scholarly journals The debate about the effects of habitat fragmentation: causes and consequences

Ecosistemas ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 2156
Author(s):  
Ricard Arasa-Gisbert ◽  
Víctor Arroyo-Rodríguez ◽  
Ellen Andresen
Keyword(s):  
Habitat Fragmentation ◽  
Per Se

Con la creciente pérdida y fragmentación de los ecosistemas naturales, entender cómo responden las especies a estos cambios nunca ha sido más urgente. Hoy existe consenso acerca del fuerte impacto negativo de la pérdida de hábitat sobre la biodiversidad. Sin embargo, el efecto de la fragmentación del hábitat ha sido muy debatido. En esta revisión, proponemos un esquema que evalúa las causas y consecuencias del debate. Sugerimos que es causado por el uso de diferentes definiciones y conceptualizaciones de la fragmentación (causas distales), las cuales promueven el uso de distintas metodologías de estudio (causas proximales). Algunos estudios consideran la fragmentación como un proceso inseparable de la pérdida de hábitat y de otras amenazas locales (p.ej. efectos de borde y aislamiento), por lo que miden sus efectos a escala de sitio, de parche o de paisaje, sin controlar necesariamente el efecto de la pérdida de hábitat. Otros consideran la fragmentación como un patrón que describe la configuración del hábitat en el paisaje, y cuyo efecto puede y debe ser evaluado independientemente del efecto de la cantidad de hábitat (i.e. fragmentación per se) usando el paisaje como unidad de análisis. Como consecuencia, los primeros usualmente concluyen que la fragmentación tiene efectos fuertes y negativos sobre la biodiversidad, mientras que los segundos concluyen que dichos efectos son generalmente débiles, y positivos cuando son significativos. Entender las causas y consecuencias de este debate es crítico para aplicar medidas de conservación más adecuadas.

scholarly journals Human encroachment into wildlife gut microbiomes

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gloria Fackelmann ◽  
Mark A. F. Gillingham ◽  
Julian Schmid ◽  
Alexander Christoph Heni ◽  
Kerstin Wilhelm ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Habitat Fragmentation ◽  
Alpha Diversity ◽  
Anthropogenic Disturbances ◽  
Vital Role ◽  
Domesticated Animals ◽  
Generalist Species ◽  
Fragmented Forest ◽  
Catch Up ◽  
Per Se ◽  
The One

AbstractIn the Anthropocene, humans, domesticated animals, wildlife, and their environments are interconnected, especially as humans advance further into wildlife habitats. Wildlife gut microbiomes play a vital role in host health. Changes to wildlife gut microbiomes due to anthropogenic disturbances, such as habitat fragmentation, can disrupt natural gut microbiota homeostasis and make animals vulnerable to infections that may become zoonotic. However, it remains unclear whether the disruption to wildlife gut microbiomes is caused by habitat fragmentation per se or the combination of habitat fragmentation with additional anthropogenic disturbances, such as contact with humans, domesticated animals, invasive species, and their pathogens. Here, we show that habitat fragmentation per se does not impact the gut microbiome of a generalist rodent species native to Central America, Tome’s spiny rat Proechimys semispinosus, but additional anthropogenic disturbances do. Indeed, compared to protected continuous and fragmented forest landscapes that are largely untouched by other human activities, the gut microbiomes of spiny rats inhabiting human-disturbed fragmented landscapes revealed a reduced alpha diversity and a shifted and more dispersed beta diversity. Their microbiomes contained more taxa associated with domesticated animals and their potential pathogens, suggesting a shift in potential metagenome functions. On the one hand, the compositional shift could indicate a degree of gut microbial adaption known as metagenomic plasticity. On the other hand, the greater variation in community structure and reduced alpha diversity may signal a decline in beneficial microbial functions and illustrate that gut adaption may not catch up with anthropogenic disturbances, even in a generalist species with large phenotypic plasticity, with potentially harmful consequences to both wildlife and human health.

Forty years of bias in habitat fragmentation research

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lenore Fahrig
Keyword(s):  
Habitat Fragmentation ◽  
Habitat Loss ◽  
Conservation Biology ◽  
Habitat Destruction ◽  
The Body ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Major Threat ◽  
The Common ◽  
Per Se

This chapter evaluates biases that contribute to the common misrepresentation of fragmentation as a major threat to biodiversity. The idea that habitat fragmentation seriously threatens biodiversity is so widespread that it might be considered a “conservation biology principle.” However, effects attributed to habitat fragmentation are usually confounded with effects of habitat loss. A recent review of the effects of habitat fragmentation per se (effects independent of habitat loss) indicated that 76% of significant effects of fragmentation were positive, and in no situation were most effects negative. Comparing the abstracts of papers with the actual results reported in the body of each paper revealed that fewer than half of the authors who found only positive fragmentation effects actually discuss these positive effects in their abstracts. Thus, authors themselves reinforce the misrepresentation of the fragmentation literature, potentially because authors fear that their results could be incorrectly used to justify habitat destruction.

scholarly journals Habitat Fragmentation Increases Overall Richness, but Not of Habitat-Dependent Species

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jordan Chetcuti ◽  
William E. Kunin ◽  
James M. Bullock
Keyword(s):  
Habitat Fragmentation ◽  
Land Cover ◽  
Habitat Loss ◽  
Beta Diversity ◽  
Alpha Diversity ◽  
Suitable Habitat ◽  
Gamma Diversity ◽  
Generalist Species ◽  
Species Groups ◽  
Per Se

Debate rages as to whether habitat fragmentation leads to the decline of biodiversity once habitat loss is accounted for. Previous studies have defined fragmentation variously, but research needs to address “fragmentation per se,” which excludes confounding effects of habitat loss. Our study controls for habitat area and employs a mechanistic multi-species simulation to explore processes that may lead some species groups to be more or less sensitive to fragmentation per se. Our multi-land-cover, landscape-scale, individual-based model incorporates the movement of generic species, each with different land cover preferences. We investigate how fragmentation per se changes diversity patterns; within (alpha), between (beta) and across (gamma) patches of a focal-land-cover, and if this differs among species groups according to their specialism and dependency on this focal-land-cover. We defined specialism as the increased competitive ability of specialists in suitable habitat and decreased ability in less suitable land covers compared to generalist species. We found fragmentation per se caused an increase in gamma diversity in the focal-land-cover if we considered all species regardless of focal-land-cover preference. However, critically for conservation, the gamma diversity of species for whom the focal land cover is suitable habitat declined under fragmentation per se. An exception to this finding occurred when these species were specialists, who were unaffected by fragmentation per se. In general, focal-land-cover species were under pressure from the influx of other species, with fragmentation per se leading to a loss of alpha diversity not compensated for by increases in beta diversity and, therefore, gamma diversity fell. The specialist species, which were more competitive, were less affected by the influx of species and therefore alpha diversity decreased less with fragmentation per se and beta diversity compensated for this loss, meaning gamma diversity did not decrease. Our findings help to inform the fragmentation per se debate, showing that effects on biodiversity can be negative or positive, depending on species’ competitive abilities and dependency on the fragmented land cover. Such differences in the effect of fragmentation per se would have important consequences for conservation. Focusing conservation efforts on reducing or preventing fragmentation in areas with species vulnerable to fragmentation.

Origin of Hepatic Nuclear Inclusion Bodies

1973 ◽  
Vol 31 ◽  
pp. 426-427
Author(s):  
F. G. Zaki ◽  
J. A. Greenlee ◽  
C. H. Keysser
Keyword(s):  
Inclusion Bodies ◽  
Storage Disease ◽  
Glycogen Storage ◽  
Nutritional Deficiencies ◽  
Nuclear Inclusion ◽  
Electron Microscopic ◽  
Human Liver Cells ◽  
Microscopic Studies ◽  
Per Se ◽  
Experimental Liver

Nuclear inclusion bodies seen in human liver cells may appear in light microscopy as deposits of fat or glycogen resulting from various diseases such as diabetes, hepatitis, cholestasis or glycogen storage disease. These deposits have been also encountered in experimental liver injury and in our animals subjected to nutritional deficiencies, drug intoxication and hepatocarcinogens. Sometimes these deposits fail to demonstrate the presence of fat or glycogen and show PAS negative reaction. Such deposits are considered as viral products.Electron microscopic studies of these nuclei revealed that such inclusion bodies were not products of the nucleus per se but were mere segments of endoplasmic reticulum trapped inside invaginating nuclei (Fig. 1-3).

The Eleventh Circuit Holds that Agreements in which Pharmaceutical Companies Pay Generic Companies Not to Compete May be Valid

2004 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 181-184
Author(s):  
Amy Garrigues
Keyword(s):  
Pharmaceutical Companies ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Patent Holder ◽  
Trial Court ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
The Us ◽  
Antitrust Laws ◽  
Per Se ◽  
Appeals Court ◽  
Two Sides

On September 15, 2003, the US. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that agreements between pharmaceutical and generic companies not to compete are not per se unlawful if these agreements do not expand the existing exclusionary right of a patent. The Valley DrugCo.v.Geneva Pharmaceuticals decision emphasizes that the nature of a patent gives the patent holder exclusive rights, and if an agreement merely confirms that exclusivity, then it is not per se unlawful. With this holding, the appeals court reversed the decision of the trial court, which held that agreements under which competitors are paid to stay out of the market are per se violations of the antitrust laws. An examination of the Valley Drugtrial and appeals court decisions sheds light on the two sides of an emerging legal debate concerning the validity of pay-not-to-compete agreements, and more broadly, on the appropriate balance between the seemingly competing interests of patent and antitrust laws.

Fusion and Fission Processes in Exocytosis: Possible Roles for Synexin and Osmotic Lysis in the Two Events

1980 ◽  
Vol 38 ◽  
pp. 594-597
Author(s):  
H.B. Pollard ◽  
C.E. Creutz ◽  
C.J. Pazoles ◽  
J.H. Scott
Keyword(s):  
Small Molecules ◽  
Chromaffin Cells ◽  
Adrenal Glands ◽  
General Concept ◽  
Extracellular Calcium ◽  
Large Protein ◽  
Granule Membrane ◽  
Osmotic Lysis ◽  
Per Se ◽  
Chemical Evidence

Exocytosis is a general concept describing secretion of enzymes, hormones and transmitters that are otherwise sequestered in intracellular granules. Chemical evidence for this concept was first gathered from studies on chromaffin cells in perfused adrenal glands, in which it was found that granule contents, including both large protein and small molecules such as adrenaline and ATP, were released together while the granule membrane was retained in the cell. A number of exhaustive reviews of this early work have been published and are summarized in Reference 1. The critical experiments demonstrating the importance of extracellular calcium for exocytosis per se were also first performed in this system (2,3), further indicating the substantial service given by chromaffin cells to those interested in secretory phenomena over the years.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document