Surf and Turf: Toward better synthesis by cross‐system understanding

Rotjan, Randi D.; Idjadi, Joshua A.

doi:10.1111/j.1600-0706.2013.21047.x

Cited by 12 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Interestingly, these have focussed exclusively on terrestrial species. Testing theories in a wide range of contexts is a key component for building a general predictive understanding of ecology (Borer et al, 2014;Rotjan & Idjadi, 2013). Testing theories in a wide range of contexts is a key component for building a general predictive understanding of ecology (Borer et al, 2014;Rotjan & Idjadi, 2013).…”

Section: Investigating the Scale Of Effect In Marine Ecosystemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do spatial scale and life history affect fish–habitat relationships?

Hale

Colton

Peng

et al. 2018

Journal of Animal Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding how animals interact with their environment is a fundamental ecological question with important implications for conservation and management. The relationships between animals and their habitat, however, can be scale‐dependent. If ecologists work at suboptimal spatial scales, they will gain an incomplete picture of how animals respond to the landscape. Identifying the scale at which animal–landscape relationships are strongest (the “scale of effect”) will improve our ability to better plan management and conservation activities. Several recent studies have greatly enhanced our knowledge about the scale of effect, and the potential drivers of interspecific variability, in particular life‐history traits. However, while many marine systems are inherently multiscalar, research into the scale of effect has been mainly focussed on terrestrial taxa. As the scales of observation in fish–habitat association studies are often selected based on convention rather than biological reasoning, they may provide an incomplete picture of the scales where these associations are strongest. We examined fish–habitat associations across four nested spatial scales in a temperate reef system to ask: (a) at what scale are fish–habitat associations the strongest, (b) are habitat elements consistently important across scales, and (c) do scale‐dependent fish–habitat associations vary in relation to either body size, geographic range size or trophic level? We found that: (a) the strongest fish–habitat associations were observed when these relationships were examined at considerably larger spatial scales than usually investigated; (b) the importance of environmental predictors varied across spatial scales, indicating that conclusions about the importance of habitat elements will depend on the scales at which studies are undertaken; and (c) scale‐dependent fish–habitat associations were consistent across all life‐history traits. Our results highlight the importance of considering how animals relate to their environment and suggest the small scales often chosen to examine fish–habitat associations are likely to be suboptimal. Developing a more mechanistic understanding of animal–habitat associations will greatly aid in predicting and managing responses to future anthropogenic disturbances.

show abstract

Section: Investigating the Scale Of Effect In Marine Ecosystemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do spatial scale and life history affect fish–habitat relationships?

Hale

Colton

Peng

et al. 2018

Journal of Animal Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…the binary 'marine-terrestrial' misses many opportunities….' ' Rotjan and Idjadi (2013) made the case that while cross-systems ecology is lauded, it is seldom implemented. The need for cross-fertilization in terms of more and better exchange of empirical findings and theory between terrestrial and marine ecologists seems largely unheeded.…”

Section: Other Impedimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

On a landscape ecology of a harlequin environment: the marine landscape

Jelinski

2014

Landscape Ecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…We agree with Rotjan and Idjadi (2013); in order to broadly test a theory, we need to test it in multiple systems and see where it is supported and where it is not and this is the best way to advance the field of ecology. We hope to resolve the debate in an effort to consolidate and improve research and teaching efforts.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Probably because of this reason, marine scientists are often not interested in attending general meetings, but prefer instead to attend the American Society of Limnology and Oceanography meeting, for example. These hypotheses have a direct consequence in how ecologists conduct their work (Table 1) and present a major obstacle before any cross-system synthesis (sensu Rotjan and Idjadi 2013).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, working on marine systems could be viewed as logistically challenging to a degree that it requires specific journals that can present or interest scientists on those particular systems. Regardless of the reason, scientists in general and marine ecologists in particular, have too often fallen for an ''us vs. them'' view which hampers progress (Menge et al 2009, Rotjan andIdjadi 2013). Potential excuses such as the age of the field or the idea In the mixed model, journal name accounted for 2% of the variation and there were strong effects of Environment (E) (F ¼ 14.6, P , 0.0001) and Journal generality (general or specific) (G) (F ¼ 88.34, P , 0.0001).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Bridging the gap in marine and terrestrial studies

Munguia

Ojanguren

2015

Ecosphere

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Citation: Munguia, P., and A. F. Ojanguren. 2015. Bridging the gap in marine and terrestrial studies. Ecosphere 6(2):25.http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ES14-00231.1Abstract. Ecologists are interested in understanding natural phenomena and strive to make comparisons across systems to better understand broad ecological processes and patterns. Recent reviews showcased how marine and terrestrial ecologists (as an example of two isolated disciplines) can benefit from sharing information. Here, a literature review shows that marine studies often lack the generality needed to bridge the often observed gap between theory developed in marine and terrestrial systems. In order to stimulate constructive comparisons across systems, we discuss potential reasons for this lower generality, with the goal of more broadly understanding ecological processes and patterns.

show abstract

Surf and Turf: Toward better synthesis by cross‐system understanding

Cited by 12 publications

References 20 publications

Do spatial scale and life history affect fish–habitat relationships?

Do spatial scale and life history affect fish–habitat relationships?

On a landscape ecology of a harlequin environment: the marine landscape

Bridging the gap in marine and terrestrial studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About