Using Statistical Models to Study Temporal Dynamics of Animal—Landscape Relations

Gutzwiller, Kevin J.; Riffell, Samuel K.

doi:10.1007/978-0-387-45447-4_7

Cited by 30 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An advantage of using this approach is the ability to compare models of different covariance structure using Akaike's Information Criterion (AIC). While an autoregressive covariance structure (corAR1) was deemed the most biologically reasonable covariance structure (Gutzwiller and Riffell, 2007), we also tested an autoregressive moving average (corARMA) which models the dependence of hourly acoustic metrics on past acoustic data (Gałecki and Burzykowski, 2013). In some cases an autoregressive covariance structure with heterogeneous variances (corARH) was a better fit than autoregressive alone.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Acoustic metrics were modeled using a random intercepts model in a mixed model analysis (Pinheiro and Bates, 2000). Hourly acoustic metrics were not independent data points, but rather repeated samples (by hour of day) within sites (Gutzwiller and Riffell, 2007;Schielzeth and Forstmeier, 2009). We used a mixed model as it is seen as an improvement over traditional repeated-measures analysis of variance (Gutzwiller and Riffell, 2007) because 'time' can be explicitly incorporated using a covariance structure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Connecting soundscape to landscape: Which acoustic index best describes landscape configuration?

Fuller

Axel

Tucker

et al. 2015

Ecological Indicators

257

157

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tSoundscape assessment has been proposed as a remote ecological monitoring tool for measuring biodiversity, but few studies have examined how soundscape patterns vary with landscape configuration and condition. The goal of our study was to examine a suite of published acoustic indices to determine whether they provide comparable results relative to varying levels of landscape fragmentation and ecological condition in nineteen forest sites in eastern Australia. Our comparison of six acoustic indices according to time of day revealed that two indices, the acoustic complexity and the bioacoustic index, presented a similar pattern that was linked to avian song intensity, but was not related to landscape and biodiversity attributes. The diversity indices, acoustic entropy and acoustic diversity, and the normalized difference soundscape index revealed high nighttime sound, as well as a dawn and dusk chorus. These indices appear to be sensitive to nocturnal biodiversity which is abundant at night in warm, subtropical environments. We argue that there is need to better understand temporal partitioning of the soundscape by specific taxonomic groups, and this should involve integrated research on amphibians, insects and birds during a 24 h cycle. The three indices that best connected the soundscape with landscape characteristics, ecological condition and bird species richness were acoustic entropy, acoustic evenness and the normalized difference soundscape index. This study has demonstrated that remote soundscape assessment can be implemented as an ecological monitoring tool in fragmented Australian forest landscapes. However, further investigation should be dedicated to refining and/or combining existing acoustic indices and also to determine if these indices are appropriate in other landscapes and for other survey purposes.Crown

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Connecting soundscape to landscape: Which acoustic index best describes landscape configuration?

Fuller

Axel

Tucker

et al. 2015

Ecological Indicators

257

157

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In these models, diameter growth is expressed as a function of tree size and vigor effects, competition effects, and site effects (Cole and Stage, 1972;Dolph, 1988;Wykoff, 1990; these research studies come from data measured repeatedly over time on the same tree (multiple observations obtained from the same sampling unit or subject in sequence over time), also known as longitudinal data. Without question, research studies with repeated measure designs are fundamental to most ecological and biological research (Gutzwiller and Riffell, 2007). However, the nature of repeated measure design and these hierarchical structures are often ignored and independence between observations is assumed (Biging, 1985;Lappi, 1986;Searle et al, 1992;Gregoire et al, 1995;Keselman et al, 1999;Littell et al, 2000;Kowalchuk and Keselman, 2001;Garrett et al, 2004;Calama and Montero, 2005;Gutzwiller and Riffell, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Without question, research studies with repeated measure designs are fundamental to most ecological and biological research (Gutzwiller and Riffell, 2007). However, the nature of repeated measure design and these hierarchical structures are often ignored and independence between observations is assumed (Biging, 1985;Lappi, 1986;Searle et al, 1992;Gregoire et al, 1995;Keselman et al, 1999;Littell et al, 2000;Kowalchuk and Keselman, 2001;Garrett et al, 2004;Calama and Montero, 2005;Gutzwiller and Riffell, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Individual tree diameter increment model for managed even-aged stands of ponderosa pine throughout the western United States using a multilevel linear mixed effects model

Uzoh

Oliver

2008

Forest Ecology and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…We designated year as the repeated measure. We used Akaike's information criterion corrected for smaller sample sizes (AIC c ) to compare autoregressive, compound-symmetry, and unstructured covariance structures for each response variable under the restricted maximum likelihood (Gutzwiller and Riffell 2007), and to determine if random effects were needed in our models. Top model structures (i.e., best covariance structure and inclusion or exclusion of random effect) were designated as models with DAIC c 2 to the next best model (Burnham and Anderson 2002).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Mowing Frequency on Right-of-Way Plant Communities in Mississippi

Entsminger

Jones

Guyton

et al. 2017

Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Native grasses and native wildflowers are declining, especially along roadside right-of-ways because of intensive mowing and herbicide management practices. Roadside right-of-ways undergo regular disturbances such as mowing, maintenance, and road developments that affect soils, groundwater, surface hydrology, and vegetation composition. We investigated species richness and percent coverage within plant communities along highway right-of-ways to determine if reduced mowing increased native plant coverage. The study was conducted using 10 research plots situated along Highway 25 in Oktibbeha and Winston counties, Mississippi. Each research plot consisted of three different treatments as follows: one that included greater than four mowings per year, one mowing only in fall, and one mowing only in fall with a supplemental native wildflower seeding. Using line transect sampling, we detected 277 plant species, which included native and nonnative forbs, legumes, grasses, rushes, sedges, and woody perennials (vines, shrubs, and trees). Total percent coverage of native and nonnative plants within different growth form categories did not differ among treatments (F 2,96 ¼ 0.45, P ¼ 0.83). However, coverage differed between uplands and lowlands (F 1,96 ¼ 18.22, P 0.001), between years (F 1,96 ¼ 14.54, P 0.001), between fall and spring seasons (F 1,96 ¼ 16.25, P 0.001), and interacted between years and seasons (F 1,96 ¼ 24.08, P 0.001) and seasons and elevations (F 1,96 ¼ 5.00, P 0.001). Nonnative agronomic grasses exhibited the greatest coverage (. 90%) in all treatments. Percent coverage of each plant growth form was greatest in lowlands. Our research showed an increase of native grasses and wildflower species along roadsides with a reduced mowing regimen. We concluded that the timing and intensity of mowing for the duration of our study had little effect on the species composition of plant communities. However, one mowing per year retained agronomic plant coverage for erosion control and soil stabilization during roadside maintenance. Specific proactive management implementations can include native plantings, selective herbicide use to decrease nonnative grasses, continual mowing from roadside edge to 10 m, and only one mowing in late fall, but with an extension of the boundary to reach beyond 10 m from the roadside edge to suppress the invasion of woody plants, which could lead to lower long-term maintenance costs.

show abstract

Using Statistical Models to Study Temporal Dynamics of Animal—Landscape Relations

Cited by 30 publications

References 23 publications

Connecting soundscape to landscape: Which acoustic index best describes landscape configuration?

Connecting soundscape to landscape: Which acoustic index best describes landscape configuration?

Individual tree diameter increment model for managed even-aged stands of ponderosa pine throughout the western United States using a multilevel linear mixed effects model

Evaluation of Mowing Frequency on Right-of-Way Plant Communities in Mississippi

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About