Results/Conclusions For low extinction-to-colonization ratios, regular networks exhibit the highest relative abundances, while scale-free networks exhibit the lowest abundances. Surprisingly, the pattern is the opposite for high extinction-to-colonization ratios. This means that species with a high dispersal ability are more abundant in continuous habitats, whereas species with limited colonization or high local extinction rates have advantage in patchy, heterogeneous habitats. Therefore, the optimum design for a network of protected areas critically depends on the species’ life history. Next, we carry out random node deletion simulations for each kind of spatial network and extinction-to-colonization ratios. Our results show that the effect of habitat destruction differs among network topologies. Regular networks are the most fragile, while random networks are the most robust in the face of habitat loss.