Confronting collinearity: comparing methods for disentangling the effects of habitat loss and fragmentation
- 1.5k Downloads
Estimating the relative importance of habitat loss and fragmentation is necessary to estimate the potential benefits of specific management actions and to ensure that limited conservation resources are used efficiently. However, estimating relative effects is complicated because the two processes are highly correlated. Previous studies have used a wide variety of statistical methods to separate their effects and we speculated that the published results may have been influenced by the methods used. We used simulations to determine whether, under identical conditions, the following 7 methods generate different estimates of relative importance for realistically correlated landscape predictors: residual regression, model or variable selection, averaged coefficients from all supported models, summed Akaike weights, classical variance partitioning, hierarchical variance partitioning, and a multiple regression model with no adjustments for collinearity. We found that different methods generated different rankings of the predictors and that some metrics were strongly biased. Residual regression and variance partitioning were highly biased by correlations among predictors and the bias depended on the direction of a predictor’s effect (positive vs. negative). Our results suggest that many efforts to deal with the correlation between amount and fragmentation may have done more harm than good. If confounding effects are controlled and adequate thought is given to the ecological mechanisms behind modeled predictors, then standardized partial regression coefficients are unbiased estimates of the relative importance of amount and fragmentation, even when predictors are highly correlated.
KeywordsAIC Best model Habitat fragmentation Independent effects Multi-model inference Step-wise regression Suppressor variables Variance inflation factor
This work was funded by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council grants to A.C. Smith, and L. Fahrig. Members of the Friday Discussion group in the Geomatics and Landscape Ecology Research Lab provided helpful feedback on the analysis. D. Currie and two anonymous reviewers provided insightful comments on earlier drafts.
- Belisle M, Desrochers A, Fortin MJ (2001) Influence of forest cover on the movements of forest birds: a homing experiment. Ecology 82:1893–1904Google Scholar
- Burnham KP, Anderson (2002) Model selection and multi-model inference: a practical information–theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Cohen J, Cohen P (1983) Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum, MahwahGoogle Scholar
- Hendrickx F, Maelfait JP, van Wingerden W, Schweiger O, Speelmans M, Aviron S, Augenstein I, Billeter R, Bailey D, Bukacek R, Burel F, Dieko¨tter T, Dirksen J, Herzog F, Liira J, Roubalova M, Vandomme V, Bugter R (2007) How landscape structure, land-use intensity and habitat diversity affect components of total arthropod diversity in agricultural landscapes. J Appl Ecol 44:340–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Legendre P, Legendre L (1998) Numerical ecology. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
- McAlpine CA, Rhodes JR, Callaghan JG, Bowen ME, Lunney D, Mitchell DL, Pullar DV, Poszingham HP (2006b) The importance of forest area and configuration relative to local habitat factors for conserving forest mammals: a case study of koalas in Queensland, Australia. Biol Conserv 132:153–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Neter J, Wasserman W, Kutner MH (1990) Applied linear statistical models, 3rd edn. Irwin, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- OMNR (1998) Ontario land cover database. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough OntarioGoogle Scholar