Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Are landscapes more than the sum of their patches?

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

Context

The species–area relationship (SAR) is the most ubiquitous scaling relationship in ecology, yet we still do not know how different aspects of scale affect this relationship. Scale is defined by grain, extent, and focus. Focus here pertains to whether patches or landscapes are used to derive SARs.

Objective

To explore whether altering the focal scale influences the resulting SAR. If the SAR is scale-invariant, patch-based and landscape-based SARs should be congruent.

Methods

I fit a power-law function (S = cA z) to arthropod data obtained from an experimental landscape system, in which habitat amount and configuration (clumped vs. fragmented) of red clover (Trifolium pratense) varied among plots (256 m2). The scaling coefficient (z) was compared among patch-based and landscape-based SARs for congruence.

Results

Patches gained species at a faster rate than landscapes (z = 0.37 vs. 0.26, respectively), producing domains of incongruity in the SAR. Landscape richness (S L) was greater than patch richness (S P) below 30 % habitat, but S P > S L above 60 % habitat. Landscape configuration contributed to this incongruity below 30 % habitat (fragmented S L > clumped S L), but landscape context (whether the largest patch was embedded in a fragmented or clumped landscape) was important above 60 % habitat for understanding the SAR in this domain.

Conclusions

Landscape configuration exerts both direct (<30 % habitat) and indirect (>60 % habitat) effects on the SAR. Because patch-based and landscape-based SARs may not be congruent, we should exercise care when extrapolating from patches to landscapes to make inferences about the effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on species richness.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andrén H (1994) Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71:355–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrhenius O (1920) Distribution of the species over the area. Medd fr K Vet Akad Nobelinstit 4:1–6

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Arrhenius O (1921) Species and area. J Ecol 9:95–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown JH, Gupta VK, Li B-L, Milne BT, Restrepo C, West GB (2002) The fractal nature of nature: power laws, ecological complexity and biodiversity. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 357:619–626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  • Crist TO, Veech JA (2006) Additive partitioning of rarefaction curves and species–area relationships: unifying α-, β- and γ-diversity with sample size and habitat area. Ecol Lett 9:923–932

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Debinski DM, Holt RD (2000) A survey and overview of habitat fragmentation experiments. Conserv Biol 14:342–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dengler J (2009) Which function describes the species–area relationship best? A review and empirical evaluation. J Biogeogr 36:728–744

  • Drakare S, Lennon JJ, Hillebrand H (2006) The imprint of the geographical, evolutionary and ecological context on the species–area relationship. Ecol Lett 9:214–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 34:487–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L (2013) Rethinking patch size and isolation effects: the habitat amount hypothesis. J Biogeogr 40:1649–1663

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L (2015) Just a hypothesis: a reply to Hanski. J Biogeogr 42:989–994

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanski I (1999) Metapopulation ecology. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanski I (2015) Habitat fragmentation and species richness. J Biogeogr 42:989–994

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He F, Legendre P (1996) On species–area relations. Am Nat 148:719–737

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawton JH (1999) Are there general laws in ecology? Oikos 84:177–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lomolino MV (2000) Ecology’s most general, yet protean pattern: the species–area relationship. J Biogeogr 27:17–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lomolino MV, Weiser MD (2001) Towards a more general species–area relationship: diversity on all islands, great and small. J Biogeogr 28:431–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur RH, Wilson EO (1967) The theory of island biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson BD, Atmar W (1986) Nested subsets and the structure of insular mammalian faunas and archipelagos. Biol J Linn Soc 28:65–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosensweig ML (1995) Species diversity in space and time. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Santos AMC, Whittaker RJ, Triantis KA, Borges PAV, Jones OR, Quicke DLJ, Hortal J (2010) Are species–area relationships from entire archipelagos congruent with those of their constituent islands? Glob Ecol Biogeogr 19:527–540

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheiner SM (2003) Six types of species–area curves. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 12:441–447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheiner SM, Cox SB, Willig M, Mittelbach GG, Osenberg C, Kaspari M (2000) Species richness, species–area curves and Simpson’s paradox. Evol Ecol Res 2:791–802

    Google Scholar 

  • Storch D, Šizling AL, Polechová RJ, Šizlingová E, Gaston KJ (2008) The quest for a null model for macroecological patterns: geometry of species distributions at multiple spatial scales. Ecol Lett 11:771–784

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Triantis KA, Guilhaumon F, Whittaker RJ (2012) The island species–area relationship: biology and statistics. J Biogeogr 39:215–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Triantis KA, Vardinoyannis K, Tsolaki EP, Botsaris I, Lika K, Mylonas M (2006) Re-approaching the small island effect. J Biogeogr 33:914–923

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner WR, Tjørve E (2005) Scale-dependence in species–area relationships. Ecography 28:721–730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich W, Almeida-Neto M (2012) On the meanings of nestedness: back to the basics. Ecography 35:865–871

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker RJ, Willis KJ, Field R (2001) Scale and species richness: towards a general, hierarchical theory of species diversity. J Biogeogr 28:453–470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • With KA (1997) The application of neutral landscape models in conservation biology. Conserv Biol 11:1069–1080

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • With KA, King AW (1999) Dispersal success in fractal landscapes: a consequence of lacunarity thresholds. Landscape Ecol 14:73–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • With KA, Pavuk DM (2011) Habitat area trumps fragmentation effects on arthropods in an experimental landscape system. Landscape Ecol 26:1035–1048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • With KA, Pavuk DM (2012) Direct versus indirect effects of habitat fragmentation on community patterns in experimental landscapes. Oecologia 170:517–528

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • With KA, Pavuk DM, Worchuck JL, Oates RK, Fisher JL (2002) Threshold effects of landscape structure on biological control in agroecosystems. Ecol Appl 12:52–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a Grant through the National Science Foundation (DEB-9610159). I am indebted to Daniel M. Pavuk for his help in establishing this EMLS and conducting the arthropod survey upon which this analysis is based. I also thank the small army of undergraduates, many of whom were supported on NSF Research Experience for Undergraduates Supplemental Grants, for their assistance in maintaining the plots and participating in various projects related to this research. Thanks are also due to the three anonymous reviewers of the manuscript, whose suggestions and comments were very much appreciated.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratory for Landscape and Conservation Ecology, Division of Biology, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, 66506, USA

    Kimberly A. With

Authors
  1. Kimberly A. With
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kimberly A. With.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 103 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

With, K.A. Are landscapes more than the sum of their patches?. Landscape Ecol 31, 969–980 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0328-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0328-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation