Agriculture impacts benthic insects on multiple scales in the Eastern Amazon

Monteles, Josinete Sampaio; Gerhard, Pedro; Ferreira, Anderson; Sonoda, K. C.

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2021.108998

Cited by 8 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A 250‐m riparian buffer effectively maintains habitat and water quality in streams with greater flux (Sweeney and Newbold 2014), encompasses the minimum 30‐m and 100‐m buffers recommended for water quality and riparian habitat protection, respectively, (Wenger and Fowler 2000), covers the minimum zone of protection of core habitat for semi‐aquatic herpetofauna (Semlitsch and Bodie 2003), and represents or exceeds a scale typical of stream‐based wildlife habitat assessment (Goslee and Sanderson 2010, Pugh et al 2015, Rho et al 2015, Pitt et al 2017). We chose a reach length of 750 m, which represents an extent ≥10 channel widths of our widest study stream and represents a scale typical of stream‐based wildlife habitat assessment (King et al 2005, Hopkins and Whiles 2011, Pitt et al 2017, Monteles et al 2021). Stream channel width relates stream morphology to channel processes, response potential, and habitat characteristics (Montgomery and Buffington 1997, Kaufmann et al 1999).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We chose a reach length of 750 m, which represents an extent ≥10 channel widths of our widest study stream and represents a scale typical of stream-based wildlife habitat assessment (King et al 2005, Hopkins and Whiles 2011, Pitt et al 2017, Monteles et al 2021. Stream channel width relates stream morphology to channel processes, response potential, and habitat characteristics (Montgomery andBuffington 1997, Kaufmann et al 1999).…”

Section: Data Preparationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Fine‐scale accuracy assessment of the 2016 National Land Cover Dataset for stream‐based wildlife habitat

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Efficiently and effectively identifying and assessing potential wildlife habitat and important ecological resources is essential as rapid anthropogenic land use change alters and detrimentally affects terrestrial and aquatic habitats. Accuracy assessment of remotely sensed data supports ecological planning and management decisions, and is especially important when using freely available, coarse‐resolution spatial datasets, such as the National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD). A popular dataset designed for application at larger regional to national spatial scales, the NLCD has been used in finer scale studies outside of its intended use, often without the imperative support of field‐based accuracy assessment. We ground‐truthed stratified random sampling points to assess the accuracy of the 2016 NLCD at a fine spatial scale relevant to stream‐based ecological research. Our results demonstrated an overall accuracy of <65%, less than the United States Geological Survey recommended accuracy of ≥85%. Results indicated that the NLCD may not be effective as a tool for stream‐level studies and could provide erroneous results for fine‐scale habitat assessment and planning when used as the only reference dataset. When conducting ecological research, it is important to consider the appropriate scale, resolution, and limitations of available datasets to achieve the most accurate results.

show abstract