The scale of effect of landscape context varies with the species’ response variable measured

Moraga, Andrew D.; Martin, Amanda; Fahrig, Lenore

doi:10.1007/s10980-019-00808-9

Cited by 61 publications

(62 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…4, Supplementary material Appendix 4). 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). Indeed, the spatial scaling of species-landscape relationships is an active area of research (Miguet et al 2016, Mertes andJetz 2018).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

“…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%

“…The latter is useful in situations that entail intense management, such as landscape-level decisions regarding species of conservation concern or invasive species control (cf. The smoothing approach also enables a formal estimation of scale uncertainty, which has generally been treated heuristically by applying model criteria such as AIC to find a point estimate of the scale of effect (Miguet et al 2017, Moll et al 2018, Moraga et al 2019. Here, scale 90 was ~3000 m larger than scale max on average (Supplementary material Appendix 4; Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The effect of a landscape variable on a given species and for a given biological response is typically strongest at a particular spatial scale (Holland et al 2004, Aue et al 2012. Here, we use the phrase scale of effect (following Jackson and Fahrig 2012, Moraga et al 2019). Here, we use the phrase scale of effect (following Jackson and Fahrig 2012, Moraga et al 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This scale has been referred to by various terms, including the functional or characteristic scale of effect (Holland and Yang 2016). Here, we use the phrase scale of effect (following Jackson and Fahrig 2012, Moraga et al 2019). Mismatch between the scale of analysis (defined by the researcher) and the scale of effect (defined by the true relationship) represents a version of the Modifiable Areal Unit Problem (Gehlke and Biehl 1934), whereby inference becomes an artifact of spatial sampling scheme rather than an ecological process (Jelinski and Wu 1996).…”

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: 85%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

Section: Discussionmentioning

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

Occurrence of lemurs in landscapes and their species‐specific scale responses to habitat loss

Steffens

Malabet

Lehman

2020

American J Primatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies on the impact of habitat loss on species occurrence consistently find that the amount of habitat (measured as patch area) is a major determinant of species occurrence at a patch-level. However, patch-level research may fail to detect important patterns and processes only observable at a landscape-level. A landscapelevel approach that incorporates species-specific scale responses is needed to better understand what drives species occurrence. Our aim was to determine the landscape-level scale of effect of habitat amount on the occurrence of three species of nocturnal lemurs (Cheirogaleus medius, Microcebus murinus, and M. ravelobensis).We surveyed line transects to determine the occurrence of three lemur species within a fragmented landscape of deciduous dry forest and anthropogenic grassland in northwestern Madagascar. To determine the scale of effect of habitat loss on lemur occurrence, we compared logistic regression models of occurrence against habitat amount among eight different landscape scales using Akaike's Information Criterion values. We found differing scale responses among the lemurs in our study.Occurrence of C. medius responded to habitat amount at scales between 0.5-4 ha, M. murinus at scales between 1 and 4 ha and M. ravelobensis at scales between 0.125 and 4 ha. We suggest that the scale of effect for C. medius is mediated by their ability to hibernate. A relatively lower scale-response for Microcebus spp. likely reflect their omnivorous diet, small habitat requirements, and limited dispersal ability. Differences in scale responses between M. murinus and M. ravelobensis are likely a result of differing dispersal ability and responses to edge effects between these species. Our study is among the first on lemurs to show the value of a landscape-level approach when assessing the effects of habitat loss on species occurrence. K E Y W O R D S arboreal, biogeography, fragments, Madagascar, primate

show abstract

Functional diversity of snakes is explained by the landscape composition at multiple areas of influence

Rincón‐Aranguri

Toro‐Cardona

Galeano

et al. 2023

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Roadkill and landscape composition affect snakes at different spatial scales, depending on the functional trait value of the species, which is reflected in the functional diversity indices at the assemblage level. This study evaluated the effect of roads and landscape composition on snakes' functional diversity at different areas of influence (250, 500, 1000, and 2000 m buffer areas). We compared roadkill snake species with those assemblages inhabiting the adjacent vegetation in the Orinoco region, Colombia. We surveyed snakes using transects on the road and adjacent areas on

show abstract

The scale of effect of landscape context varies with the species’ response variable measured

Cited by 61 publications

References 37 publications

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

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

Occurrence of lemurs in landscapes and their species‐specific scale responses to habitat loss

Functional diversity of snakes is explained by the landscape composition at multiple areas of influence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About