Assessing the Relative Importance of Factors at Multiple Spatial Scales Affecting Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife
- 11 Downloads
Purpose of Review
We reviewed recent studies focused on assessing the relative roles of factors operating at different scales in shaping animal populations, species, communities, and individual behaviors. Our goal was to summarize the current state of the science by documenting trends and advances in approaches used to weigh the relative impact of drivers at different scales.
We identify several recent advances in remote sensing–based data collection, such as unmanned aerial vehicles and terrestrial laser scanning, that have the potential to increase the range of scales over which more detailed measurements of the composition and structure of environments can be made. We also highlight the promise of experimental studies and specific statistical approaches for providing a more solid understanding of the relative importance of factors operating at different spatial scales.
We found that after nearly three decades of studies focused on the relative importance of factors operating at different scales, no general pattern has emerged. There is no clear evidence that one scale or one set of scales consistently plays a larger role than others. Nonetheless, it is clear from this research that ecological processes are indeed affected by processes operating at multiple spatial scales. We conclude that a more productive line of questioning might focus not on the relative importance of factors operating at different scales, but on understanding which factors affect a given process, at what scales they operate, and how they interact.
KeywordsMultiscale Hierarchy Habitat Scale Fish Wildlife
We are grateful for discussions with D. C. Schneider for broadening our perspectives and increasing the depth of our understanding of scale in ecology. Constructive reviews from N. Schumaker and an anonymous reviewer on an earlier version of this manuscript helped improve the clarity and precision of the ideas presented in this paper.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. government.
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
- 2.West GB. Scale: the universal laws of life, growth, and death in organisms, cities, and companies. New York: Penguin Books; 2018.Google Scholar
- 4.Allen FH, Hoekstra TW. Toward a unified ecology. New York: Columbia University Press; 1992.Google Scholar
- 5.Allen TFH, Starr TB. Hierarchy: perspectives for ecological complexity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1982.Google Scholar
- 9.Giller PS, Hildrew AG, Raffaelli DG. Aquatic ecology: scale, pattern and process. Oxford: Blackwell Science Ltd.; 1994.Google Scholar
- 10.Schneider DC. Quantitative ecology: spatial and temporal scaling. San Diego: Academic Press; 1994.Google Scholar
- 11.Peterson DL, Parker VT. Ecological scale: theory and applications. New York: Columbia University Press; 1998.Google Scholar
- 12.O’Neill RV, DeAngelis DL, Waide JB, Allen TFH. A hierarchical concept of ecosystems, monographs in population biology 23. Princeton University Press: Princeton; 1986.Google Scholar
- 14.King AW. Considerations of scale and hierarchy. In: Woodley S, Kay J, editors. Ecological Integrity and the Management of Ecosystems. CRC Press; 1993.Google Scholar
- 21.• Martin AE, Fahrig L. Measuring and selecting scales of effect for landscape predictors in species–habitat models. Ecological applications. 2012;22:2277–92 The authors used a large range of spatial extents in their exploration of the relative explanatory power of distance-based and composition-based variables and single-scale versus multiscale models.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.• Chiavacci SJ, Benson TJ, Ward MP. Linking landscape composition to predator-specific nest predation requires examining multiple landscape scales. Journal of applied ecology. 2018;55:2082–92 This study found that the scales that best explained the relationship between landscape composition and predation rates were predator species specific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.Peterson JT, Dunham JB. Scale and fishery management. In: Hubert W, Quist M, editors. Inland fisheries management. Bethesda: American Fisheries Society; 2010. p. 81–105.Google Scholar
- 39.• Morante-Filho JC, Arroyo-Rodríguez V, de Souza Pessoa M, Cazetta E, Faria D. Direct and cascading effects of landscape structure on tropical forest and non-forest frugivorous birds. Ecological applications. 2018;28:2024–32 This study uses structural equation modeling to explore the relative importance of landscape context and local vegetation structure for both forest and non-forest birds.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 41.Müller J, Vierling K. Assessing biodiversity by airborne laser scanning. In: Maltamo M, Næsset E, Vauhkonen J, editors. Forestry applications of airborne laser scanning: concepts and case studies [internet]. Dordrecht: springer Netherlands; 2014 [cited 2019 may 12]. p. 357–74. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8663-8_18.Google Scholar
- 46.Ashcroft MB, Gollan JR, Ramp D. Creating vegetation density profiles for a diverse range of ecological habitats using terrestrial laser scanning. Kriticos D, editor. Methods Ecol Evol 2014;5:263–72.Google Scholar
- 53.Fausch KD. Preface: a renaissance in stream fish ecology. In: Gido KB, Jackson DA, editors. Community ecology of stream fishes: concepts, approaches, and techniques. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society; 2010. p. 199–206.Google Scholar
- 54.Thurow RF, Dolloff CA, Marsden JE. Visual observation of fishes and aquatic habitat. In: Zale AV, Parrish DL, Sutton TM, editors. Fisheries techniques. Bethesda: American Fisheries Society; 2012. p. 781–817.Google Scholar
- 65.Isaak D, Wenger SJ, Peterson EE, Hoef JMV, Nagel DE, Luce CH, et al. The NorWeST summer stream temperature model and scenarios for the western U.S.: a crowd-sourced database and new geospatial tools foster a user community and predict broad climate warming of rivers and streams. Water Resources Research. 2017;53:9181–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 69.Hutto RL. Habitat selection by nonbreeding, migratory, land birds. In: Cody ML, editor. Habitat selection in birds. San Diego: Academic Press; 1985. p. 455–76.Google Scholar
- 70.Hildén O. Habitat selection in birds: a review. Ann Zool Fenn. 1965;2:53–75.Google Scholar
- 78.Mitsuo Y. Determining the relative importance of catchment- and site-scale factors in structuring fish assemblages in small coastal streams. Knowl Manag Aquat Ecosyst. 2017;57.Google Scholar
- 88.Villeneuve B, Piffady J, Valette L, Souchon Y, Usseglio-Polatera P. Direct and indirect effects of multiple stressors on stream invertebrates across watershed, reach and site scales: a structural equation modelling better informing on hydromorphological impacts. Sci Total Environ. 2018;612:660–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 91.• Frey D, Vega K, Zellweger F, Ghazoul J, Hansen D, Moretti M. Predation risk shaped by habitat and landscape complexity in urban environments. Journal of applied ecology. 2018;55:2343–53. This study combined an experimental approach with detailed lidar-based measurement of woody vegetation heterogeneity to explore drivers of predation at multiple scales by two types of predators. They found that cross-scale interactions were the main drivers of predation. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 96.Torgersen CE, Baxter CV, Li HW, McIntosh BA. Landscape influences on longitudinal patterns of river fishes: spatially continuous analysis of fish-habitat relationships. In: Hughes RM, Wang L, Seelbach PW, editors. Landscape influences on stream habitats and biological assemblages. Bethesda, Maryland: American Fisheries Society; 2006. p. 473–492.Google Scholar
- 107.Currens K P. Evolution and risk in conservation of Pacific salmon [Internet] [Dissertation]. [Corvallis, OR]: Oregon State University; 1997 [cited 2019 Aug 9]. Available from: https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/graduate_thesis_or_dissertations/m900nx844
- 109.Torgersen CE, Ebersole JL, Keenan DM. Primer for identifying cold-water refuges to protect and restore thermal diversity in riverine landscapes [Internet]. Seattle, WA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 2012 p. 91. Report No.: EPA 910-C-12-001. Available from: http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70037945