Advertisement

Current Landscape Ecology Reports

, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 23–33 | Cite as

The Spatial Scale of a Species’ Response to the Landscape Context Depends on which Biological Response You Measure

Scale-Measurement, Influence, and Integration (A Martin and J Holland, Section Editors)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Scale-Measurement, Influence, and Integration

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Our ability to detect effects of the landscape context on wildlife often depends on the spatial scale at which environmental variables are measured. Theory suggests that the scale at which the species most strongly responds to this context—its scale of effect—should depend on the type of biological response. This is hypothesized to occur because the temporal scale regulating the response is linked to the spatial scale at which the species interacts with its environment; i.e. the scale of effect should be larger for responses influenced by forces acting over longer time periods. Here I test the prediction that the scale of effect increases in the order: fecundity < abundance < occurrence < genetic diversity, using a quantitative review of studies that empirically estimated scales of effect.

Recent Findings

The scale of effect of a given environmental variable depended on the type of response in 70% of the 145 cases identified in this review. However, scales of effect did not increase in the predicted order. This is likely, at least in part, because some studies did not include a wide enough range of scales in their analyses to accurately estimate the scales of effect.

Summary

Future research is needed to test this prediction using study designs that allow for accurate estimation of scales of effect. Nevertheless, my results have implications for wildlife research and landscape management, suggesting that we cannot assume that a species responds to its landscape context at only one scale.

Keywords

Landscape size Meta-analysis Multi-scale Scale of response Spatial extent Temporal scale 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I thank the members of the Carleton University Geomatics and Landscape Ecology (GLEL) Friday Discussion Group, the section editor, and two anonymous reviewers for their comments on earlier versions of this manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

I have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies involving human subjects. This article references one study with non-human animal subjects performed by A.E.M. [5]. This work was done in accordance with the guidelines of the Canadian Council on Animal Care, and was approved by the Carleton University Animal Care Committee.

Supplementary material

40823_2018_30_MOESM1_ESM.docx (178 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 177 kb)

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Thornton DH, Branch LC, Sunquist ME. The influence of landscape, patch, and within-patch factors on species presence and abundance: a review of focal patch studies. Landsc Ecol. 2011;26:7–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Holland JD, Bert DG, Fahrig L. Determining the spatial scale of species’ response to habitat. Bioscience. 2004;54:227–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eigenbrod F, Hecnar SJ, Fahrig L. The relative effects of road traffic and forest cover on anuran populations. Biol Conserv. 2008;141:35–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ethier K, Fahrig L. Positive effects of forest fragmentation, independent of forest amount, on bat abundance in eastern Ontario, Canada. Landsc Ecol. 2011;26:865–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Martin AE, Fahrig L. Measuring and selecting scales of effect for landscape predictors in species-habitat models. Ecol Appl. 2012;22:2277–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jackson HB, Fahrig L. What size is a biologically relevant landscape? Landsc Ecol. 2012;27:929–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    •• Miguet P, Jackson HB, Jackson ND, Martin AE, Fahrig L. What determines the spatial extent of landscape effects on species? Landsc Ecol. 2016;31:1177–94. A comprehensive review of hypothesized drivers of scales of effect and the support (or lack thereof) for each hypothesis. This is the first paper to formalize the prediction tested in my quantitative review. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    • Jackson HB, Fahrig L. Are ecologists conducting research at the optimal scale? Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 2015;24:52–63. Meta-analysis evaluating the relative importance of a species’ traits vs. study design attributes for its estimated scale of effect. The main findings were that the strongest predictors of the scale of effect were the smallest and largest assessed scales. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Duren KR, Buler JJ, Jones W, Williams CK. An improved multi-scale approach to modeling habitat occupancy of northern bobwhite. J Wildl Manag. 2011;75:1700–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Coffey HMP, Fahrig L. Relative effects of vehicle pollution, moisture and colonization sources on urban lichens. J Appl Ecol. 2012;49:1467–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Patenaude T, Smith AC, Fahrig L. Disentangling the effects of wetland cover and urban development on quality of remaining wetlands. Urban Ecosyst. 2015;18:663–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McGarigal K, Wan HY, Zeller KA, Timm BC, Cushman SA. Multi-scale habitat selection modeling: a review and outlook. Landsc Ecol. 2016;31:1161–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mayer AL, Cameron GN. Consideration of grain and extent in landscape studies of terrestrial vertebrate ecology. Landsc Urban Plan. 2003;65:201–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    •• Jackson ND, Fahrig L. Landscape context affects genetic diversity at a much larger spatial extent than population abundance. Ecology. 2014;95:871–81. The first study to hypothesize that the scale of effect depends on the temporal scale regulating the measured biological response, and the primary basis for the prediction made in Miguet et al. [7]. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ruffino L, Salo P, Koivisto E, Banks PB, Korpimäki E. Reproductive responses of birds to experimental food supplementation: a meta-analysis. Front Zool. 2014;11:80.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boggs CL, Ross CL. The effect of adult food limitation on life history traits in Speyeria mormonia (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Ecology. 1993;74:433–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mendenhall CD, Sekercioglu CH, Brenes FO, Ehrlich PR, Daily GC. Predictive model for sustaining biodiversity in tropical countryside. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2011;108:16313–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Christensen RHB. A tutorial on fitting cumulative link models with the ordinal package [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2017 Dec 22]. p. 1–18. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ordinal/vignettes/clm_tutorial.pdf.
  19. 19.
    R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Version 3.4.0. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2017. https://www.r-project.org/ Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Christensen RHB. Ordinal - regression models for ordinal data. R package version 2015.6-28. 2015. http://www.cran.r-project.org/package=ordinal/.
  21. 21.
    Martin AE. Data from: The spatial scale of a species’ response to the landscape context depends on which biological response you measure. Mendeley Data, v1. 2017.  https://doi.org/10.17632/sv444hpkk5.1.
  22. 22.
    Baguette M, Van Dyck H. Landscape connectivity and animal behavior: functional grain as a key determinant for dispersal. Landsc Ecol. 2007;22:1117–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Restani M, Davies JM, Newton WE. Importance of agricultural landscapes to nesting burrowing owls in the northern Great Plains, USA. Landsc Ecol. 2008;23:977–87.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Guerena KB, Castelli PM, Nichols TC, Williams CK. Spatially-explicit land use effects on nesting of Atlantic flyway resident Canada geese in New Jersey. Wildl Biol. 2014;20:115–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Crowe DE, Longshore KM. Nest site characteristics and nesting success of the western burrowing owl in the eastern Mojave Desert. J Arid Environ. 2013;94:113–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kelly JP, Stralberg D, Etienne K, McCaustland M. Landscape influence on the quality of heron and egret colony sites. Wetlands. 2008;28:257–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ghilain A, Belisle M. Breeding success of tree swallows along a gradient of agricultural intensification. Ecol Appl. 2008;18:1140–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lockyer ZB, Coates PS, Casazza ML, Espinosa S, Delehanty DJ. Nest-site selection and reproductive success of greater sage-grouse in a fire-affected habitat of northwestern Nevada. J Wildl Manag. 2015;79:785–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rytwinski T, Fahrig L. Effect of road density on abundance of white-footed mice. Landsc Ecol. 2007;22:1501–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Herrera JM, Ploquin EF, Rodriguez-Perez J, Obeso JR. Determining habitat suitability for bumblebees in a mountain system: a baseline approach for testing the impact of climate change on the occurrence and abundance of species. J Biogeogr. 2014;41:700–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Griffis-Kyle KL, Kyle S, Jungels J. Use of breeding sites by arid-land toads in rangelands: landscape-level factors. Southwest Nat. 2011;56:251–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Akasaka T, Akasaka M, Yanagawa H. Relative importance of the environmental factors at site and landscape scales for bats along the riparian zone. Landsc Ecol Eng. 2010;6:247–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    DeCatanzaro R, Chow-Fraser P. Relationship of road density and marsh condition to turtle assemblage characteristics in the Laurentian Great Lakes. J Great Lakes Res. 2010;36:357–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cozzi G, Muller CB, Krauss J. How do local habitat management and landscape structure at different spatial scales affect fritillary butterfly distribution on fragmented wetlands? Landsc Ecol. 2008;23:269–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rizkalla CE, Swihart RK. Community structure and differential responses of aquatic turtles to agriculturally induced habitat fragmentation. Landsc Ecol. 2006;21:1361–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jankowiak L, Skorka P, Lawicki L, Wylegala P, Polakowski M, Wuczynski A, et al. Patterns of occurrence and abundance of roosting geese: the role of spatial scale for site selection and consequences for conservation. Ecol Res. 2015;30:833–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Flick T, Feagan S, Fahrig L. Effects of landscape structure on butterfly species richness and abundance in agricultural landscapes in eastern Ontario, Canada. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2012;156:123–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    de Boer WF, van de Koppel S, de Knegt HJ, Dekker JJA. Hibernation site requirements of bats in man-made hibernacula in a spatial context. Ecol Appl. 2013;23:502–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ribeiro DB, Batista R, Prado PI, Brown KS Jr, Freitas AVL. The importance of small scales to the fruit-feeding butterfly assemblages in a fragmented landscape. Biodivers Conserv. 2012;21:811–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Schneider C, Ekschmitt K, Wolters V, Birkhofer K. Ring-based versus disc-based separation of spatial scales: a case study on the impact of arable land proportions on invertebrates in freshwater streams. Aquat Ecol. 2011;45:351–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lyra-Jorge MC, Ribeiro MC, Ciocheti G, Tambosi LR, Pivello VR. Influence of multi-scale landscape structure on the occurrence of carnivorous mammals in a human-modified savanna, Brazil. Eur J Wildl Res. 2010;56:359–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Haenke S, Scheid B, Schaefer M, Tscharntke T, Thies C. Increasing syrphid fly diversity and density in sown flower strips within simple vs. complex landscapes. J Appl Ecol. 2009;46:1106–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Cardoso P, Aranda SC, Lobo JM, Dinis F, Gaspar C, Borges PAV. A spatial scale assessment of habitat effects on arthropod communities of an oceanic island. Acta Oecol. 2009;35:590–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Schotthoefer AM, Rohr JR, Cole RA, Koehler AV, Johnson CM, Johnson LB, et al. Effects of wetland vs. landscape variables on parasite communities of Rana pipiens: links to anthropogenic factors. Ecol Appl. 2011;21:1257–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Pérez-García JM, Sebastián-González E, Alexander KL, Sánchez-Zapata JA, Botella F. Effect of landscape configuration and habitat quality on the community structure of waterbirds using a man-made habitat. Eur J Wildl Res. 2014;60:875–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Geomatics and Landscape Ecology Laboratory (GLEL)Carleton UniversityOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations