dc.contributor.author
Fahrig, Lenore
dc.contributor.author
Watling, James I.
dc.contributor.author
Arnillas, Carlos Alberto
dc.contributor.author
Arroyo-Rodríguez, Victor
dc.contributor.author
Jörger-Hickfang, Theresa
dc.contributor.author
Müller, Jörg
dc.contributor.author
Pereira, Henrique M.
dc.contributor.author
Riva, Federico
dc.contributor.author
Rösch, Verena
dc.contributor.author
May, Felix
dc.date.accessioned
2022-02-01T12:32:02Z
dc.date.available
2022-02-01T12:32:02Z
dc.identifier.uri
https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/handle/fub188/32459
dc.identifier.uri
http://dx.doi.org/10.17169/refubium-32184
dc.description.abstract
The legacy of the ‘SL > SS principle’, that a single or a few large habitat patches (SL) conserve more species than several small patches (SS), is evident in decisions to protect large patches while down-weighting small ones. However, empirical support for this principle is lacking, and most studies find either no difference or the opposite pattern (SS > SL). To resolve this dilemma, we propose a research agenda by asking, ‘are there consistent, empirically demonstrated conditions leading to SL > SS?’ We first review and summarize ‘single large or several small’ (SLOSS) theory and predictions. We found that most predictions of SL > SS assume that between-patch variation in extinction rate dominates the outcome of the extinction–colonization dynamic. This is predicted to occur when populations in separate patches are largely independent of each other due to low between-patch movements, and when species differ in minimum patch size requirements, leading to strong nestedness in species composition along the patch size gradient. However, even when between-patch variation in extinction rate dominates the outcome of the extinction–colonization dynamic, theory can predict SS > SL. This occurs if extinctions are caused by antagonistic species interactions or disturbances, leading to spreading-of-risk of landscape-scale extinction across SS. SS > SL is also predicted when variation in colonization dominates the outcome of the extinction–colonization dynamic, due to higher immigration rates for SS than SL, and larger species pools in proximity to SS than SL. Theory that considers change in species composition among patches also predicts SS > SL because of higher beta diversity across SS than SL. This results mainly from greater environmental heterogeneity in SS due to greater variation in micro-habitats within and across SS habitat patches (‘across-habitat heterogeneity’), and/or more heterogeneous successional trajectories across SS than SL. Based on our review of the relevant theory, we develop the ‘SLOSS cube hypothesis’, where the combination of three variables – between-patch movement, the role of spreading-of-risk in landscape-scale population persistence, and across-habitat heterogeneity – predict the SLOSS outcome. We use the SLOSS cube hypothesis and existing SLOSS empirical evidence, to predict SL > SS only when all of the following are true: low between-patch movement, low importance of spreading-of-risk for landscape-scale population persistence, and low across-habitat heterogeneity. Testing this prediction will be challenging, as it will require many studies of species groups and regions where these conditions hold. Each such study would compare gamma diversity across multiple landscapes varying in number and sizes of patches. If the prediction is not generally supported across such tests, then the mechanisms leading to SL > SS are extremely rare in nature and the SL > SS principle should be abandoned.
en
dc.format.extent
16 Seiten
dc.rights.uri
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subject
extinction–colonization
en
dc.subject
geometric effect
en
dc.subject
habitat fragmentation
en
dc.subject
landscape scale
en
dc.subject
SLOSS cube hypothesis
en
dc.subject
metacommunity
en
dc.subject.ddc
500 Naturwissenschaften und Mathematik::570 Biowissenschaften; Biologie::570 Biowissenschaften; Biologie
dc.title
Resolving the SLOSS dilemma for biodiversity conservation: a research agenda
dc.type
Wissenschaftlicher Artikel
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.doi
10.1111/brv.12792
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.journaltitle
Biological Reviews
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.number
1
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.pagestart
99
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.pageend
114
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.volume
97
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.url
https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12792
refubium.affiliation
Biologie, Chemie, Pharmazie
refubium.affiliation.other
Institut für Biologie
refubium.resourceType.isindependentpub
no
dcterms.accessRights.openaire
open access
dcterms.isPartOf.eissn
1469-185X
refubium.resourceType.provider
WoS-Alert