Abstract Habitat loss is a primary threat to biodiversity across the planet, yet contentious debate has ensued on the importance of habitat fragmentation ‘per se’ (i.e., altered spatial configuration of habitat for a given amount of habitat loss). Based on a review of landscape-scale investigations, Fahrig (2017; Ecological responses to habitat fragmentation per se. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 48:1-23) reports that biodiversity responses to habitat fragmentation ‘per se’ are more often positive rather than negative and concludes that the widespread belief in negative fragmentation effects is a ‘zombie idea’. We show that Fahrig's conclusions are drawn from a narrow and potentially biased subset of available evidence, which ignore much of the observational, experimental and theoretical evidence for negative effects of altered habitat configuration. We therefore argue that Fahrig's conclusions should be interpreted cautiously as they could be misconstrued by policy makers and managers, and we provide six arguments why they should not be applied in conservation decision-making. Reconciling the scientific disagreement, and informing conservation more effectively, will require research that goes beyond statistical and correlative approaches. This includes a more prudent use of data and conceptual models that appropriately partition direct vs indirect influences of habitat loss and altered spatial configuration, and more clearly discriminate the mechanisms underpinning any changes. Incorporating these issues will deliver greater mechanistic understanding and more predictive power to address the conservation issues arising from habitat loss and fragmentation.

中文翻译：

---

栖息地破碎化对生物多样性有益吗？

摘要 栖息地丧失是对整个地球生物多样性的主要威胁，但关于栖息地破碎“本身”的重要性（即，栖息地丧失的给定量而改变栖息地的空间配置）的重要性引发了有争议的辩论。根据对景观规模调查的回顾，Fahrig（2017 年；对栖息地破碎化本身的生态响应。生态学、进化和系统学年度回顾 48:1-23）报告说，对栖息地破碎化“本身”的生物多样性响应更多通常是积极的而不是消极的，并得出结论认为负面碎片化效应的普遍信念是一种“僵尸想法”。我们表明 Fahrig 的结论是从可用证据的一个狭窄且可能有偏见的子集得出的，这些子集忽略了大部分观察，改变栖息地配置的负面影响的实验和理论证据。因此，我们认为应该谨慎解释 Fahrig 的结论，因为它们可能会被政策制定者和管理者误解，并且我们提供了六个理由，说明为什么它们不应该应用于保护决策。调和科学分歧并更有效地通知保护，将需要超越统计和相关方法的研究。这包括更谨慎地使用数据和概念模型，以适当划分栖息地丧失和空间配置改变的直接影响和间接影响，并更清楚地区分支持任何变化的机制。