Multi-scale Studies and the Ecological Neighborhood

Holland, Jeffrey D.; Yang, Shulin

doi:10.1007/s40823-016-0015-8

Cited by 29 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 78 publications

(102 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The effect of a landscape variable on a given species and for a given biological response is typically strongest at a particular spatial scale (Holland et al 2004, Aue et al 2012. This scale has been referred to by various terms, including the functional or characteristic scale of effect (Holland and Yang 2016). Here, we use the phrase scale of effect (following Jackson and Fahrig 2012, Moraga et al 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

At what spatial scale(s) do mammals respond to urbanization?

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Spatial scale is fundamental in understanding species-landscape relationships because species' responses to landscape characteristics typically vary across scales. Nonetheless, such scales are often unidentified or unreliably predicted by theory. Many landscapes worldwide are urbanizing, yet the spatial scaling of species' responses to urbanization is poorly understood. We investigated the spatial scaling of urbanization effects on a community of 15 mammal species using ~60 000 wildlife detections collected from a constellation of 207 camera traps across an extensive urban park system. We embedded a bivariate Gaussian kernel in hierarchical multi-species models to determine two scales of effect (a scale of maximal effect and a broader scale of cumulative landscape effect) for two biological responses (occupancy and site visit frequency) across two seasons (winter and summer) for each species. We then assessed whether scales of effect varied according to theoretical predictions associated with biological responses and species traits (body size and mobility). Scales of effect ranged from < 50 m to > 9000 m and varied among species, but not as predicted by theory. Species' occupancy generally showed a weak response to urbanization and the scale of this effect was both highly uncertain and consistent across species. We did not detect any relationship between scales of effect and species' body size or mobility, nor was there any evident pattern of scaling across biological response or seasons. These results imply that 1) urbanization effects on mammals manifest across a very broad spectrum of spatial scales, and 2) current theories that a priori predict the scale at which urbanization affects mammals may be of limited use within a given system. Overall, this study suggests that developing general theory regarding the scaling of species-landscape relationships requires additional empirical work conducted across multiple species, systems and timescales.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

At what spatial scale(s) do mammals respond to urbanization?

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At the landscape-level, three types of driver are realised to affect an ecosystem response: landscape composition, configuration and quality 2 . The spatial extent of a landscape-level driver depends on the phenomenon in question: landscape-level drivers of stream water quality are typically determined at the catchment extent 34 , whilst landscape-level drivers of bird abundance are typically defined within a species' ecological neighbourhood 35 . Local-level drivers vary at small scales within landscapes, affected, for example, by local management practices.…”

Section: Identify Drivers and Hierarchiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

An analytical framework for spatially targeted management of natural capital

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Also, edge effects may negatively impact populations by (1) increasing the time species spend in nonpatch habitat (Fahrig 2002), (2) causing negative species interactions (Chalfoun et al 2002), or (3) because species have varying sensitivities to edge (Costa et al 2013) and habitat loss (Saint-Germain and Drapeau 2011). The use of more than one measure of fragmentation and assessing species response at different spatial foci are important for capturing relevant relationships (Trzcinski et al 1999, Donovan and Flather 2002, Holland and Yang 2016. The use of more than one measure of fragmentation and assessing species response at different spatial foci are important for capturing relevant relationships (Trzcinski et al 1999, Donovan and Flather 2002, Holland and Yang 2016.…”

Section: Gradient Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, it is known that species, including those in our data set, respond to the landscape at different foci (radii; Addicott et al 1987, Yang 2010. The use of more than one measure of fragmentation and assessing species response at different spatial foci are important for capturing relevant relationships (Trzcinski et al 1999, Donovan and Flather 2002, Holland and Yang 2016. To our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate how forest fragmentation impacts wood-borer and predator beetle community functional diversity measured with functional diversity indices FDis, FDiv, FEve, and FRic.…”

Section: Gradient Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Different responses of predator and prey functional diversity to fragmentation

Kissick

Dunning

Fernández‐Juricic

et al. 2018

Ecological Applications

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study of functional diversity, or the range of species' ecological roles in a community, is a rapidly expanding area in ecology. Given the extent that ecosystems are being altered, effort should shift toward assessing variation in functional diversity across landscapes with the goal of improving land use management decisions. We construct a workflow that creates three-dimensional surfaces and maps of functional diversity to examine changes in beetle functional diversity across an Indiana, USA landscape. We sampled 105 prey wood-borer and predator beetle species along a gradient of forest fragmentation across Indiana and used a number of functional traits from literature sources to capture their functional roles. We developed newly measured functional traits to estimate several traits relevant to beetles' ecological function that was unknown and not easily measured. Functional diversity indices (FRic, FDis, FDiv, and FEve) were calculated from species abundance and functional traits and used to assess changes in functional diversity along the fragmentation gradient. We predicted that habitat fragmentation would have a greater negative impact on predator beetle functional diversity than prey wood-borer functional diversity. Landscape metrics most important to the functional diversity of both wood-borer and predator beetle communities were landscape division index (LDI, an assessment of landscape subdivision) and mean shape index (MSI, a measure of patch shape complexity). Overall, three-dimensional surfaces of functional diversity and functional diversity maps across the Indiana landscape revealed that beetle functional diversity was greatest with minimal landscape subdivision. Opposite to what we predicted, we found that the prey wood-borer functional diversity was more negatively impacted by LDI than the predator beetle functional diversity. Furthermore, predator beetle functional diversity was greater with increasing MSI. The map predicted predator FRic to be highest in forested areas with intact habitat and also less sensitive to habitat fragmentation adjacent to more continuous forest. We propose that land management may be guided by revealing landscapes that are most appropriate for maximizing functional diversity of multiple communities or shifting the relative abundance within prey and beneficial predator beetle functional groups with the use of three-dimensional plots or maps.

show abstract

Multi-scale Studies and the Ecological Neighborhood

Cited by 29 publications

References 78 publications

At what spatial scale(s) do mammals respond to urbanization?

At what spatial scale(s) do mammals respond to urbanization?

An analytical framework for spatially targeted management of natural capital

Different responses of predator and prey functional diversity to fragmentation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About