Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Distance-Dependent Landscape Effects in Terrestrial Systems: a Review and a Proposed Spatio-Temporal Framework

  • Spatial Scale-Measurement, Influence, and Integration (A Martin and J Holland, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current Landscape Ecology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

We review recent methodological advancements in estimation of distance-dependent landscape effects on terrestrial species. These methods address key theoretical elements from landscape and metapopulation ecology that were ignored in previous approaches. Models that treat landscapes as circles within which all land features are equally important to a focal population ignore distant-dependent population processes, such as dispersal, resource selection, and social interactions. Realistic models that estimate variation in landscape-scale effects over space and time are necessary to understand the complex processes that influence population dynamics.

Recent Findings

The addition of kernel smoothers to generalized linear models has potential to increase the biological realism of landscape-species models. These models include estimation of parameters that dictate the relationship between distance and importance of landscape features to focal populations. There are examples of implementing these models in both maximum likelihood and Bayesian frameworks, as well as examples using model selection to determine appropriate smoothing kernel shape. One key limitation of these models is computational effort, although we provide some guidance for reducing model runtime.

Summary

Models allowing for inference on explicit ecological processes are critical to advancing knowledge of the basic landscape ecology of species and will benefit efforts to prioritize conservation and evaluate species recovery efforts. We describe how distance-dependent landscape-scale effect models can be used for these purposes in a variety of scenarios. We conclude by proposing a process-based, spatio-temporal framework for understanding the mechanisms behind the spatial scale at which landscapes influence species.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

  1. Forman RTT, Godron M. Patches and structural components for a landscape ecology. Bioscience. 1981;31:733–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Wiens JA. Spatial scaling in ecology. Funct Ecol. 1989;3:385–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Forman RTT. Some general principles of landscape and regional ecology. Landsc Ecol. 1995;10:133–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Turner MG. Landscape ecology: what is the state of the science? Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2005;36:319–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Wilson MC, Chen XY, Corlett RT, Didham RK, Ding P, Holt RD, et al. Habitat fragmentation and biodiversity conservation: key findings and future challenges. Landsc Ecol. 2016;31:219–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Levin SA. The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology. 1992;73:1943–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Jackson HB, Fahrig L. Are ecologists conducting research at the optimal scale? Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 2015;24:52–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hanski I. Metapopulation ecology. New York: Oxford University Press; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Miguet P, Jackson H, Jackson N, Martin A, Fahrig L. What determines the spatial extent of landscape effects on species? Landsc Ecol. 2016;31:1177–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. • Stuber EF, Fontaine JJ. How characteristic is the species characteristic selection scale? Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 2019;28:1839–54. Present evidence that there is variation within and among species regarding the spatial scale dictating population-landscape relationships, and they indicate that it is likely there are multiple spatial scales of selection for any one species.

  11. Forman RTT. An ecology of the landscape. Bioscience. 1983;33:535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Troll C. The geographic landscape and its investigation. In: Weins JA, Moss MR, Turner MG, Mladenoff DJ, editors. Foundation papers in landscape ecology. 2006. New York: Columbia University Press; 1950.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lack D. Ecological features of the bird faunas of British small islands. J Anim Ecol. 1942;11:9–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. MacArthur RH, Wilson EO. An equilibrium theory of insular zoogeography. Evolution (N Y). 1963;17:373–87.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Whittaker RH. Vegetation of the Great Smoky Mountains. Ecol Monogr. 1956;26:1–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Mcgarigal K, Cushman SA, Ene E. FRAGSTATS v4: spatial pattern analysis program for categorial and continuous maps. Amherst: Comput Softw Progr Prod by authors Univ Massachusetts; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Wiens JA. Population responses to patchy environments. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 1976;7:81–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Carr LW, Fahrig L. Effect of road traffic on two amphibian species of differing vagility. Conserv Biol. 2001;15:1071–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Holland JD, Fahrig L, Cappuccino N. Body size affects the spatial scale of habitat–beetle interactions. Oikos. 2005;110:101–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Fahrig L, Baudry J, Brotons L, Burel FG, Crist TO, Fuller RJ, et al. Functional landscape heterogeneity and animal biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Ecol Lett. 2011;14:101–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Betts MG, Fahrig L, Hadley AS, Halstead KE, Bowman J, Robinson WD, et al. A species-centered approach for uncovering generalities in organism responses to habitat loss and fragmentation. Ecography (Cop). 2014;37:517–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gaillard JM, Festa-Bianchet M, Yoccoz NG. Population dynamics of large herbivores: variable recruitment with constant adult survival. Trends Ecol Evol. 1998;13:58–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Proffitt KM, Hebblewhite M, Peters W, Hupp N, Shamhart J. Linking landscape-scale differences in forage to ungulate nutritional ecology. Ecol Appl. 2016;26:2156–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Thogmartin WE. Landscape attributes and nest-site selection in wild turkeys. Auk. 1999;116:912–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Walter JA, Firebaugh AL, Tobin PC, Haynes KJ. Invasion in patchy landscapes is affected by dispersal mortality and mate-finding failure. Ecology. 2016;97:3389–401.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Thaker M, Vanak AT, Owen CR, Ogden MB, Niemann SM, Slotow R. Minimizing predation risk in a landscape of multiple predators: effects on the spatial distribution of African ungulates. Ecology. 2011;92:398–407.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Wiens JA. Scale problems in avian censusing. Stud Avian Biol. 1981;6:513–21.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Quinn JE, Brandle JR, Johnson RJ. The effects of land sparing and wildlife-friendly practices on grassland bird abundance within organic farmlands. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2012.

  29. Herrmann HL, Babbitt KJ, Baber MJ, Congalton RG. Effects of landscape characteristics on amphibian distribution in a forest-dominated landscape. Biol Conserv. 2005;123:139–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Tobler WR. A computer movie simulating urban growth in Detroit region. Econ Geogr. 1970;46:234–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Southwood TRE. Habitat, the templet for ecological strategies? J Anim Ecol. 1977;46:336–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Allen SH, Sargeant AB. Dispersal patterns of red foxes relative to population density. J Wildl Manag. 1993;57:526–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Verhulst S, Perrins CM, Riddington R. Natal dispersal of great tits in a patchy environment. Ecology. 1997;78:864–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Holtcamp WN, Grant WE, Vinson SB. Patch use under predation hazard: effect of the red imported fire ant on deer mouse foraging behavior. Ecology. 1997;78:308–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kunkel KE, Pletscher DH, Boyd DK, Ream RR, Fairchild MW. Factors correlated with foraging behavior of wolves in and near glacier National Park, Montana. J Wildl Manage. 2004;68:167–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Brown JS, Laundre JW, Gurung M. The ecology of fear: optimal foraging, game theory, and trophic interactions. J Mammal. 1999;80:385–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hanski I, Ovaskainen O. Metapopulation theory for fragmented landscapes. Theor Popul Biol. 2003;64:119–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. •• Miguet P, Fahrig L, Lavigne C. How to quantify a distance-dependent landscape effect on a biological response. Methods Ecol Evol. 2017;8:1717–24. Describe the different methodologies and considerations of using a distance-dependent approach to estimating scale of effect, and they explore differences between the distance-dependent and threshold-based approach to landscape-scale effect estimation.

  39. •• Yeiser JM, Morgan JJ, Baxley DL, Chandler RB, Martin JA. Private land conservation has landscape-scale benefits for wildlife in agroecosystems. J Appl Ecol. 2018;55:1930–9. Demonstrate how distance-dependent scale of effect estimation can be used in context of conserving species within fragmeneted landscapes.

  40. Aue B, Ekschmitt K, Hotes S, Wolters V. Distance weighting avoids erroneous scale effects in species-habitat models. Methods Ecol Evol. 2012;3:102–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. •• Chandler RB, Hepinstall-Cymerman J. Estimating the spatial scales of landscape effects on abundance. Landsc Ecol. 2016;31:1383–94. Demonstrate and assess the use of smoothing kernels to estimate landscape-scale effects on abundance

  42. Walsh CJ, Webb JA. Spatial weighting of land use and temporal weighting of antecedent discharge improves prediction of stream condition. Landsc Ecol. 2014;29:1171–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Worton BJ. Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home-range studies. Ecology. 1989;70:164–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Brennan JM, Bender DJ, Contreras TA, Fahrig L. Focal patch landscape studies for wildlife management: optimizing sampling effort across scales. In: Liu J, Taylor WW, editors. Integr Landsc Ecol into Nat Resour Manag. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002. p. 68–91.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Boetzl FA, Krimmer E, Krauss J, Steffan-Dewenter I. Agri-environmental schemes promote ground-dwelling predators in adjacent oilseed rape fields: diversity, species traits and distance-decay functions. J Appl Ecol. 2019;56:10–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Heaton MJ, Gelfand AE. Kernel averaged predictors for spatio-temporal regression models. Spat Stat. 2012;2:15–32.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Heaton MJ, Gelfand AE. Spatial regression using kernel averaged predictors. J Agric Biol Environ Stat. 2011;16:233–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. •• Moll RJ, Cepek JD, Lorch PD, Dennis PM, Robison T, Montgomery RA. At what spatial scale(s) do mammals respond to urbanization? Ecography (Cop). 2019;43:171–83. Use a distance-dependent approach to scale of effect estimaiton to understand landsacpe-scale effects of urbanization on mammal communities.

  49. Frishkoff LO, Mahler DL, Fortin MJ. Integrating over uncertainty in spatial scale of response within multispecies occupancy models yields more accurate assessments of community composition. Ecography (Cop). 2019;42:2132–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. •• Kovács G, Kaasik R, Lof ME, van der Werf W, Kaart T, Holland JM, et al. Effects of land use on infestation and parasitism rates of cabbage seed weevil in oilseed rape. Pest Manag Sci. 2019;75:658–66. Use distance-dependent methods to estimate the effects of surrounding landscape features on infestation rates of insects in agricultural landscapes.

  51. Burnham KP, Anderson DR. Model selection and multimodel inference. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Openshaw S. Concepts and techniques in modern geography number 38 - the modifiable areal unit problem. Norwick: Geo Books; 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Best NG, Ickstadt K, Wolpert RL. Spatial Poisson regression for health and exposure data measured at disparate resolutions. J Am Stat Assoc. 2000;95:1076–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Guo Q, Taper M, Schoenberger M, Brandle J. Spatial-temporal population dynamics across species range: from centre to margin. Oikos. 2005;108:47–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Suárez-Castro AF, Simmonds JS, Mitchell MGE, Martine M, Rhodes JR. The scale-dependent role of biological traits in landscape ecology: a review. Curr Landsc Ecol Reports. 2018;3:12–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Fahrig L, Baudry J, Brotons L, Burel FG, Crist TO, Fuller RJ, et al. Functional landscape heterogeneity and animal biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Ecol Lett. 2011;14:101–112

  57. Schaub M, Abadi F. Integrated population models: a novel analysis framework for deeper insights into population dynamics. J Ornithol. 2011;152:227–37.

  58. Besbeas P, Freeman SN, Morgan BJT, Catchpole EA. Integrating mark-recapture-recovery and census data to estimate animal abundance and demographic parameters. Biometrics. 2002;58:540–7.

  59. Howell PE, Muths E, Hossack BR, Sigafus BH, Chandler RB. Increasing connectivity between metapopulation ecology and landscape ecology. Ecology. 2018;99:1119–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

John Yeiser, Richard Chandler, and James Martin received funding from the University of Georgia. James Martin received funding from McIntire-Stennis grant GEOZ0194-MS and Richard Chandler received funding from National Science Foundation grant DEB-1652223.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

    John M. Yeiser, Richard B. Chandler & James A. Martin

Authors
  1. John M. Yeiser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard B. Chandler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. James A. Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

J. Yeiser, R. Chandler, and J. Martin searched and reviewed literature and edited the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John M. Yeiser.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Spatial Scale-Measurement, Influence, and Integration

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yeiser, J.M., Chandler, R.B. & Martin, J.A. Distance-Dependent Landscape Effects in Terrestrial Systems: a Review and a Proposed Spatio-Temporal Framework. Curr Landscape Ecol Rep 6, 1–8 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40823-020-00061-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40823-020-00061-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation