The article "Overcoming confusion and stigma in habitat fragmentation research" by Federico Riva, Nicola Koper, and Lenore Fahrig addresses the persistent confusion and stigma surrounding habitat fragmentation, which hinders biodiversity conservation and ecosystem management. The authors review the literature, finding that the term "habitat fragmentation" is used in five distinct ways, with only one clearly distinguishing it from habitat area and other factors. They highlight that most empirical studies show neutral or positive effects of habitat fragmentation on species and biodiversity, yet confusion and stigma have led to suboptimal habitat protection policies. For example, minimum habitat patch size requirements often exclude small patches, which are crucial for biodiversity. The authors propose implementing study designs that select multiple sample landscapes across independent gradients of habitat amount and fragmentation, measured as patch density. They demonstrate the feasibility of such designs using global forest cover patterns. They also emphasize the need to update best practices, appreciate the importance of total habitat area over its configuration, and withdraw minimum patch size criteria. The article concludes by calling for increased research on the costs and benefits of managing and restoring small patches, prioritizing clarity in defining phenomena, and abandoning the current practice of using "habitat fragmentation" as an umbrella term.The article "Overcoming confusion and stigma in habitat fragmentation research" by Federico Riva, Nicola Koper, and Lenore Fahrig addresses the persistent confusion and stigma surrounding habitat fragmentation, which hinders biodiversity conservation and ecosystem management. The authors review the literature, finding that the term "habitat fragmentation" is used in five distinct ways, with only one clearly distinguishing it from habitat area and other factors. They highlight that most empirical studies show neutral or positive effects of habitat fragmentation on species and biodiversity, yet confusion and stigma have led to suboptimal habitat protection policies. For example, minimum habitat patch size requirements often exclude small patches, which are crucial for biodiversity. The authors propose implementing study designs that select multiple sample landscapes across independent gradients of habitat amount and fragmentation, measured as patch density. They demonstrate the feasibility of such designs using global forest cover patterns. They also emphasize the need to update best practices, appreciate the importance of total habitat area over its configuration, and withdraw minimum patch size criteria. The article concludes by calling for increased research on the costs and benefits of managing and restoring small patches, prioritizing clarity in defining phenomena, and abandoning the current practice of using "habitat fragmentation" as an umbrella term.