Would conserving natural land cover in landscapes conserve biodiversity?

ABSTRACTIt is generally accepted that protecting natural land cover would protect biodiversity. This would only be true as a general statement if the relationship between richness and natural land cover were monotonic positive and scale- and method-independent. Assertions about habitat loss causing species losses often come from broad-scale assessment of richness (e.g., from range maps) combined with patterns of natural habitat conversion. Yet, the evidence about species loss following habitat loss or fragmentation typically comes from fine-scale experiments. Here, we test whether broad-extent relationships between avian species richness and natural land cover are independent of: 1) whether species distribution data come from systematic censuses (atlases) versus range maps, and 2) the grain size of the analysis. We regressed census-based and range map-based avian species richness against the proportion of natural land cover and temperature. Censused richness at the landscape level was obtained from Breeding Bird Atlases of Ontario and New York State. Range-map richness derived from BirdLife International range maps. Comparisons were made across different spatial grains: 25-km2, 100-km2, and 900-km2. Over regional extents, range-map richness relates strongly to temperature, irrespective of spatial grain. Censused species richness relates to temperature less strongly. Range-map richness is a negative function of the proportion of natural land cover, while realized richness is a peaked function. The two measures of richness are not monotonically related to each other. In conclusion, the data do not indicate that, in practice, landscapes with greater natural land cover in southern Ontario or in New York State have higher species richness. Moreover, different data types can lead to dramatically different relationships between richness and natural land cover. We argue that the argument that habitat loss is the main driver of species loss has become a panchreston. It may be misguiding conservation biology strategies by focusing on a threat that is too general to be usefully predictive.