The scale of effect of landscape context varies with the species’ response variable measured - Landscape Ecology

Context

To detect an effect of landscape context on a species’ response, the landscape variables need to be measured within the appropriate distance from the species’ response, i.e. at the scale of effect. However, it is not clear what factors determine the scale of effect.

Objective

Our objective was to test the prediction that the scale of effect should be smallest when the species’ response is fecundity, larger for abundance, and larger still for occurrence.

Methods

We compared the scale of effect of two landscape variables (road density, forest proportion) on the three responses (fecundity, abundance, occurrence) for the wood frog (Lithobates sylvaticus) in eastern Ontario, Canada. We used egg mass surveys of 34 ponds to estimate fecundity (mean eggs/mass), abundance (number of masses), and occurrence (presence/absence of egg masses). We then empirically estimated the scale of effect of each landscape variable on each response.

Results

The scale of effect differed among responses, from 0.2 to 3.0 km radii; however, it did not vary in the predicted order. Furthermore, the order was not consistent between the two landscape variables.

Conclusions

Our results show that the scale of effect of a landscape variable on a given species can differ for different response variables. However, they also suggest that these differences in the scale of effect are not predictable. Thus, the most reliable way to ensure a landscape context study is conducted at the correct spatial extent is to estimate the scale of effect empirically, rather than ‘guesstimating’ the extent a priori.

• Babbitt KJ, Baber MJ, Brandt LA (2006) The effect of woodland proximity and wetland characteristics on larval anuran assemblages in an agricultural landscape. Can J Zool 84:510–519

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Berven KA (1982) The genetic basis of altitudinal variation in the wood frog Rana sylvatica. I. An experimental analysis of life history traits. Evolution 36:962–983

  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Berven KA (1990) Factors affecting population fluctuations in larval and adult stages of the wood frog (Rana sylvatica). Ecology 71:1599–1608

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Berven KA, Grudzien TA (1990) Dispersal in the wood frog (Rana sylvatica): implications for genetic population structure. Evolution 44:2047–2056

  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Blomquist SM, Hunter ML Jr (2010) A multi-scale assessment of amphibian habitat selection: wood frog response to timber harvesting. Écoscience 17:251–264

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Boissinot A, Grillet P, Besnard A, Lourdais O (2015) Small woods positively influence the occurrence and abundance of the common frog (Rana temporaria) in a traditional farming landscape. Amphibia-Reptilia 36:417–424

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Brennan JM, Bender DJ, Contreras TA, Fahrig L (2002) Focal patch landscape studies for wildlife management: optimizing sampling effort across scales. In: Liu J, Taylor WW (eds) Integrating landscape ecology into natural resource management. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 68–91. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613654.006

  Chapter  Google Scholar 

• Browne CL, Paszkowski CA, Foote AL, Moenting A, Boss SM (2009) The relationship of amphibian abundance to habitat features across spatial scales in the Boreal Plains. Écoscience 16:209–223

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Clark PJ, Reed JM, Tavernia BG, Windmiller BS, Regosin JV (2008) Urbanization effects on spotted salamander and wood frog presence and abundance. Herpetol Conserv 3:67–75

  Google Scholar 

• Coffey HMP, Fahrig L (2012) Relative effects of vehicle pollution, moisture and colonization sources on urban lichens. J Appl Ecol 49:1467–1474

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Collins SJ, Fahrig L (2017) Responses of anurans to composition and configuration of agricultural landscapes. Agric Ecosyst Environ 239:399–409

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Crouch WB, Paton PWC (2000) Using egg-mass counts to monitor wood frog populations. Wildl Soc Bull 28:895–901

  Google Scholar 

• Eigenbrod F, Hecnar SJ, Fahrig L (2008) The relative effects of road traffic and forest cover on anuran populations. Biol Conserv 141:35–46

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Eigenbrod F, Hecnar SJ, Fahrig L (2009) Quantifying the road-effect zone: threshold effects of a motorway on anuran populations in Ontario. Canada. Ecol Soc 14:24

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Ethier K, Fahrig L (2011) Positive effects of forest fragmentation, independent of forest amount, on bat abundance in eastern Ontario, Canada. Landsc Ecol 26:865–876

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Findlay CS, Lenton J, Zheng L (2001) Land-use correlates of anuran community richness and composition in southeastern Ontario wetlands. Écoscience 8:336–343

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Grant EHC, Jung RE, Nichols JD, Hines JE (2005) Double-observer approach to estimating egg mass abundance of pool-breeding amphibians. Wetl Ecol Manag 13:305–320

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Groff LA, Calhoun AJK, Loftin CS (2017) Amphibian terrestrial habitat selection and movement patterns vary with annual life-history period. Can J Zool 95:433–442

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Harper EB, Semlitsch RD (2007) Density dependence in the terrestrial life history stage of two anurans. Oecologia 153:879–889

  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Herrmann HL, Babbitt KJ, Baber MJ, Congalton RG (2005) Effects of landscape characteristics on amphibian distribution in a forest-dominated landscape. Biol Conserv 123:139–149

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Holland JD, Fahrig L, Cappuccino N (2005a) Fecundity determines the extinction threshold in a Canadian assemblage of longhorned beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). J Insect Conserv 9:109–119

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Holland JD, Fahrig L, Cappuccino N (2005b) Body size affects the spatial scale of habitat–beetle interactions. Oikos 110:101–108

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Homan RN, Windmiller BS, Reed JM (2004) Critical thresholds associated with habitat loss for two vernal pool-breeding amphibians. Ecol Appl 14:1547–1553

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Jackson HB, Fahrig L (2012) What size is a biologically relevant landscape? Landsc Ecol 27:929–941

  Article  Google Scholar 

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

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Jackson ND, Fahrig L (2014) Landscape context affects genetic diversity at a much larger spatial extent than population abundance. Ecology 95:871–881

  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Karraker NE (2007) A new method for estimating clutch sizes of ambystomatid salamanders and ranid frogs: introducing the ovagram. Herpetol Rev 38:46–48

  Google Scholar 

• Koumaris A, Fahrig L (2016) Different anuran species show different relationships to agricultural intensity. Wetlands 36:731–744

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Levin SA (1992) The problem of pattern and scale in ecology: the Robert H. MacArthur Award lecture. Ecology 73:1943–1967

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Martin AE (2018) The spatial scale of a species’ response to the landscape context depends on which biological response you measure. Curr Landsc Ecol Rep 3:23–33

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Martin AE, Fahrig L (2012) Measuring and selecting scales of effect for landscape predictors in species-habitat models. Ecol Appl 22:2277–2292

  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Miguet P, Jackson HB, Jackson ND, Martin AE, Fahrig L (2016) What determines the spatial extent of landscape effects on species? Landsc Ecol 31:1177–1194

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Moraga AD, Pervin E (2018) Efficient estimation of amphibian clutch using image analysis of compressed globular egg masses. Herpetol Conserv Biol 13:341–346

  Google Scholar 

• Moretto L (2018) A small-scale response of urban bat activity to tree cover. Dissertation, Carleton University

• Nakazawa M (2018) fmsb: functions for medical statistics book with some demographic data. R package version 0.6.3. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=fmsb

• Paradis E, Schliep K (2019) ape 5.0: an environment for modern phylogenetics and evolutionary analyses in R. Bioinformatics 35:526–528

  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Porej D, Micacchion M, Hetherington TE (2004) Core terrestrial habitat for conservation of local populations of salamanders and wood frogs in agricultural landscapes. Biol Conserv 120:399–409

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Raithel CJ, Paton PWC, Pooler PS, Golet FC (2011) Assessing long-term population trends of wood frogs using egg-mass counts. J Herpetol 45:23–27

  Article  Google Scholar 

• R Core Team (2018) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna

  Google Scholar 

• Rowe CL, Dunson WA (1995) Impacts of hydroperiod on growth and survival of larval amphibians in temporary ponds of Central Pennsylvania, USA. Oecologia 102:397–403

  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Schindelin J, Rueden CT, Hiner MC, Eliceiri KW (2015) The ImageJ ecosystem: an open platform for biomedical image analysis. Mol Reprod Dev 82:518–529

  Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

• 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 34:103–113

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Smith AC, Francis CM, Fahrig L (2014) Similar effects of residential and non-residential vegetation on bird diversity in suburban neighbourhoods. Urban Ecosyst 17:27–44

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Thornton DH, Branch LC, Sunquist ME (2011) The influence of landscape, patch, and within-patch factors on species presence and abundance: a review of focal patch studies. Landsc Ecol 26:7–18

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Thornton DH, Fletcher RJ Jr (2014) Body size and spatial scales in avian response to landscapes: a meta-analysis. Ecography 37:454–463

  Google Scholar 

• Venables B, Ripley B (2002) MASS: support functions and datasets for Venable’s and Ripley’s MASS. Modern Applied Statistics with S. Fourth Edition, Springer

  Google Scholar 

• Veysey JS, Mattfeldt SD, Babbitt KJ (2011) Comparative influence of isolation, landscape, and wetland characteristics on egg-mass abundance of two pool-breeding amphibian species. Landsc Ecol 26:661–672

  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author notes

1. Andrew D. Moraga

   Present address: School of Environment Resources and Sustainability, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada

Authors and Affiliations

1. Geomatics and Landscape Ecology Research Laboratory, Department of Biology, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Dr., Ottawa, ON, K1S 5B6, Canada

   Andrew D. Moraga, Amanda E. Martin & Lenore Fahrig

2. Environment and Climate Change Canada, National Wildlife Research Centre, 1125 Colonel By Dr., Ottawa, ON, K1S 5B6, Canada

   Amanda E. Martin

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amanda E. Martin.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standard

All work complied with the Canadian Council on Animal Care requirements for the use of eggs in research (Category of Invasiveness A).

Data availability

The data sets generated during the current study are available in the Mendeley Data repository, https://doi.org/10.17632/ccw64rpj22.1.

Publisher's Note

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