Skip to main content

A Review of Overlapping Landscapes: Pseudoreplication or a Red Herring in Landscape Ecology?

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Identifying the spatial scale at which a species or population most strongly responds to habitat composition and configuration is known as scale-of-effect and is a fundamental pursuit of landscape ecology. In conducting scale-of-effect studies, it is common to measure habitat in landscape buffers of varying sizes surrounding sample sites. When sample sites are in close spatial proximity to one another, these landscape buffers will overlap. Researchers commonly worry that data generated from these overlapping landscapes, and subsequently used as predictor variables in statistical modeling, represent a form of pseudoreplication that violates the assumption of independence.

Recent Findings

Here, we review the concept of overlapping landscapes and their theoretical and practical implications in landscape ecology. We suggest that the perceived problem of overlapping landscapes is distinct from more important issues in landscape ecology, such as a robust sampling design complete with a discrete assessment of spatial autocorrelation. Through simulation, we demonstrate that changing the amount of landscape overlap does not alter the degree of spatial autocorrelation. Yet, in reviewing over 600 journal articles, we found that a third (29%) of the studies perceived overlapping landscapes as an issue requiring either changes in sampling design or statistical solutions. Researchers concerned with overlapping landscapes often go to great lengths to alter their sampling design by removing or aggregating sites. Overlapping landscapes remain a prevalent concern in landscape ecology despite previous studies that show that overlapping landscapes are not a violation of independence and represent an oversimplification of the statistical concerns of spatial autocorrelation.

Summary

The concern over overlapping landscapes as a form of pseudoreplication persists in landscape ecology, but acts as a potential red herring detracting from more relevant concerns of proper sampling design and spatial autocorrelation in ecological studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  1. Turner MG, Gardner RH. Landscape ecology in theory and practice: pattern and process. 2nd ed: Springer; 2015.

  2. Jackson ND, Fahrig L. Landscape context affects genetic diversity at a much larger spatial extent than population abundance. Ecology. 2014;95(4):871–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Jackson HB, Fahrig L. What size is a biologically relevant landscape? Landsc Ecol. 2012;27(7):929–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ricci B, et al. Do species population parameters and landscape characteristics affect the relationship between local population abundance and surrounding habitat amount? Ecol Complex. 2013;15:62–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Desrochers A, et al. Area-sensitivity by forest songbirds: theoretical and practical implications of scale-dependency. Ecography. 2010;33(5):921–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Miguet P, et al. Breeding habitat selection of Skylarks varies with crop heterogeneity, time and spatial scale, and reveals spatial and temporal crop complementation. Ecol Model. 2013;266:10–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Brennan JM, et al. Focal patch landscape studies for wildlife management: optimizing sampling effort across scales. In: Lui J, Taylor WW, editors. Integrating landscape ecology into natural resource management: Cambridge University Press; 2002. p. 68–91.

  8. Miguet P, et al. What determines the spatial extent of landscape effects on species? Landsc. Ecol. 2016;31(6):1177–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Holland JD, et al. Determining the spatial scale of species’ response to habitat. Bioscience. 2004;54(3):227–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Eigenbrod F, et al. Sub-optimal study design has major impacts on landscape-scale inference. Biol Conserv. 2011;144(1):298–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Marini L, et al. Agricultural management, vegetation traits and landscape drive orthopteran and butterfly diversity in a grassland-forest mosaic: a multi-scale approach. Insect Conserv Divers. 2009;2(3):213–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Horák J, et al. Agricultural landscapes with prevailing grasslands can mitigate the population densities of a tree-damaging alien species. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2016;230:177–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Farina A. Distribution and dynamics of birds in a rural sub-Mediterranean landscape. Landsc Urban Plan. 1995;31:269–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hartel T, et al. Amphibian distribution in a traditionally managed rural landscape of Eastern Europe: probing the effect of landscape composition. Biol Conserv. 2010;143(5):1118–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Zuckerberg B, et al. Overlapping landscapes: a persistent, but misdirected concern when collecting and analyzing ecological data. J Wildl Manag. 2012;76(5):1072–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Davies GM, Gray A. Don’t let spurious accusations of pseudoreplication limit our ability to learn from natural experiments (and other messy kinds of ecological monitoring). Ecol Evol. 2015;5(22):5295–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Heffner RA, et al. Pseudoreplication revisited. Ecology. 1996;77(8):2558–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hurlbert SH. Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecol Monogr. 1984;54(2):187–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Oksanen L. Logic of experiments in ecology: is pseudoreplication a pseudoissue? Oikos. 2001;94(1):27–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Arnqvist G. Mixed models offer no freedom from degrees of freedom. Trends Ecol Evol. 2020.

  21. Dale MRT, Fortin, M.-J.e. Spatial analysis: a guide for ecologists. 2nd ed: Cambridge University Press; 2014.

  22. Yamaura Y, et al. Effects of stand, landscape, and spatial variables on bird communities in larch plantations and deciduous forests in central Japan. Can J For Res. 2008;38(5):1223–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Draper NR, H., S. Applied regression analysis, 3 edn: Wiley; 1998.

  24. Koenig WD. Spatial autocorrelation of ecological phenomena. Trends Ecol Evol. 1999;14(1):22–6.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Koenig WD, Knops JMH. Testing for spatial autocorrelation in ecological studies. Ecography. 1998;21(4):423–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Beale CM, et al. Regression analysis of spatial data. Ecol Lett. 2010;13(2):246–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Dormann CF, et al. Methods to account for spatial autocorrelation in the analysis of species distributional data: a review. Ecography. 2007;30(5):609–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Lichstein JW, et al. Spatial autocorrelation and autoregressive models in ecology. Ecol Monogr. 2002;72(3):445–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Graham LJ, et al. Incorporating fine-scale environmental heterogeneity into broad-extent models. Methods Ecol Evol. 2019;10(6):767–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Leroy B, et al. Virtualspecies, an R package to generate virtual species distributions. Ecography. 2016;39(6):599–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Jackson HB, Fahrig L. Are ecologists conducting research at the optimal scale? Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 2015;24(1):52–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Farrell CE, et al. Local habitat association does not inform landscape management of threatened birds. Landsc Ecol. 2019;34(6).

  33. Galán-Acedo C, et al. Drivers of the spatial scale that best predict primate responses to landscape structure. Ecography. 2018;41(12):2027–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Langlois JP, et al. Landscape structure influences continental distribution of hantavirus in deer mice. Landsc Ecol. 2001;16(3):255–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Marja R, et al. Landscape pattern and census area as determinants of the diversity of farmland avifauna in Estonia. Reg Environ Chang. 2013;13(5):1013–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Mateo Sánchez MC, et al. Scale dependence in habitat selection: the case of the endangered brown bear (Ursus arctos) in the Cantabrian Range (NW Spain). Int J Geogr Inf Sci. 2014;28(8):1531–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Carrara E, et al. Impact of landscape composition and configuration on forest specialist and generalist bird species in the fragmented Lacandona rainforest, Mexico. Biol Conserv. 2015;184:117–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Flick T, et al. Effects of landscape structure on butterfly species richness and abundance in agricultural landscapes in eastern Ontario, Canada. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2012;156:123–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. McGarigal K, McComb WC. Relationships between landscape structure and breeding birds in the Oregon Coast Range. Ecol Monogr. 1995;65(3):235–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Talaga S, et al. Environmental drivers of community diversity in a neotropical urban landscape: a multi-scale analysis. Landsc Ecol. 2017;32(9):1805–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Chandler RB, et al. Scrub–shrub bird habitat associations at multiple spatial scales in beaver meadows in Massachusetts. Auk. 2009;126(1):186–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Chandler R, Hepinstall-Cymerman J. Estimating the spatial scales of landscape effects on abundance. Landsc Ecol. 2016;31(6):1383–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Heaton MJ, Gelfand AE. Spatial regression using kernel averaged predictors. J Agric Biol Environ Stat. 2011;16(2):233–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Bolker BM, et al. Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol. 2009;24(3):127–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank M. Wright, A. Martin, and L. Fahrig for their support and invitation to submit this review.

Funding

This publication was made possible with support from the National Science Foundation (1926428) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (80NSSC19K0180).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

BZ and AD developed the original concept; JMC and SSK conducted the literature review; LAN conducted the simulation; JBP and JDJC developed the statistical review; AAS and KLT reviewed sampling designs; NAG ad SMN provided edits and formatting; all authors contributed to writing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benjamin Zuckerberg.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Dr. Zuckerberg has no conflicts of interests to declare.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article contains no studies with human or animal subjects performed by the author.

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

Electronic Supplementary Material

ESM 1

(DOCX 10871 kb)

ESM 2

(DOCX 143 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zuckerberg, B., Cohen, J.M., Nunes, L.A. et al. A Review of Overlapping Landscapes: Pseudoreplication or a Red Herring in Landscape Ecology?. Curr Landscape Ecol Rep 5, 140–148 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40823-020-00059-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40823-020-00059-4

Keywords

  • Habitat fragmentation
  • Habitat loss
  • Landscape ecology
  • Macroecology
  • Sampling design
  • Spatial autocorrelation
  • Statistical independence