Optimizing landscape selection for estimating relative effects of landscape variables on ecological responses

Pasher, Jon; Mitchell, Scott; King, Douglas J.; Fahrig, Lenore; Smith, Adam C.; Lindsay, Kathryn

doi:10.1007/s10980-013-9852-6

Cited by 134 publications

(138 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

132

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our sample of farmers was therefore based on the overall sampling design of the FarmLand project, which aimed at selecting landscapes along a wide range of crop composition (crop type diversity) and crop configuration (mean field size; see detailed protocol in Calatayud et al 2012 andPasher et al 2013). Within each landscape, four fields with contrasting crop types were then selected to conduct a biodiversity survey after obtaining the agreement of the farmers managing the fields.…”

Section: Farmer Samplingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ways of farming and ways of thinking: do farmers’ mental models of the landscape relate to their land management practices?

Vuillot¹,

Coron²,

Calatayud³

et al. 2016

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Farmer Samplingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ways of farming and ways of thinking: do farmers’ mental models of the landscape relate to their land management practices?

Vuillot¹,

Coron²,

Calatayud³

et al. 2016

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…seminatural habitat) for biodiversity at large scales (see Whittingham 2007 for discussion of uptake scale) may not be economically feasible, it has been suggested that increasing crop heterogeneity in agricultural landscapes may mitigate negative effects of agriculture on biodiversity without causing a dramatic reduction in production (Fahrig et al 2011). Today only a few studies have been able to contrast the effects of compositional and configurational heterogeneity of crop and non-crop habitats on farmland biodiversity (Flick et al 2012; see also Pasher et al 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The relationship of bird diversity to crop and non-crop heterogeneity in agricultural landscapes

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context Habitat heterogeneity is often assumed to benefit farmland biodiversity. Increasing heterogeneity of non-crop habitats is often too costly in terms of agricultural production. It has been suggested that increased crop heterogeneity could mitigate the negative effects of intensification on biodiversity while still maintaining high production levels.Objectives We investigated if habitat-specific species pools of two groups of farmland birds, fieldnesting and non-crop-nesting species, were related to landscape-level heterogeneity of crop and non-crop cover. We analysed total number of species (gamma diversity) and average local species richness (alpha diversity) in landscapes and related these two biodiversity measures to four components of landscape heterogeneity (compositional and configurational heterogeneity of crop and non-crop cover). MethodsWe selected 30 farmland landscapes (each 25 km 2 ) in Sweden that largely broke up correlated relationships between crop and non-crop heterogeneity and between compositional and configurational heterogeneity. Estimates of species richness (alpha and gamma diversity) were calculated with bird survey data from specific habitats within landscapes (farmsteads and arable fields) and then related to measures of landscape heterogeneity.Results No measure of landscape species richness was associated with landscape-scale crop cover heterogeneities. However, gamma diversity of both bird groups was negatively related to the compositional and configurational heterogeneity of non-crop land-use in the landscapes, respectively. Conclusions Our results suggest that: (i) crop heterogeneities are not related to habitat-specific richness of farmland birds, (ii) heterogeneity effects of habitat complementarity in general are weak and (iii) relationships between diversity and heterogeneity in landscapes are dependent on the biodiversity measure used.

show abstract

“…Landscape pattern analysis (Turner 1990;Wu 2004;Wagner and Fortin 2005;McGarigal et al 2002;Pasher et al 2013) is used to detect and to describe observed structures in landscape features (most commonly land cover) as surrogates for specific ecological values (e.g., wildlife habitat, species richness, vegetation, etc.) or land use (e.g., urbanization).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An analysis of spatio-temporal landscape patterns for protected areas in northern New England: 1900–2010

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context Landscape ecology theory provides insight about how large assemblages of protected areas (PAs) should be configured to protect biodiversity. We adapted these theories to evaluate whether the emergence of decentralized land protection in a largely private landscape followed the principles of reserve design. Objectives Our objectives were to determine: (1) Are there distinct clusters of PAs in time and space?(2) Are PAs becoming more spatially clustered through time? and (3) Does the resulting PA portfolio have traits characteristic of ideal reserve design? Methods We developed an historical dataset of the PAs enacted since 1900 in the northern New England region of the US. We conducted spatio-temporal clustering, landscape pattern, and aggregation analyses at both the landscape scale and for specific classes of land ownership, conservation method, and degree of protection. Results We found the frequency of PAs increased through time, and that area-weighted clusters of PAs were heavily influenced by a few recent large PAs. PA clustering around preexisting PAs was driven primarily by establishment of large PAs focused on natural resource management, rather than strict reserves. Since 1990, the complete portfolio has increased in aggregation, but reserve patches have become less aggregated and smaller, while patches that allow extractive uses have become more aggregated and larger. Conclusions Our extension of landscape ecology theory to a diverse portfolio of PAs underscores the importance of prioritizing conservation choices in the context of existing PAs, and elucidates the landscape scale effects of individual actions within a portfolio of protected areas.

show abstract

Optimizing landscape selection for estimating relative effects of landscape variables on ecological responses

Cited by 134 publications

References 25 publications

Ways of farming and ways of thinking: do farmers’ mental models of the landscape relate to their land management practices?

Ways of farming and ways of thinking: do farmers’ mental models of the landscape relate to their land management practices?

The relationship of bird diversity to crop and non-crop heterogeneity in agricultural landscapes

An analysis of spatio-temporal landscape patterns for protected areas in northern New England: 1900–2010

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Optimizing landscape selection for estimating relative effects of landscape variables on ecological responses

Cited by 134 publications

References 25 publications

Ways of farming and ways of thinking: do farmers&#8217; mental models of the landscape relate to their land management practices?

Ways of farming and ways of thinking: do farmers&#8217; mental models of the landscape relate to their land management practices?

The relationship of bird diversity to crop and non-crop heterogeneity in agricultural landscapes

An analysis of spatio-temporal landscape patterns for protected areas in northern New England: 1900–2010

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Ways of farming and ways of thinking: do farmers’ mental models of the landscape relate to their land management practices?

Ways of farming and ways of thinking: do farmers’ mental models of the landscape relate to their land management practices?