Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Six key steps for functional landscape analyses of habitat change

  • Perspective
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Context

An important part of landscape ecology is to identify relationships between landscape characteristics and ecological processes. One common approach to this is relating raster surfaces to ecological responses, assuming that the characteristics emphasized by rasters are representative of the processes determining changes in the ecological responses being assessed. Consequently, choices made in the design and assessment of rasters affect our understanding of the relationship between landscape characteristics and ecological responses.

Objectives

We propose a six-step framework for informing the choices made in creating and measuring rasters for landscape analyses: (i) acknowledge ecological theory and conceptual paradigms, (ii) evaluate the fit of available data, (iii) assess the three facets of scale, (iv) recognize different sampling designs, (v) use proper conceptual models, and (vi) measure meaningful raster characteristics.

Conclusions

We discuss how each step can benefit from a “functional” perspective, i.e., an explicit focus on the ecological processes under investigation. This is especially important for landscape analyses of habitat change, which are highly complex due to the many processes potentially involved. A functional perspective draws attention to common pitfalls in landscape ecology, while promoting more process-oriented research in the study of habitat change.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baguette M, Van Dyck H (2007) Landscape connectivity and animal behavior: functional grain as a key determinant for dispersal. Landsc Ecol 22:1117–1129

    Google Scholar 

  • Brudvig LA, Leroux SJ, Albert CH, Bruna EM,  Davies KF, Ewers RM, Levey DJ, Pardini R, Resasco J (2017) Evaluating conceptual models of landscape change. Ecography 40:74–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Coops NC, Wulder MA (2019) Breaking the habit(at). Trends Ecol Evol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2019.04.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cushman SA, Huettmann F (2010) Spatial complexity, informatics, and wildlife conservation. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-87771-4

  • Cushman SA, McGarigal K, Neel MC (2008) Parsimony in landscape metrics: strength, universality, and consistency. Ecol Indic 8:691–703.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RLH, Shreeve TG, Van Dyck H (2003) Towards a functional resource-based concept for habitat: a butterfly biology viewpoint. Oikos 102:417–426

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond JM (1983) Ecology: laboratory, field and natural experiments. Nature 304:586–587

    Google Scholar 

  • Didham RK, Kapos V, Ewers RM (2012) Rethinking the conceptual foundations of habitat fragmentation research. Oikos 121:161–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Dungan, JL, Perry, JN, Dale, MRTT, Legendre, P, Citron-Pousty, S, Fortin, M-JJ, Jakomulska A, Miriti M, Rosenberg MS (2002) A balanced view of scale in spatial statistical analysis. Ecography 25:626–640

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L (2017) Ecological responses to habitat fragmentation per se. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 48:1–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L (2020) Why do several small patches hold more species than few large patches? Glob Ecol Biogeogr. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.13059

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L, Arroyo-Rodríguez V, Bennett JR, Boucher-Lalonde V, Cazetta E, Currie DJ, Eigenbrod F, Ford AT, Harrison SP, Jaeger JAG, Koper N, Martin AE, Martin J-L, Metzger JP, Morrison P, Rhodes JR, Saunders DA, Simberloff D, Smith AC, Tischendorf L, Vellend M, Watling JI (2019) Is habitat fragmentation bad for biodiversity? Biol Conserv. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.12.026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L, Baudry J, Brotons L, Burel FG, Crist TO, Fuller RJ, Sirami C, Siriwardena GM, Martin J-L (2011) Functional landscape heterogeneity and animal biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Ecol Lett 14:101–112

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher RJ, Burrell NS, Reichert BE, Vasudev D, Austin JD (2016) Divergent perspectives on landscape connectivity reveal consistent effects from genes to communities. Curr Landsc Ecol Rep 1:67–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher RJ, Didham RK, Banks-Leite C, Barlow J, Ewers RM, Rosindell J, Holt RD, Gonzalez A, Pardini R, Damschen EI, Melo FP, Ries L, Prevedello JA, Tscharntke T, Laurance WF, Lovejoy T, Haddad NM (2018) Is habitat fragmentation good for biodiversity? Biol Conserv 226:9–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher RJ, Fortin M-J (2018) Spatial ecology and conservation modeling: applications with R. Springer, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson EJ (1998) Minireview: quantifying landscape spatial pattern: what is the state of the art? Ecosystems 1:143–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson EJ (2018) How has the state-of-the-art for quantification of landscape pattern advanced in the twenty-first century? Landsc Ecol 34:2065–2072

    Google Scholar 

  • Haddad NM, Brudvig LA, Clobert J, Davies KF, Gonzalez A, Holt RD, Lovejoy TE, Sexton JO, Austin MP, Collins CD, Cook WM, Damschen EI, Ewers RM, Foster BL, Jenkins CN, King AJ, Laurance WF, Levey DJ, Margules CR, Melbourne BA, Nicholls AO, Orrock JL, Song D-X, Townshend JR (2015) Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems. Sci Adv 1:e1500052

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Haddad NM, Holt RD, Fletcher RJ, Loreau M, Clobert J (2017) Connecting models, data, and concepts to understand fragmentation’s ecosystem-wide effects. Ecography 40:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayla Y (2002) A conceptual genealogy of fragmentation research: from island biogeography to landscape ecology. Ecol Appl 12:321–334

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson HB, Fahrig L (2012) What size is a biologically relevant landscape? Landsc Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-012-9757-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Jelinski DE, Wu J (1996) The modifiable areal unit problem and implications for landscape ecology. Landsc Ecol 11:129–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Kedron PJ, Frazier AE, Ovando-Montejo GA, Wang J (2018) Surface metrics for landscape ecology: a comparison of landscape models across ecoregions and scales. Landsc Ecol 33:1489–1504

    Google Scholar 

  • Latimer CE, Zuckerberg B (2017) Forest fragmentation alters winter microclimates and microrefugia in human-modified landscapes. Ecography 40:158–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurance WF (2008) Theory meets reality: how habitat fragmentation research has transcended island biogeographic theory. Biol Conserv 141:1731–1744

    Google Scholar 

  • Lausch A, Blaschke T, Haase D, Herzog F, Syrbe RU, Tischendorf L, Walz U (2015) Understanding and quantifying landscape structure—a review on relevant process characteristics, data models and landscape metrics. Ecol Model 295:31–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Lechner AM, Langford WT, Bekessy SA, Jones SD (2012) Are landscape ecologists addressing uncertainty in their remote sensing data? Landsc Ecol 27:1249–1261

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 11:91–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Lechner AM, Raymond CM, Adams VM, Polyakov M, Gordon A, Rhodes JR, Mills M, Stein A, Ives CD, Lefroy EC (2014) Characterizing spatial uncertainty when integrating social data in conservation planning. Conserv Biol 28:1497–1511

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Levin SA (1992) The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73:1943–1967

    Google Scholar 

  • Levins R (1969) Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental heterogeneity for biological control. Bull Entomol Soc Am 15:237–240

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • McGarigal K, Cushman SA (2005) The gradient concept of landscape structure. In: Issues and perspectives in landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  • McGarigal K, Tagil S, Cushman SA (2009) Surface metrics: an alternative to patch metrics for the quantification of landscape structure. Landsc Ecol 24:433–450

    Google Scholar 

  • McGill BJ (2019) The what, how and why of doing macroecology. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12855

    Article  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

    Google Scholar 

  • Moraga AD, Martin AE, Fahrig L (2019) The scale of effect of landscape context varies with the species’ response variable measured. Landsc Ecol 34:703–715

    Google Scholar 

  • Perović D, Gámez‐Virués S, Börschig C, Klein A-M, Krauss J, Steckel J, Rothenwöhrer C, Erasmi S, Tscharntke T, Westphal C (2015) Configurational landscape heterogeneity shapes functional community composition of grassland butterflies. J Appl Ecol 52:505–513

    Google Scholar 

  • Pulsford SA, Lindenmayer DB, Driscoll DA (2017) Reptiles and frogs conform to multiple conceptual landscape models in an agricultural landscape. Divers Distrib 23:1408–1422

    Google Scholar 

  • Resasco J, Bruna EM, Haddad NM, Banks-Leite C, Margules CR (2017) The contribution of theory and experiments to conservation in fragmented landscapes. Ecography 40:109–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Ries L, Fletcher RJ, Battin J, Sisk TD (2004) Ecological responses to habitat edges: mechanisms, models, and variability explained. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:491–522

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuber EF, Gruber LF, Fontaine JJ (2017) A Bayesian method for assessing multi-scale species–habitat relationships. Landsc Ecol 32:2365–2381

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarr NM (2019) Demonstrating a conceptual model for multispecies landscape pattern indices in landscape conservation. Landsc Ecol 34:2133–2147

    Google Scholar 

  • Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2000) On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos 90:7–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Tscharntke T, Tylianakis JM, Rand TA, Didham RK, Fahrig L, Batáry P, Bengtsson J, Clough Y, Crist TO, Dormann CF, Ewers RM, Fründ J, Holt RD, Holzschuh A, Klein AM, Kleijn D, Kremen C, Landis DA, Laurance W, Lindenmayer D, Scherber C, Sodhi N, Steffan‐Dewenter I, Thies C, van der Putten WH, Westphal C (2012) Landscape moderation of biodiversity patterns and processes—eight hypotheses. Biol Rev 87:661–685

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Turner MG (1989) Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 20:171–197

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang X, Blanchet FG, Koper N (2014) Measuring habitat fragmentation: an evaluation of landscape pattern metrics. Methods Ecol Evol 5:634–646

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickham J, Riitters KH (2019) Influence of high-resolution data on the assessment of forest fragmentation. Landsc Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-019-00820-z

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wiens JA (1989) Spatial scaling in ecology. Funct Ecol 3:385. https://doi.org/10.2307/2389612

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson MC, Chen XY, Corlett RT, Didham RK, Ding P, Holt RD, Holyoak M, Hu G, Hughes AC, Jiang L, Laurance WF, Liu J, Pimm SL, Robinson SK, Russo SE, Si X, Wilcove DS, Wu J, Yu M (2016) Habitat fragmentation and biodiversity conservation: key findings and future challenges. Landsc Ecol 31:219–227

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright AD, Grant EHC, Zipkin EF (2020) A hierarchical analysis of habitat area, connectivity, and quality on amphibian diversity across spatial scales. Landsc Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-019-00963-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu J, Jones KB, Li H, Loucks OL (2006) Scaling and uncertainty analysis in ecology: methods and applications. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerberg B, Desrochers A, Hochachka WM, Fink D, Koenig WD, Dickinson JL (2012) Overlapping landscapes: a persistent, but misdirected concern when collecting and analyzing ecological data. J Wildl Manag 76:1072–1080

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Lenore Fahrig and François-Nicolas Robinne for feedback on an early draft of this manuscript, as well as Dr. Wickham and two anonymous reviewers for providing insightful comments and suggestions. We also thank Kate Broadley and Fuse Consulting Ltd. for digitizing the original figures. 

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta, 751 GSB, 9007 - 116 St NW, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2H1, Canada

    Federico Riva & Scott E. Nielsen

Authors
  1. Federico Riva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Scott E. Nielsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

FR led manuscript writing with intellectual contributions and assistance in writing from SEN. Both authors agreed to submission and be accountable for the contents of this manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Federico Riva.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Riva, F., Nielsen, S.E. Six key steps for functional landscape analyses of habitat change. Landscape Ecol 35, 1495–1504 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-020-01048-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-020-01048-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation