The Spatial Scale of a Species’ Response to the Landscape Context Depends on which Biological Response You Measure

Martin, Amanda

doi:10.1007/s40823-018-0030-z

Cited by 57 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…3), indicating these scales were not merely reflective of urban heterogeneity but rather were species-specific responses to the urban landscape (De Knegt et al 2011). These results mirror recent studies that have found a general lack of support for theoretical predictions regarding scale of effect across several taxa (Galán-Acedo et al 2018, Martin 2018, Gestich et al 2019, Moraga et al 2019, although other work has suggested that body size correlates with scale of effect in birds (Thornton and Fletcher 2014). 4, Supplementary material Appendix 4).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

“…Although scale is often invoked as a unifying concept in ecology (Levin 1992), it has provided somewhat limited guidance for empirical work as a practical paradigm in community and landscape ecology (Miguet et al 2016, Boyce et al 2017, Martin 2018. This is perhaps because ecological communities are notorious 'middle-number' systems (Allen and Starr 1982) that are complex enough to be influenced by the landscape at multiple scales, but too complex to show the consistent patterns of variation that emerge at broader extents (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1a), then fit models using values from each buffer, and finally select a best model, and hence the scale of effect, using a metric such as AIC (Holland et al 2004, Miguet et al 2016, Martin 2018. 1a), then fit models using values from each buffer, and finally select a best model, and hence the scale of effect, using a metric such as AIC (Holland et al 2004, Miguet et al 2016, Martin 2018.…”

Section: Evaluating the Scaling Of Urbanization Responsementioning

confidence: 99%

“…This expectation stems from the observation that larger-bodied and more mobile species tend to use landscapes at broader scales to meet energetic and life history requirements (Holland et al 2005, Thornton andFletcher 2014). occupancy and genetic diversity; Jokimäki and Huhta 1996, Jackson and Fahrig 2014, Martin 2018. fecundity and abundance) to those which occur across the broader landscape (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, a global review of 71 studies that evaluated landscape variables' effects across multiple scales suggested that the true scale of effect was often more extreme than the scales analyzed -and thus unidentified (Jackson and Fahrig 2015). Another review of 23 studies that compared scales of effects across biological responses found that scales varied by the response measured, but not in the manner predicted by theory (Martin 2018). These findings suggest that scale of effect remains difficult to predict a priori and often goes unidentified in studies of species-landscape relationships, thereby potentially resulting in widespread bias, misspecification or misinterpretation of species' responses to landscape characteristics (Holland et al 2004, Wheatley and Johnson 2009, De Knegt et al 2011.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

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: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Evaluating the Scaling Of Urbanization Responsementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Influence of landscape structure on previous exposure to Leptospira spp. and Brucella abortus in free‐living neotropical primates from southern Brazil

Santos

Klain

Bustamante-Manrique

et al. 2023

American J Primatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The environments in which neotropical primates live have been undergoing an intense fragmentation process, constituting a major threat to the species' survival and causing resource scarcity, social isolation, and difficulty in dispersal, leaving populations increasingly vulnerable. Moreover, the proximity of wild environments to anthropized landscapes can change the dynamics of pathogens and the parasitehost-environment relationship, creating conditions that favor exposure to different pathogens. To investigate the previous exposure of free-living primates in Rio Grande do Sul State (RS), southern Brazil, to the bacterial agents Leptospira spp. and Brucella abortus, we investigated agglutinating antibodies against 23 serovars of Leptospira spp. using the microscopic agglutination test and B. abortus acidified antigen test in primate serum samples; 101 samples from primates captured between 2002 and 2016 in different forest fragments were used: 63 Alouatta caraya, 36 Alouatta guariba clamitans, and 02 Sapajus nigritus cucullatus. In addition, the forest remnants where the primates were sampled were characterized in a multiscale approach in radii ranging from 200 to 1400 m to investigate the potential

show abstract

Passive monitoring of avian habitat on working lands

Dixon

Baker

Ellis

2023

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intensive agricultural landscapes pose a challenge to wildlife managers, policymakers, and landowners hoping to increase the diversity of desired wildlife species, such as grassland birds, which require urgent conservation action. In intensive agricultural landscapes, like those of the Midwestern United States, most land area is privately owned and operated and managed primarily for production. Thus, conducting ecological research in intensive agricultural landscapes requires collaborative approaches aimed at farm owners and operators. Recent advances in acoustic data collection and high-resolution habitat mapping, including low-cost acoustic recorders and satellite remote sensing, may be well positioned to address this challenge by enabling expanded assessments and monitoring of wildlife populations and habitats across regions. This study examined fine-grained habitat characteristics and their relationship with avian biodiversity in intensive agricultural landscapes at 44 agricultural sites across the state of Iowa. Passive acoustic monitoring and manual identification of bird species allowed for measurement of vocalizing bird richness. High-resolution mapping of noncrop vegetation provided detailed information on small noncrop vegetation habitat complexes within row-crop agriculture. Measures of image texture provided characterizations of compositional heterogeneity within noncrop vegetation. General linear Poisson modeling demonstrated robust associations between noncrop vegetation and vocalizing bird richness, yet variation in grassland bird richness was not well predicted by noncrop vegetation. Noncrop vegetation texture demonstrated potential as a predictor of vocalizing bird richness, though not better than or when combined with noncrop vegetated area, indicating it may not be an independent measure of habitat quality. Passive acoustic monitoring resulted in useful data at 44 out of 60 originally selected sites, with some lost to failed recorders and/or collaboration issues. Challenges remain in detecting habitat characteristics that promote grassland birds in row crop landscapes. Working toward probabilistic research design across privately owned working landscapes and incorporating more detailed management practice information would improve the transferability of this approach to farmland management and policy.

show abstract

The Spatial Scale of a Species’ Response to the Landscape Context Depends on which Biological Response You Measure

Cited by 57 publications

References 41 publications

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

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

Influence of landscape structure on previous exposure to Leptospira spp. and Brucella abortus in free‐living neotropical primates from southern Brazil

Passive monitoring of avian habitat on working lands

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About