2018
DOI: 10.1111/ddi.12840
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Relationships between landscape constraints and a crayfish assemblage with consideration of competitor presence

Abstract: Aim: Crayfish are globally diverse and one of the most important taxa in North American streams. Despite their importance, many species are of conservation concern and efforts to improve conditions are limited. Here, we address two major impediments to improving conditions: (a) our lack of knowledge of the interplay among natural landscape and human-induced changes; and (b) a very limited understanding of how species interactions affect overall crayfish distributions.Location: Ozark Highlands ecoregion, USA. M… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

4
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 68 publications
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We quantified metrics describing landscape disturbance, topography, soils, geology, runoff and baseflow conditions for each catchment (Table 1). We calculated an index of landscape disturbance using land cover data from the 2011 National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD; Homer et al., 2015) and disturbance coefficients (modified from Brown & Vivas, 2005; Mouser et al., 2019; Table ). Because the land use types used by Brown and Vivas (2005) are finer resolution than NLCD categories, we averaged multiple coefficient values from Brown and Vivas (2005) if an NLCD category comprised more than one land use type (e.g., Mouser et al., 2019).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…We quantified metrics describing landscape disturbance, topography, soils, geology, runoff and baseflow conditions for each catchment (Table 1). We calculated an index of landscape disturbance using land cover data from the 2011 National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD; Homer et al., 2015) and disturbance coefficients (modified from Brown & Vivas, 2005; Mouser et al., 2019; Table ). Because the land use types used by Brown and Vivas (2005) are finer resolution than NLCD categories, we averaged multiple coefficient values from Brown and Vivas (2005) if an NLCD category comprised more than one land use type (e.g., Mouser et al., 2019).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We calculated an index of landscape disturbance using land cover data from the 2011 National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD; Homer et al., 2015) and disturbance coefficients (modified from Brown & Vivas, 2005; Mouser et al., 2019; Table ). Because the land use types used by Brown and Vivas (2005) are finer resolution than NLCD categories, we averaged multiple coefficient values from Brown and Vivas (2005) if an NLCD category comprised more than one land use type (e.g., Mouser et al., 2019). For example, we used a coefficient for the NLCD “pasture/hay” category (2.99) that reflected the average of woodland pasture (2.02), improved pasture without livestock (2.77), improved pasture low‐intensity with livestock (3.41) and improved pasture high‐intensity with livestock (3.74) land use types from Brown and Vivas (2005).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…We then calculated metrics of landscape disturbance, topography, soils, geology, annual runoff, and baseflow contribution for the upstream contributing area of each stream segment (Table 1). To quantify landscape disturbance, we calculated an index following Mouser et al (2019); modified from Brown and Vivas (2005). The coefficients (possible range 1.00–8.32) reflected the hypothesized severity of particular land cover on aquatic biota (2011 National Land Cover Dataset, Appendix : Table S1).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%