Which is the appropriate scale to assess the impact of landscape spatial configuration on the diet and behavior of spider monkeys?

Ordóñez-Gómez, José D.; Arroyo‐Rodríguez, Víctor; Nicasio-Arzeta, Sergio; Cristóbal‐Azkarate, Jurgi

doi:10.1002/ajp.22310

Cited by 29 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Forest configuration can also be measured at the patch (e.g., patch shape and isolation) and landscape scales (e.g., degree of fragmentation; Cushman et al 2008;McGarigal et al 2012). It is unclear, however, which is the scale within which forest loss and configuration has the strongest effect on biodiversity (but see Smith et al 2011;Thornton et al 2011;Arroyo-Rodríguez et al 2013;Fahrig 2013;Ordóñez-Gómez et al 2015). To address this challenge, multiscale analyses are needed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Forest loss and matrix composition are the major drivers shaping dung beetle assemblages in a fragmented rainforest

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context Identifying the drivers shaping biological assemblages in fragmented tropical landscapes is critical for designing effective conservation strategies. It is still unclear, however, whether tropical biodiversity is more strongly affected by forest loss, by its spatial configuration or by matrix composition across different spatial scales. Objectives Assessing the relative influence of forest patch and landscape attributes on dung beetle assemblages in the fragmented Lacandona rainforest, Mexico. Methods Using a multimodel inference approach we tested the relative impact of forest patch size and landscape forest cover (measures of forest amount at the patch and landscape scales, respectively), patch shape and isolation (forest configuration indices at the patch scale), forest fragmentation (forest configuration index at the landscape scale), and matrix composition on the diversity, abundance and biomass of dung beetles. Results Patch size, landscape forest cover and matrix composition were the best predictors of dung beetle assemblages. Species richness, beetle abundance, and biomass decreased in smaller patches surrounded by a lower percentage of forest cover, and in landscapes dominated by open-area matrices. Community evenness also increased under these conditions due to the loss of rare species. Conclusions Forest loss at the patch and landscape levels and matrix composition show a larger impact on dung beetles than forest spatial configuration. To preserve dung beetle assemblages, and their key functional roles in the ecosystem, conservation initiatives should prioritize a reduction in deforestation and an increase in the heterogeneity of the matrix surrounding forest remnants.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Forest loss and matrix composition are the major drivers shaping dung beetle assemblages in a fragmented rainforest

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In fact, a combination of site‐ and landscape‐level variables seems to drive primate populations (Boyle et al, ; Carretero‐Pinzón, Defler, McAlpine, & Rhodes, ). However, primate studies generally measure landscape variables at a single spatial scale (Anzures‐Dadda & Manson, ; Benchimol & Peres, ; Benchimol & Venticinque, ; Silva, Ribeiro, Hasui, Costa, & da Cunha, ), and when considering multiple scales, they select scales with a small range of variation (landscape sizes <7 km 2 ; Arroyo‐Rodríguez et al, ; Galán‐Acedo et al, ; Ordóñez‐Gómez, Arroyo‐Rodríguez, Nicasio‐Arzeta, & Cristóbal‐Azkarate, ) and/or just a few different spatial scales (Arroyo‐Rodríguez, Cuesta‐del Moral, et al, ; Carretero‐Pinzón et al, ; Thornton et al, ). These methodological issues may prevent the identification of accurate scales of effect (Jackson & Fahrig, )—a critical step for improving primate conservation and restoration planning.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unraveling the scales of effect of landscape structure on primate species richness and density of titi monkeys (Callicebus nigrifrons)

Gestich

Arroyo‐Rodríguez

Ribeiro

et al. 2018

Ecological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the Anthropocene, many animal populations are increasingly confined to human‐modified landscapes, in which different spatial variables describing landscape composition and configuration influence species persistence. Forest specialist species are particularly vulnerable to these landscape disturbances. Yet, landscape effects may be undetected if assessed at the wrong spatial scale. Thus, identifying the “scale of effect”, which is the optimal spatial scale for estimating ecological responses to each landscape variable, is needed to understand the impact of landscape structure modification on species. Here, we explored the scale of effect of two compositional (forest cover and anthropogenic cover) and two configurational landscape variables (forest patch density and forest edge density) on two ecological responses: primate species richness and group densities of titi monkeys (Callicebus nigrifrons). We sampled 16 study sites in northeastern São Paulo State, Brazil. For each site, we measured each landscape variable within 10 different‐sized landscapes ranging from 0.2 to 28.3 km2 to identify the scale of effect of each landscape variable. The strength of all the primate‐landscape relationships varied across spatial scales. Although both ecological responses were most strongly associated with forest cover at the largest scale, the scale of effect of the other landscape variables differed between the response variables. These results suggest that each response variable is shaped by landscape patterns and processes operating across different spatial scales. We highlight the importance of separately assessing the scale of effect of each landscape variable on each ecological response to better understand the impact of landscape structure on species persistence.

show abstract

“…Also, in Tanzania, forest sites surrounded by higher forest cover can show more individuals of Pan troglodytes (Piel et al, ), and a higher number of primate species (Blanco & Waltert, ). Ordóñez‐Gómez et al () also demonstrate that Geoffroyi's spider monkeys ( Ateles geoffroyi ) spent more time travelling and feeding in landscapes with more forest cover (Fig. B).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…Those studies that assessed the scale of effect reported scales ranging from 0.39‐km (Ordóñez‐Gómez et al, ) to 5.5‐km radius (Rabelo et al, ). The cause of such differences remains poorly understood, but following previous studies (e.g.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, the few studies that test the effect of forest fragmentation per se (i.e. controlling the effect of forest cover, sensu Fahrig, ) on primates demonstrate that fragmentation can have either positive (Arroyo‐Rodríguez et al, ), negative (Thornton, Branch & Sunquist, ), or null (Ordóñez‐Gómez et al, ) effects, with different species showing contrasting responses to this variable (Thornton et al, ). Similarly, some studies find weak responses to increasing landscape forest cover (Anzures‐Dadda & Manson, ; Urquiza‐Haas, Peres & Dolman, ; Benchimol & Venticinque, ), whereas others demonstrate that this landscape predictor can have significant positive effects on several primate species (Blanco & Waltert, ; Piel et al, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A global assessment of primate responses to landscape structure

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Land‐use change modifies the spatial structure of terrestrial landscapes, potentially shaping the distribution, abundance and diversity of remaining species assemblages. Non‐human primates can be particularly vulnerable to landscape disturbances, but our understanding of this topic is far from complete. Here we reviewed all available studies on primates' responses to landscape structure. We found 34 studies of 71 primate species (24 genera and 10 families) that used a landscape approach. Most studies (82%) were from Neotropical forests, with howler monkeys being the most frequently studied taxon (56% of studies). All studies but one used a site‐landscape or a patch‐landscape study design, and frequently (34% of studies) measured landscape variables within a given radius from the edge of focal patches. Altogether, the 34 studies reported 188 responses to 17 landscape‐scale metrics. However, the majority of the studies (62%) quantified landscape predictors within a single spatial scale, potentially missing significant primate–landscape responses. To assess such responses accurately, landscape metrics need to be measured at the optimal scale, i.e. the spatial extent at which the primate–landscape relationship is strongest (so‐called ‘scale of effect’). Only 21% of studies calculated the scale of effect through multiscale approaches. Interestingly, the vast majority of studies that do not assess the scale of effect mainly reported null effects of landscape structure on primates, while most of the studies based on optimal scales found significant responses. These significant responses were primarily to landscape composition variables rather than landscape configuration variables. In particular, primates generally show positive responses to increasing forest cover, landscape quality indices and matrix permeability. By contrast, primates show weak responses to landscape configuration. In addition, half of the studies showing significant responses to landscape configuration metrics did not control for the effect of forest cover. As configuration metrics are often correlated with forest cover, this means that documented configuration effects may simply be driven by landscape‐scale forest loss. Our findings suggest that forest loss (not fragmentation) is a major threat to primates, and thus, preventing deforestation (e.g. through creation of reserves) and increasing forest cover through restoration is critically needed to mitigate the impact of land‐use change on our closest relatives. Increasing matrix functionality can also be critical, for instance by promoting anthropogenic land covers that are similar to primates' habitat.

show abstract

Which is the appropriate scale to assess the impact of landscape spatial configuration on the diet and behavior of spider monkeys?

Cited by 29 publications

References 42 publications

Forest loss and matrix composition are the major drivers shaping dung beetle assemblages in a fragmented rainforest

Forest loss and matrix composition are the major drivers shaping dung beetle assemblages in a fragmented rainforest

Unraveling the scales of effect of landscape structure on primate species richness and density of titi monkeys (Callicebus nigrifrons)

A global assessment of primate responses to landscape structure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About