IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/nature/v640y2025i8059d10.1038_s41586-025-08688-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Species turnover does not rescue biodiversity in fragmented landscapes

Author

Listed:
  • Thiago Gonçalves-Souza

    (University of Michigan
    University of Michigan)

  • Jonathan M. Chase

    (German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig
    Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg)

  • Nick M. Haddad

    (Michigan State University)

  • Maurício H. Vancine

    (Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp))

  • Raphael K. Didham

    (University of Western Australia
    Centre for Environment and Life Sciences)

  • Felipe L. P. Melo

    (Universidade Federal de Pernambuco
    Nottingham Trent University)

  • Marcelo A. Aizen

    (INIBIOMA (CONICET, Universidad Nacional del Comahue))

  • Enrico Bernard

    (Universidade Federal de Pernambuco)

  • Adriano G. Chiarello

    (Universidade de São Paulo)

  • Deborah Faria

    (Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz)

  • Heloise Gibb

    (La Trobe University)

  • Marcelo G. Lima

    (Center for Large Landscape Conservation
    IUCN WCPA Connectivity Conservation Specialist Group (CCPG))

  • Luiz F. S. Magnago

    (Universidade Federal do Sul da Bahia)

  • Eduardo Mariano-Neto

    (Universidade Federal da Bahia)

  • André A. Nogueira

    (Independent researcher)

  • André Nemésio

    (Universidade Federal de Uberlândia (UFU))

  • Marcelo Passamani

    (Universidade Federal de Lavras)

  • Bruno X. Pinho

    (University of Bern)

  • Larissa Rocha-Santos

    (Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz)

  • Rodolpho C. Rodrigues

    (Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade (ICMBio))

  • Nathalia Vieira Hissa Safar

    (Universidade Federal do Sul da Bahia)

  • Bráulio A. Santos

    (Universidade Federal da Paraíba)

  • Alejandra Soto-Werschitz

    (Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro)

  • Marcelo Tabarelli

    (University of Western Australia)

  • Marcio Uehara-Prado

    (Independent researcher)

  • Heraldo L. Vasconcelos

    (Universidade Federal de Uberlândia (UFU))

  • Simone Vieira

    (Universidade Estadual de Campinas)

  • Nathan J. Sanders

    (University of Michigan)

Abstract

Habitat fragmentation generally reduces biodiversity at the patch scale (α diversity)1. However, there is ongoing debate about whether such negative effects can be alleviated at the landscape scale (γ diversity) if among-patch diversity (β diversity) increases as a result of fragmentation2–6. This controversial view has not been rigorously tested. Here we use a dataset of 4,006 taxa across 37 studies from 6 continents to test the effects of fragmentation on biodiversity across scales by explicitly comparing continuous and fragmented landscapes. We find that fragmented landscapes consistently have both lower α diversity and lower γ diversity. Although fragmented landscapes did tend to have higher β diversity, this did not translate into higher γ diversity. Our findings refute claims that habitat fragmentation can increase biodiversity at landscape scales, and emphasize the need to restore habitat and increase connectivity to minimize biodiversity loss at ever-increasing scales.

Suggested Citation

  • Thiago Gonçalves-Souza & Jonathan M. Chase & Nick M. Haddad & Maurício H. Vancine & Raphael K. Didham & Felipe L. P. Melo & Marcelo A. Aizen & Enrico Bernard & Adriano G. Chiarello & Deborah Faria & H, 2025. "Species turnover does not rescue biodiversity in fragmented landscapes," Nature, Nature, vol. 640(8059), pages 702-706, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:nat:nature:v:640:y:2025:i:8059:d:10.1038_s41586-025-08688-7
    DOI: 10.1038/s41586-025-08688-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08688-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41586-025-08688-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:nature:v:640:y:2025:i:8059:d:10.1038_s41586-025-08688-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.