Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Human action has modified the earth in many ways, but one of the most
pervasive effects of humans on the environment is dissection of natural
systems into spatially isolated parts, a process generally known as frag-
mentation. Fragmentation of environments is not only caused by humans;
dynamic natural processes like landslides, fires, and floods can create barriers
that dissect natural systems. Understanding the consequences of human-
caused and natural sources of fragmentation has been a fundamental chall-
enge in ecology, a problem occupying theoretical and empirical workers
for decades (see reviews of Usher 1987, Andren 1994, Collinge 1996,
Turner 1996, Young et al. 1996, Harrison and Bruna 1999, Debinski
and Holt 2000, Niemela 2001, Chalfoun et al. 2002, de Blois et al. 2002,
Schmiegelow and Monkkonen 2002). Moreover, anthropologists and other
social scientists have worked to understand the human forces that drive
fragmentation of landscapes (Khazanov 1984, Little and Leslie 1999,
Kerven 2003). Despite these efforts, understanding of the consequences of
landscape fragmentation for human economies and social systems remains
rudimentary.
∗
deceased
25
K. A. Galvin et al. (eds.), Fragmentation in Semi-Arid and Arid Landscapes: Consequences for Human
and Natural Systems, 25–44.
© 2008 Springer.
26 Chapter 2
Humans change landscapes in many ways and the variety of these changes
has created confusion in terminology used to describe them. To avoid this
Fragmentation of Arid and Semi-Arid Ecosystems 27
confusion, we will clarify some terms as we will use them throughout this
book. We begin with the concept of habitat loss, which will allow us sub-
sequently to define habitat fragmentation. When human or natural distur-
bances convert land cover from one form to another, that conversion often
changes the suitability of habitat for livestock and wildlife. For example, the
conversion of grassland to intensive agriculture or to urban development
changes an area of landscape that was once suitable for grazing animals to
an area that is unsuitable. We will refer to changes like these as habitat
loss—the conversion of landscape occurring in such a way that the area of
habitat suitable for a species or community of animals is diminished. As the
area of habitat declines, the patches or pieces of habitat that remain usually
become more isolated from each other, because reduction in habitat area also
expands the distances among the patches (Figure 2-1A).
Historically, the process of habitat loss was considered synonymous with
habitat fragmentation. However, because these concepts were not distinct,
the effects of reductions in habitat area were confounded with the effects of
habitat isolation. The contemporary definition of fragmentation seeks to
disentangle these effects; by contrast with habitat loss, the modern view of
fragmentation refers to changes in relative isolation of habitat distinct from
changes in their area (Figure 2-1B, C) (Fahrig 1997, 1998, 2002, Schmiegelow
and Monkkonen 2002, Villard 2002, Ryall and Fahrig 2006, Betts et al.
2006). One of the most important, unresolved questions in contemporary
studies of fragmentation asks: “How does habitat fragmentation influence
the abundance of organisms apart from the effects of habitat loss?” (for
review see Andren 1994, Fahrig 1997, Bender et al. 1998, Schmiegelow and
Monkkonen 2002, Tscharntke et al. 2002, Ryall and Fahrig 2006, Betts et al.
2006). On rangelands, this question becomes “How does habitat fragmentation
influence the number of people and animals that can be supported by a given
landscape?”
Understanding this influence is important for two reasons. First, there are
many cases where landscapes are fragmented without changes in habitat
area, the clearest examples arising when landscapes are dissected by fences
(Boone and Hobbs 2004) or roads (reviewed by Forman and Alexander
1998, Spellerberg 1998, Trombulak and Frissell 2000). In these cases,
movement of people and animals can be restricted with negligible change in
the total area of habitat available. We maintain that rangelands are the ideal
laboratory to use to isolate fragmentation from loss because we think the
most widespread change in rangelands is habitat fragmentation alone, without
habitat loss. Second, it is possible that the effect of fragmentation can
amplify the effect of habitat loss; that is, isolated patches of habitat may
support smaller populations than patches of the same size that are not isolated.
28 Chapter 2
Suitable Unsuitable
Habitat Habitat
A Habitat Loss
Habitat
Fragmentation
B
Habitat
Fragmentation
C
Figure 2-1. Shaded areas represent habitat that is suitable for a species; unshaded areas are
unsuitable. Arrows represent hypothetical movements of animals. Habitat loss implies the
conversion of habitat that is suitable to an unsuitable form (A). This conversion has two
effects—the loss of habitat area and the isolation of suitable fragments imbedded in an
unsuitable matrix (A). Fragmentation refers to isolation of habitat apart from any habitat loss.
Fragmentation causes isolation by creating barriers to movement like fences or roads (B) or
by interrupting corridors for movement through unsuitable habitat (C).
What this means is that a fragmented landscape can sustain lower densities
of people and animals than an intact landscape of the same area and containing
the same resources.
The preponderance of effort invested in understanding the ecological
consequences of fragmentation has focused on populations and communities
Fragmentation of Arid and Semi-Arid Ecosystems 29
of plants and animals (see review of Debinski and Holt 2000). Examples of
this focus include studies of fragmentation on species and genetic diversity,
population stability, and extinction risk (reviewed by Saunders et al. 1991,
Andren 1994, Turner 1996, Harrison and Bruna 1999, Fahrig 2002). However,
the effects of fragmentation on populations may be mediated by effects on
individuals. Below, we develop the idea that habitat fragmentation shapes
interactions between people, animals, and landscapes, (e.g., Bowers et al.
1996, Ritchie 1998) and in so doing, determines the welfare and performance
of their populations.
X X
X X
X X
Distance = L
X X
X X
X X
Distance = W
Figure 2-2. Fragmentation compresses the scale of ecological interactions. Presume that the
x’s are consumers and the o’s are resources. In the unfragmented “habitat” on the left the
scale of interaction is the square root of L*W and there are 6 x 30 = 180 potential interactions
between consumers and resources. In contrast, the scale of interaction is the square root of 1/3
(L*W) in the fragmented habitat on the right and there are 18 + 22 + 13 = 53 potential
consumer x resource interactions. Note that fragmentation meaningfully reduces the number
of potential interactions without changing habitat area.
about values in the future or past (Figure 2-3). So, for example, in a spatially
heterogeneous system, the production of vegetation at one point in space
conveys very little information about vegetation production at another point
in space. In a temporally heterogeneous system, knowledge of the production
of vegetation during one year does very little to allow you to predict the
production of vegetation during another year.
We will use the term grain to bring together the concepts of scale,
pattern, and variety of resources. In systems that are fine grained, the spatial
pattern of resources is such that the full diversity of resource types are found
at fine scales (Figure 2-4A). In a system where the pattern and variety of
resources is coarse grained, large areas of landscape are required to include
the same diversity (Figure 2-4B).
Because the concept of grain integrates scale, spatial pattern, and resource
variety, it is particularly relevant to understanding the effects of fragmen-
tation, and in particular, to defining critical scales where fragmentation may
cause abrupt disruption of natural and human economies. These critical
scales arise as follows. We presume there is a set of key resources (sensu
Illius and O’Connor 1999) that is necessary to support growth, reproduction,
and survival of people and animals exploiting rangelands. For example, in
western North America, migratory ungulates require access to high elevation
habitats that provide nutritious, productive forage during summer (Wallmo
et al. 1977, Frank et al. 1998). However, because these areas are made
inhospitable by accumulation of deep snow during winter, ungulates also
require access to low elevation areas that accumulate less snow during the
winter, areas that are too low in productivity to support populations year-
round (Wallmo et al. 1977). These broad categories of winter vs. summer
ranges may themselves contain critical components; for example, wind
swept ridges that remain snow free, south facing slopes with early green up,
forests that provides thermal cover, and soils that offer minerals at high
concentration (Hobbs et al. 1981, Hobbs 1989, Frank and McNaughton
1992). In many tropical systems, there is a similar dependence of ungulates
on dry and wet-season ranges and the resource heterogeneity that is nested
within them (Frank and McNaughton 1992). If any of these critical resources
are absent from the ranges of animals, then populations suffer reduced
performance. This is because these resources are not substitutable, that is,
no amount of increase in summer range can compensate for loss of winter
32 Chapter 2
25
Heterogeneity Low
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819 20 21
25
20 Added
Accumulaed
15
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 111213141516171819 20 21
Day
Figure 2-3. Assume the shaded areas are resources. Systems that are heterogeneous in space
show high spatial dependence. In the rectangle on the left, the average number of resources per
unit area is largely independent of location in each third of the rectangle's area. In the rectangle
on the right the number of resources per unit area varies strongly with spatial location. Similar
concepts apply to time. When temporal heterogeneity is low, it is possible to predict the future
rate of resource production by sampling a brief time interval. When temporal heterogeneity is
high, knowing the rate over one time interval does not inform what that rate will be over a future
time interval.
A: Heterogeneity
Fine Grained
Fragment Landscape
B: Heterogeneity
Coarse Grained
Figure 2-4. Solid lines represent boundaries of landscape units. A. When heterogeneity in
resources is fine grained, then a landscape unit with a small area will contain all resource
types. B. When heterogeneity is coarse grained, a large area is required to contain all resource
types. Assume an intact landscape is fragmented into parts, with no loss of area. In this case,
the solid lines now represent barriers to movement defining four habitat fragments. Each
fragment contains a sub-population of consumers. Assume there is some minimum variety of
resources that is required to support population growth. The area of habitat available to each
sub-population is reduced by fragmentation even if the total amount of resource remains
constant. If heterogeneity in resources is fine grained (upper solid line, panel C) then
fragmentation will not reduce the variety of resources below the minimum level. However, if
heterogeneity in resources is coarse grained relative to the scale of fragmentation (lower
solid line, panel C), then fragmentation can prevent consumers from obtaining the range of
resources they need to survive and reproduce, even if the total amount of resource remains
unchanged.
during which animals must draw down fat reserves (Hobbs 1989). In the
next section, we describe general mechanisms that cause fragmentation of
rangelands to harm the ability of people and animals to exploit heterogeneous
resources.
4. MECHANISTIC EFFECTS
OF FRAGMENTATION
capacity and productivity per unit area, but in the past, the value of hetero-
geneity has not been costed properly. Only the economic side of the equation
is considered; the ecological side and its value are ignored. However,
ecosystem scientists and ecological-economic practitioners understand that
complex systems are self-sustaining, whereas simplified (fragmented) eco-
systems often require capital inputs, subsidies and/or management to be
sustainable (Ellis and Peel 1995). Although ecosystem fragmentation is
often justified as a means of economic intensification in the neo-classical
framework, in fact, it costs money (fodder, infrastructure, etc.) to replace the
access to natural capital lost through fragmentation (Prugh 1999). Land use
patterns, driven by economic or political agendas, are unlikely to be perfectly
superimposed on spatial complexity patterns. Where land tenure dictates a
small-scale pattern of exploitation, economic inputs are needed to compensate
for the natural capital lost to fragmentation. We hypothesize that inputs per
unit area increase exponentially with fragmentation and decreasing scale
(Figure 2-5). Alternately, scale expansion through consolidation adds greater
complexity to the grazing orbit, reducing economic inputs until at some
larger scale, the minimum level of complexity for unsubsidized exploitation is
reached, and economic inputs approach zero (Figure 2-5, Figure 2-4C).
Figure 2-5. The need for economic inputs declines with increasing enterprise scale because
larger enterprises encompass greater environmental heterogeneity (solid line). Under
conditions of high climatic variability, greater inputs are required to offset effects of climate
perturbations (dotted line). At the minimum heterogeneity level, inputs are not needed and are
internalized by the enterprise.
Fragmentation of Arid and Semi-Arid Ecosystems 39
Figure 2-6. Conceptual model illustrating the central thesis of this book. Fragmentation of arid and semi-arid ecosystems is driven by forces operating
over different temporal scales. Ultimately, the land resources base, climate and human economies drive proximal changes in land tenure, which cause
land to be dissected into isolated parcels, transforming an intact set of resources into a disconnected set. Fragmentation exerts short term effects on the
ability of people and animals to exploit spatial heterogeneity in resources, which eventually causes long term impacts on ecosystem function, economic
performance, and human welfare.
Chapter 2
Fragmentation of Arid and Semi-Arid Ecosystems 41
ENDNOTES
1
Used this way, scale is usually quantified as the square root of an area of landscape.
REFERENCES
Adler, P. B., D. A. Raff, and W. K. Lauenroth. 2001. The effect of grazing on the spatial
heterogeneity of vegetation. Oecologia 128:465-479.
Andren, H. 1994. Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with
different proportions of suitable habitat - a review. Oikos 71:355-366.
Auclair, A. N. D. and A. N. Rencz. 1982. Concentration, mass, and distribution of nutrients
in a subarctic Picea mariana-Cladonia alpestris ecosystem. Canadian Journal of Forest
Research 12:947-968.
Behnke, R. 1994. Natural resource management in pastoral Africa. Development Policy
Review 12:5-27.
Behnke, R. 1999. Reconfiguring property rights in livestock production systems. Overseas
Development Institute (ODI), London.
Belovsky, G. E. 1981. Food plant selection by a generalist herbivore: the moose. Ecology
62:1020-1030.
Belovsky, G. E. 1984a. Herbivore optimal foraging - a comparative test of 3 models.
American Naturalist 124:97-115.
Belovsky, G. E. 1984b. Snowshoe hare optimal foraging and its implications for population-
dynamics. Theoretical Population Biology 25:235-264.
Belovsky, G. E. 1986. Optimal foraging and community structure - implications for a guild of
generalist grassland herbivores. Oecologia 70:35-52.
Bender, D. J., T. A. Contreras, and L. Fahrig. 1998. Habitat loss and population decline: A
meta-analysis of the patch size effect. Ecology 79:517-533.
Bernays, E. A., J. E. Angel, and M. Augner. 1997. Foraging by a generalist grasshopper: The
distance between food resources influences diet mixing and growth rate (Orthoptera:
Acrididae). Journal of Insect Behavior 10:829-840.
Betts, M. G., G. J. Forbes, A. W. Diamond, and P. D. Taylor. 2006. Independent effects of
fragmentation on forest songbirds: An organism-based approach. Ecological Applications
16:1076-1089.
Boone, R. B. and N. T. Hobbs. 2004. Lines around fragments: effects of fencing on large
herbivores. African Journal of Range and Forage Science 21:79-90.
Bowers, M. A., K. Gregario, C. J. Brame, S. F. Matter, and J. L. Dooley. 1996. Use of space
and habitats by meadow voles at the home range, patch and landscape scales. Oecologia
105:107-115.
Breman, H. and C. T. de Wit. 1983. Rangeland productivity and exploitation in the Sahel.
Science 221:1341-1347.
Chalfoun, A. D., F. R. Thompson, and M. J. Ratnaswamy. 2002. Nest predators and
fragmentation: a review and meta-analysis. Conservation Biology 16:306-318.
Collinge, S. K. 1996. Ecological consequences of habitat fragmentation: Implications for
landscape architecture and planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 36:59-77.
de Blois, S., G. Domon, and A. Bouchard. 2002. Landscape issues in plant ecology.
Ecography 25:244-256.
42 Chapter 2