Anthropogenic habitat loss is widely recognized as a primary environmental concern. By contrast, debates on the effects of habitat fragmentation persist. To facilitate overcoming these debates, here we: (i) review the state of the literature on habitat fragmentation, finding widespread confusion and stigma; (ii) identify consequences of this for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem management; and (iii) suggest ways in which research can move forward to resolve these problems.Confusion is evident from the 25 most‐cited fragmentation articles published between 2017 and 2021. These articles use five distinct concepts of habitat fragmentation, only one of which clearly distinguishes habitat fragmentation from habitat area and other factors (‘fragmentation per se’). Stigmatization is evident from our new findings that fragmentation papers are more charged with negative sentiments when compared to papers from other subfields in the environmental sciences, and that fragmentation papers with more negative sentiments are cited more.While most empirical studies of habitat fragmentation per se find neutral or positive effects on species and biodiversity outcomes, which implies that small habitat patches have a high cumulative value, confusion and stigma in reporting and discussing such results have led to suboptimal habitat protection policy. For example, government agencies, conservation organizations, and land trusts impose minimum habitat patch sizes on habitat protection. Given the high cumulative value of small patches, such policies mean that many opportunities for conservation are being missed.Our review highlights the importance of reducing confusion and stigma in habitat fragmentation research. To this end, we propose implementing study designs in which multiple sample landscapes are selected across independent gradients of habitat amount and fragmentation, measured as patch density. We show that such designs are possible for forest habitat across Earth's biomes. As such study designs are adopted, and as language becomes more precise, we expect that confusion and stigma in habitat fragmentation research will dissipate. We also expect important breakthroughs in understanding the situations where effects of habitat fragmentation per se are neutral, positive, or negative, and the reasons for these differences. Ultimately this will improve efficacy of area‐based conservation policies, to the benefit of biodiversity and people.

中文翻译：

---

克服栖息地破碎化研究中的困惑和耻辱

人为栖息地丧失被广泛认为是主要的环境问题。相比之下，关于栖息地破碎化影响的争论仍然存在。为了帮助克服这些争论，我们在这里：（我）回顾有关栖息地破碎化的文献状况，发现普遍存在的困惑和耻辱；（二、）确定这对生物多样性保护和生态系统管理的影响；和 （三、）提出了研究可以解决这些问题的方法。从 2017 年至 2021 年发表的 25 篇被引用最多的破碎化文章中可以明显看出混乱。这些文章使用了五个不同的栖息地破碎化概念，其中只有一个清楚地区分了栖息地破碎化和栖息地破碎化。栖息地面积和其他因素（“破碎化本身'）。从我们的新发现中可以明显看出，与环境科学其他子领域的论文相比，碎片化论文更多地带有负面情绪，并且带有更多负面情绪的碎片化论文被引用更多。本身发现对物种和生物多样性结果的中性或积极影响，这意味着小型栖息地斑块具有很高的累积价值，报告和讨论此类结果的混乱和耻辱导致了次优的栖息地保护政策。例如，政府机构、保护组织和土地信托机构对栖息地保护规定了最小栖息地斑块大小。鉴于小斑块的累积价值很高，此类政策意味着会错过许多保护机会。我们的评论强调了减少栖息地破碎化研究中的混乱和耻辱的重要性。为此，我们建议实施研究设计，其中在栖息地数量和破碎化的独立梯度中选择多个样本景观，以斑块密度进行测量。我们表明，这种设计对于地球生物群落的森林栖息地是可能的。随着此类研究设计的采用，以及语言变得更加精确，我们预计栖息地破碎化研究中的混乱和耻辱将会消失。我们还期望在理解栖息地破碎化影响的情况方面取得重要突破本身是中性的、积极的还是消极的，以及造成这些差异的原因。最终，这将提高区域保护政策的有效性，造福生物多样性和人类。