Landscape Ecology

, Volume 31, Issue 6, pp 1177–1194 | Cite as

What determines the spatial extent of landscape effects on species?

  • Paul Miguet
  • Heather B. Jackson
  • Nathan D. Jackson
  • Amanda E. Martin
  • Lenore Fahrig
Research Article

Abstract

Context

Landscape ecologists are often interested in measuring the effects of an environmental variable on a biological response; however, the strength and direction of effect depend on the size of the area within which the environmental variable is measured. Thus a central objective is to identify the optimal spatial extent within which to measure the environmental variable, i.e. the “scale of effect”.

Objectives

Our objectives are (1) to provide a comprehensive summary of the hypotheses concerning what determines the scale of effect, (2) to provide predictions that can be tested in empirical studies, and (3) to show, with a review of the literature, that most of these predictions have so far been inadequately tested.

Methods

We propose 14 predictions derived from five hypotheses explaining what determines the scale of effect, and review the literature (if any) supporting each prediction. These predictions involve five types of factors: (A) species traits, (B) landscape variables, (C) biological responses (e.g. abundance vs. occurrence), (D) indirect influences, and (E) regional context of the study. We identify methodological issues that hinder estimation of the scale of effect.

Results

Of the 14 predictions, only nine have been tested empirically and only five have received some empirical support. Most support is from simulation studies. Empirical evidence usually does not support predictions.

Conclusions

The study of the spatial scale at which landscape variables influence biological outcomes is in its infancy. We provide directions for future research by clarifying predictions concerning the determinants of the scale of effect.

Keywords

Biodiversity Habitat fragmentation Landscape size Multi-scale model Scale of response Spatial scale 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by a postdoctoral grant to P. Miguet from INRA (French National Institute for Agricultural Research), and a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) grant to L. Fahrig. We thank three anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.

Supplementary material

10980_2015_314_MOESM1_ESM.docx (48 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 47 kb)

References

  1. Baguette M, Schtickzelle N (2006) Negative relationship between dispersal distance and demography in butterfly metapopulations. Ecology 87:648–654CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Battin J, Lawler JJ (2006) Cross-scale correlations and the design and analysis of avian habitat selection studies. Condor 108:59–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boast LK, Houser AM, Good K, Gusset M (2013) Regional variation in body size of the cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus). J Mammal 94:1293–1297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonte D, Vandenbroecke N, Lens L, Maelfait J-P (2003) Low propensity for aerial dispersal in specialist spiders from fragmented landscapes. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 270:1601–1607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowlin MS, Wikelski M (2008) Pointed wings, low wingloading and calm air reduce migratory flight costs in songbirds. PLoS One 3:e2154CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowman J (2003) Is dispersal distance of birds proportional to territory size? Can J Zool Can Zool 81:195–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowman J, Jaeger JAG, Fahrig L (2002) Dispersal distance of mammals is proportional to home range size. Ecology 83:2049–2055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brouwers NC, Newton AC (2009) Movement rates of woodland invertebrates: a systematic review of empirical evidence. Insect Conserv Divers 2:10–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carnicer J, Stefanescu C, Vila R, Dincă V, Font X, Peñuelas J (2013) A unified framework for diversity gradients: the adaptive trait continuum. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 22:6–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chaplin-Kramer R, de Valpine P, Mills NJ, Kremen C (2013) Detecting pest control services across spatial and temporal scales. Agric Ecosyst Environ 181:206–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chown SL, Klok CJ (2003) Altitudinal body size clines: latitudinal effects associated with changing seasonality. Ecography 26:445–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coffey HMP, Fahrig L (2012) Relative effects of vehicle pollution, moisture and colonization sources on urban lichens. J Appl Ecol 49:1467–1474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cushman SA, McGarigal K (2004) Hierarchical analysis of forest bird species-environment relationships in the Oregon Coast Range. Ecol Appl 14:1090–1105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cvetković D, Tomašević N, Ficetola GF, Crnobrnja-Isailović J, Miaud C (2009) Bergmann’s rule in amphibians: combining demographic and ecological parameters to explain body size variation among populations in the common toad Bufo bufo. J Zool Syst Evol Res 47:171–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dahirel M, Olivier E, Guiller A, Martin M-C, Madec L, Ansart A (2015) Movement propensity and ability correlate with ecological specialization in European land snails: comparative analysis of a dispersal syndrome. J Anim Ecol 84:228–238CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Dapporto L, Dennis RLH (2013) The generalist–specialist continuum: testing predictions for distribution and trends in British butterflies. Biol Conserv 157:229–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. DeFaveri J, Shikano T, Merilä J (2014) Geographic variation in age structure and longevity in the nine-spined stickleback (Pungitius pungitius). PLoS ONE 9:e102660CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Delattre T, Baguette M, Burel F, Stevens VM, Quénol H, Vernon P (2013) Interactive effects of landscape and weather on dispersal. Oikos 122:1576–1585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Du W-G, Ji X, Zhang Y-P, Xu X-F, Shine R (2005) Identifying sources of variation in reproductive and life-history traits among five populations of a Chinese lizard (Takydromus septentrionalis, Lacertidae). Biol J Linn Soc 85:443–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ducatez S, Baguette M, Trochet A, Chaput-Bardy A, Legrand D, Stevens V, Fréville H (2013) Flight endurance and heating rate vary with both latitude and habitat connectivity in a butterfly species. Oikos 122:601–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Duren KR, Buler JJ, Jones W, Williams CK (2011) An improved multi-scale approach to modeling habitat occupancy of Northern Bobwhite. J Wildl Manage 75:1700–1709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eigenbrod F, Hecnar SJ, Fahrig L (2011) Sub-optimal study design has major impacts on landscape-scale inference. Biol Conserv 144:298–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Entling MH, Stämpfli K, Ovaskainen O (2011) Increased propensity for aerial dispersal in disturbed habitats due to intraspecific variation and species turnover. Oikos 120:1099–1109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ethier K, Fahrig L (2011) Positive effects of forest fragmentation, independent of forest amount, on bat abundance in eastern Ontario, Canada. Landsc Ecol 26:865–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Feagan S (2011) Does landscape heterogeneity affect bee diversity in farmland? M.Sc. Thesis. Carleton University, Ottawa, OntarioGoogle Scholar
  26. Flick T, Feagan S, Fahrig L (2012) Effects of landscape structure on butterfly species richness and abundance in agricultural landscapes in eastern Ontario, Canada. Agric Ecosyst Environ 156:123–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fuhlendorf SD, Woodward AJW, Leslie DM, Shackford JS (2002) Multi-scale effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on lesser prairie-chicken populations of the US Southern Great Plains. Landsc Ecol 17:617–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Graham MH (2003) Confronting multicollinearity in ecological multiple regression. Ecology 84:2809–2815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Holland JD, Bert DG, Fahrig L (2004) Determining the spatial scale of species’ response to habitat. Bioscience 54:227–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jackson HB, Fahrig L (2012) What size is a biologically relevant landscape? Landscape Ecol 27:929–941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jackson ND, Fahrig L (2014) Landscape context affects genetic diversity at a much larger spatial extent than population abundance. Ecology 95:871–881CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Jackson HB, Fahrig L (2015) Are ecologists conducting research at the optimal scale? Glob Ecol Biogeogr 24:52–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jetz W, Carbone C, Fulford J, Brown JH (2004) The scaling of animal space use. Science 306:266–268CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Johst K, Brandl R, Eber S (2002) Metapopulation persistence in dynamic landscapes: the role of dispersal distance. Oikos 98:263–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kallio SL (2014) Relationship between species traits and landscape extent in ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). M.Sc. Thesis. Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  36. Lechner AM, Langford WT, Jones SD, Bekessy SA, Gordon A (2012) Investigating species–environment relationships at multiple scales: differentiating between intrinsic scale and the modifiable areal unit problem. Ecol Complex 11:91–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Manzer DL, Hannon SJ (2005) Relating grouse nest success and corvid density to habitat: a multi-scale approach. J Wildl Manag 69:110–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Martin AE (2015) The interacting effects of the historic landscape structure, human landscape change, and species mobility on species extinction risk in human-altered landscapes: an evolutionary perspective. Ph.D. Thesis. Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  39. Martin AE, Fahrig L (2012) Measuring and selecting scales of effect for landscape predictors in species-habitat models. Ecol Appl 22:2277–2292CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Ene E (2012) FRAGSTATS v4: spatial pattern analysis program for categorical and continuous maps. Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html. Accessed May 2015
  41. Mendenhall CD, Sekercioglu CH, Brenes FO, Ehrlich PR, Daily GC (2011) Predictive model for sustaining biodiversity in tropical countryside. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108:16313–16316CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Morrison C, Hero J-M, Browning J (2004) Altitudinal variation in the age at maturity, longevity and reproductive lifespan of anurans in subtropical Queensland. Herpetologica 60:34–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Munch SB, Salinas S (2009) Latitudinal variation in lifespan within species is explained by the metabolic theory of ecology. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106:13860–13864CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Munoz MM, Wegener JE, Algar AC (2014) Untangling intra- and interspecific effects on body size clines reveals divergent processes structuring convergent patterns in Anolis lizards. Am Nat 184:636–646CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Ordóñez-Gómez JD, Arroyo-Rodríguez V, Nicasio-Arzeta S, Cristóbal-Azkarate J (2015) Which is the appropriate scale to assess the impact of landscape spatial configuration on the diet and behavior of spider monkeys? Am J Primatol 77:56–65CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Paradis E, Baillie SR, Sutherland WJ, Gregory RD (1998) Patterns of natal and breeding dispersal in birds. J Anim Ecol 67:518–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pasher J, Mitchell SW, King DJ, Fahrig L, Smith AC, Lindsay KA (2013) Optimizing landscape selection for estimating relative effects of landscape variables on ecological responses. Landscape Ecol 28:371–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Patenaude T, Smith A, Fahrig L (2015) Disentangling the effects of wetland cover and urban development on quality of remaining wetlands. Urban Ecosyst 18:663–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ricci B, Franck P, Valantin-Morison M, Bohan DA, Lavigne C (2013) Do species population parameters and landscape characteristics affect the relationship between local population abundance and surrounding habitat amount? Ecol Complex 15:62–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Roth NE, Allan JD, Erickson DL (1996) Landscape influences on stream biotic integrity assessed at multiple spatial scales. Landscape Ecol 11:141–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Roy AH, Rosemond AD, Paul MJ, Leigh DS, Wallace JB (2003) Stream macroinvertebrate response to catchment urbanisation (Georgia, U.S.A.). Freshw Biol 48:329–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sekar S (2012) A meta-analysis of the traits affecting dispersal ability in butterflies: can wingspan be used as a proxy? J Anim Ecol 81:174–184CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Sliva L, Williams DD (2001) Buffer zone versus whole catchment approaches to studying land use impact on river water quality. Water Res 35:3462–3472CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Smith AC, Koper N, Francis CM, Fahrig L (2009) Confronting collinearity: comparing methods for disentangling the effects of habitat loss and fragmentation. Landscape Ecol 24:1271–1285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Smith AC, Fahrig L, Francis CM (2011) Landscape size affects the relative importance of habitat amount, habitat fragmentation, and matrix quality on forest birds. Ecography 34:103–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sponseller RA, Benfield EF, Valett HM (2001) Relationships between land use, spatial scale and stream macroinvertebrate communities. Freshw Biol 46:1409–1424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stevens VM, Whitmee S, Le Galliard J-F, Clobert J, Böhning-Gaese K, Bonte D, Brändle M, Matthias Dehling DM, Christian Hof C, Trochet A, Baguette M (2014) A comparative analysis of dispersal syndromes in terrestrial and semi-terrestrial animals. Ecol Lett 17:1039–1052CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Thornton DH, Fletcher RJ Jr (2014) Body size and spatial scales in avian response to landscapes: a meta-analysis. Ecography 37:454–463Google Scholar
  59. Tittler R (2008) Source-sink dynamics, dispersal, and landscape effects on North American songbirds. Ph.D. Thesis. Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  60. Van Beest FM, Rivrud IM, Loe LE, Milner JM, Mysterud A (2011) What determines variation in home range size across spatiotemporal scales in a large browsing herbivore? J Anim Ecol 80:771–785CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Walters DM, Roy AH, Leigh DS (2009) Environmental indicators of macroinvertebrate and fish assemblage integrity in urbanizing watersheds. Ecol Indic 9:1222–1233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wiens JA (1989) Spatial scaling in ecology. Funct Ecol 3:385–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zeng Y, Zhu D-H (2014) Geographical variation in body size, development time, and wing dimorphism in the cricket velarifictorus micado (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 107:1066–1071CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Miguet
    • 1
    • 2
  • Heather B. Jackson
    • 3
  • Nathan D. Jackson
    • 3
  • Amanda E. Martin
    • 2
  • Lenore Fahrig
    • 2
  1. 1.INRA (French National Institute for Agricultural Research), Unité PSH (Plantes & Systèmes de culture Horticoles)Avignon Cedex 9France
  2. 2.Geomatics and Landscape Ecology Research Laboratory (GLEL), Department of BiologyCarleton UniversityOttawaCanada
  3. 3.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations