SK (2009) Ecology of Fragmented Landscapes. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Collinge SK and Palmer TM (2002) The influences of patch shape and boundary contrast on insect response to fragmentation in California grasslands. Landscape Ecology 17: 647–656.

Damschen EI, Haddad NM, Orrock JL, Tewksbury JJ and Levey DJ (2006) Corridors increase plant species richness at large scales. Science 313: 1284–1286.

Davies KF, Margules CR and Lawrence JF (2000) Which traits of species predict population declines in experimental forest fragments? Ecology 81: 1450–1461.

De Vries HH, den Boer PJ and Dijk TS (1996) Ground beetle species in heathland fragments in relation to survival, dispersal, and habitat preference. Oecologia 107: 332–342.

Didham RK, Tylianakis JM, Gemmell NJ, Rand TA and Ewers RM (2007) Interactive effects of habitat modification and species invasion on native species decline. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 22: 489–496.

Donald PF and Evans AD (2006) Habitat connectivity and matrix restoration: the wider implications of agri‐environment schemes. Journal of Applied Ecology 43: 209–218.

Ewers RM and Didham RK (2006a) Confounding factors in the detection of species responses to habitat fragmentation. Biological Reviews 81: 117–142.

Ewers RM and Didham RK (2006b) Continuous response functions for quantifying the strength of edge effects. Journal of Applied Ecology 43: 527–536.

Ewers RM and Didham RK (2007) The effect of fragment shape and species’ sensitivity to habitat edges on animal population size. Conservation Biology 21: 926–936.

Ewers RM and Didham RK (2008) Pervasive impact of large‐scale edge effects on a beetle community. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 105: 5426–5429.

Ewers RM, Thorpe S and Didham RK (2007) Synergistic interactions between edge and area effects in a heavily fragmented landscape. Ecology 88: 96–106.

Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 34: 487–515.

Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP et al. (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science 309: 570–574.

Fonseca CR and Joner F (2007) Two‐sided edge effect studies and the restoration of endangered ecosystems. Restoration Ecology 15: 613–619.

Gascon C, Lovejoy TE, Bierregaard RO et al. (1999) Matrix effects and species richness in tropical forest remnants. Biological Conservation 91: 223–229.

Gilbert F, Gonzalez A and Evans‐Freke I (1998) Corridors maintain species richness in the fragmented landscapes of a microecosystem. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences 265: 577–582.

Gilpin ME and Soulé ME (1986) Minimum viable populations: processes of species extinction. In: Soulé ME (ed.) Conservation Biology: The Science of Scarcity and Diversity, pp. 19–34. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer associates, Inc.

Gonzalez A (2000) Community relaxation in fragmented landscapes: the relation between species richness, area and age. Ecology Letters 3: 441–448.

Haila Y (2002) A conceptual genealogy of fragmentation research: from island biogeography to landscape ecology. Ecological Applications 12: 321–334.

Hanski I and Ovaskainen O (2000) The metapopulation capacity of a fragmented landscape. Nature 404: 755–758.

Harper KA, MacDonald SE, Burton PJ et al. (2005) Edge influence on forest structure and composition in fragmented landscapes. Conservation Biology 19: 768–782.

Henle K, Davies KF, Kleyer M, Margules C and Settele J (2004) Predictors of species sensitivity to fragmentation. Biodiversity and Conservation 13: 207–251.

Hilty JA, Lidicker WZ and Merenlender AM (2006) Corridor Ecology: The Science and Practice of Linking Landscapes for Biodiversity Conservation. Washington DC: Island Press.

Jackson ST and Sax DF (2010) Balancing biodiversity in a changing environment: extinction debt, immigration credit and species turnover. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 25: 153–160.

Kupfer JA, Malanson GP and Franklin SB (2006) Not seeing the ocean for the islands: the mediating influence of matrix‐based processes on forest fragmentation effects. Global Ecology and Biogeography 15: 8–20.

Laurance WF, Lovejoy TE, Vasconcelos HL et al. (2002) Ecosystem decay of Amazonian forest fragments: A 22‐year investigation. Conservation Biology 16: 605–618.

Leibold MA, Holyoak M, Mouquet N et al. (2004) The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi‐scale community ecology. Ecology Letters 7: 601–613.

Lomolino MV (2000) Ecology's most general, yet protean pattern: the species‐area relationship. Journal of Biogeography 27: 17–26.

MacArthur RH and Wilson EO (1967) The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Myers N and Knoll AH (2001) The biotic crisis and the future of evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 98: 5389–5392.

Perfecto I and Vandermeer J (2002) Quality of agroecological matrix in a tropical montane landscape: ants in coffee plantations in southern Mexico. Conservation Biology 16: 174–182.

Pickett STA and Cadenasso ML (1995) Landscape ecology: spatial heterogeneity in ecological systems. Science 269: 331–334.

Rand TA and Louda SA (2006) Spillover of agriculturally subsidized predators as a potential threat to native insect herbivores in fragmented landscapes. Conservation Biology 20: 1720–1729.

Ricketts TH (2001) The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. American Naturalist 158: 87–99.

Ries L, Fletcher RJJ, Battin J and Sisk TD (2004) Ecological responses to habitat edges: mechanisms, models and variability explained. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 35: 491–522.

Saunders DA, Hobbs RJ and Margules CR (1991) Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conservation Biology 5: 18–32.

Tewksbury JJ, Garner L, Garner S et al. (2006) Tests of landscape influence: nest predation and brood parasitism in fragmented ecosystems. Ecology 87: 759–768.

Tewksbury J, Levey D, Haddad N et al. (2002) Corridors affect plants, animals, and their interactions in fragmented landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 99: 12923–12926.

Thomas CD, Franco AMA and Hill JK (2006) Range contractions and extinction in the face of climate change. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21: 415–416.

Tscharntke T, Klein AM, Kruess A, Steffan‐Dewenter I and Thies C (2005) Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity – ecosystem service management. Ecology Letters 8: 857–874.

Tscharntke T, Steffan‐Dewenter I, Kruess A and Thies C (2002) Characteristics of insect populations on habitat fragments: a mini review. Ecological Research 17: 229–239.

Tylianakis JM, Didham RK, Bascompte J and Wardle DA (2008) Global change and species interactions in terrestrial ecosystems. Ecology Letters 11: 1351–1363.

Vellend M, Verheyen K, Jacquemyn H et al. (2006) Extinction debt of forest plants persists for more than a century following habitat fragmentation. Ecology 87: 542–548.

Wilcove DS, McLellan CH and Dobson AP (1986) Habitat fragmentation in the temperate zone. In: Soulé ME (ed.) Conservation Biology. The Science of Scarcity and Diversity, pp. 237–256. MA: Sinauer associates, Inc.

Further Reading

Bierregaard RO Jr, Gascon C, Lovejoy TE and Mesquita R (2001) Lessons from Amazonia: The Ecology and Conservation of a Fragmented Forest. Yale, CT: Yale University Press.

Didham RK (1997) An overview of invertebrate responses to forest fragmentation. In: Watt A, Stork NE and Hunter M (eds) Forests and Insects, pp. 303–320. London: Chapman and Hall.

Forman RTT (1995) Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Gutzwiller KJ (2002) Applying Landscape Ecology in Biological Conservation. New York: Springer.

Harris LD (1984) The Fragmented Forest. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Laurance WF and Bierregaard RO Jr (1997) Tropical Forest Remnants: Ecology, Management and Conservation of Fragmented Communities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Lindenmayer D and Fischer J (2006) Habitat Fragmentation and Landscape Change: An Ecological and Conservation Synthesis. Collingwood, Vic., Australia: CSIRO Publishing.

Rochelle JA, Lehmann LA and Wisniewski J (1999) Forest Fragmentation: Wildlife and Management Implications. Boston, MA: Brill.

Schelhas J and Greenberg R (1996) Forest Patches in Tropical Landscapes. Washington DC: Island Press.

Wiens JA and Moss MR (2005) Issues and Perspectives in Landscape Ecology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Contact Editor close
Submit a note to the editor about this article by filling in the form below.

* Required Field

How to Cite close
Didham, Raphael K(Nov 2010) Ecological Consequences of Habitat Fragmentation. In: eLS. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester. [doi: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0021904]