Abstract
Empirical studies of the relative effects of landscape variables may compromise inferential strength with common approaches to landscape selection. We propose a methodology for landscape sample selection that is designed to overcome some common statistical pitfalls that may hamper estimates of relative effects of landscape variables on ecological responses. We illustrate our proposed methodology through an application aimed at quantifying the relationships between farmland heterogeneity and biodiversity. For this project, we required 100 study landscapes that represented the widest possible ranges of compositional and configurational farmland heterogeneity, where these two aspects of heterogeneity were quantified as crop cover diversity (Shannon diversity index) and mean crop field size, respectively. These were calculated at multiple spatial extents from a detailed map of the region derived through satellite image segmentation and classification. Potential study landscapes were then selected in a structured approach such that: (1) they represented the widest possible range of both heterogeneity variables, (2) they were not spatially autocorrelated, and (3) there was independence (no correlation) between the two heterogeneity variables, allowing for more precise estimates of the regression coefficients that reflect their independent effects. All selection criteria were satisfied at multiple extents surrounding the study landscapes, to allow for multi-scale analysis. Our approach to landscape selection should improve the inferential strength of studies estimating the relative effects of landscape variables, particularly those with a view to developing land management guidelines.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) 2007 Landcover classification from 2007 imagery for Eastern Ontario site
Armitage P, Berry G, Matthews JNS (2002) Statistical methods in medical research, 4th edn. Blackwell Science Ltd, Malden
Beyer HL (2004) Hawth’s analysis tools for ArcGIS. Available at http://www.spatialecology.com/htools
Brennan JM, Bender DJ, Contreras TA, Fahrig L (2002) Focal patch landscape studies for wildlife management. In: Wu J, Taylor WW (eds) Optimizing sampling effort across scales. Integrating landscape ecology into natural resource management. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 68–91
Carr LW, Fahrig L (2001) Impact of road traffic on two amphibian species of differing vagility. Conserv Biol 15:1071–1078
Clark Labs 2011 Idrisi GIS. www.clarklabs.com
Definiens (2006) Definiens Professional 5.0. (now owned by Trimble)
Dingle Robertson L, King DJ (2011) Comparison of pixel- and object-based classification in land cover change mapping. Int J Remote Sens 32:1505–1529
Dunford W, Freemark KE (2004) Matrix matters: effects of surrounding land uses on forest birds near Ottawa, Canada. Landscape Ecol 20:497–511
Eigenbrod F, Hecnar SJ, Fahrig L (2008) The relative effects of road traffic and forest cover on anuran populations. Biol Conserv 141:35–46
Eigenbrod F, Hecnar SJ, Fahrig L (2011) Sub-optimal study design has major impacts on landscape-scale inference. Biol Conserv 144:298–305
Fahrig L, Baudry J, Brotons L, Burel FG, Crist TO, Fuller RJ, Sirami C, Siriwardena GM, Martin JL (2011) Functional landscape heterogeneity and animal biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Ecol Lett 14:101–112
Findlay CS, Houlahan J (1997) Anthropogenic correlates of biodiversity in southeastern Ontario wetlands. Conserv Biol 11:1000–1009
Flanders D, Hall-Beyer M, Pereverzoff J (2003) Preliminary evaluation of eCognition object-based software for cut block delineation and feature extraction. Can J Remote Sens 29:441–452
Fortin MJ, Dale MRT (2005) Spatial analysis: a guide for ecologists. Cambridge University Press, New York
Freemark KE, Kirk DA (2001) Birds breeding on organic and conventional farms in Ontario: partitioning effects of habitat and practices on species composition and abundance. Biol Conserv 101:337–350
Holland JD, Bert DG, Fahrig L (2004) Determining the spatial scale of species’ response to habitat. Bioscience 54:227–233
Holzschuh A, Steffan-Dewenter I, Kleijn D, Tscharntke T (2007) Diversity of flower-visiting bees in cereal fields: effects of farming system, landscape composition and regional context. J Appl Ecol 44:41–49
Hurlbert SH (1984) Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecol Monogr 54:187–211
Kirk DA, Lindsay KE and Brook RW (2011) Risk of agricultural practices and habitat change to farmland birds. Avian Conserv Ecol 6(1): 5. [Online] http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00446-060105
Legendre P (1993) Spatial autocorrelation: trouble or new paradigm? Ecology 74:1659–1673
McGarigal K, Cushman SA (2002) Comparative evaluation of experimental approaches to the study of habitat fragmentation effects. Ecol Appl 12:335–345
McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Neel MC, and Ene E (2002) FRAGSTATS: Spatial pattern analysis programs for categorical maps. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html
Moran PAP (1950) Notes on continuous stochastic phenomena. Biometrika 37:17–33
Mortelliti A, Mori G, Capizzi D, Cervone C, Fagiani S, Pollini B, Boitani L (2011) Independent effects of habitat loss, habitat fragmentation and structural connectivity on the distribution of two arboreal rodents. J Appl Ecol 48:153–162
Ökinger E, Smith HG (2006) Landscape composition and habitat area affects butterfly species richness in semi-arid grasslands. Oecologia 149:526–534
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) (2008) Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System (SOLRIS) Land Classification Data v1.2. Peterborough
Pasher J, King DJ (2006) Landscape fragmentation and ice storm damage in eastern Ontario forests. Landscape Ecol 21:477–483
Rytwinski T, Fahrig L (2011) Reproductive rate and body size predict road impacts on mammal abundance. Ecol Appl 21:589–600
Smith AC, Koper N, Francis CM, Fahrig L (2009) Confronting collinearity: comparing methods for disentangling the effects of habitat loss and fragmentation. Landscape Ecol 24:1271–1285
Statistics Canada (2007) 2006 Census of Agriculture—Farm data and farm operator data set. www.statcan.gc.ca
Trzcinski MK, Fahrig L, Merriam G (1999) Independent effects of forest cover and fragmentation on the distribution of forest breeding birds. Ecol Appl 9:586–593
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada’s Strategic Project Grants program and the project was developed and enriched through interactions with our many research and agricultural sector partners. The Geomatics and Landscape Ecology Research Laboratory at Carleton University, which provided the interdisciplinary environment that fostered this work, was developed through contributions from the Canada Foundation for Innovation, the Ontario Innovation Trust, the Hamlin Family Fund, Environment Canada and Carleton University. Anna Pacheco and Thierry Fisette at Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada provided data and valuable guidance on this work, and Evan Seed at Environment Canada also contributed valuable advice.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pasher, J., Mitchell, S.W., King, D.J. et al. Optimizing landscape selection for estimating relative effects of landscape variables on ecological responses. Landscape Ecol 28, 371–383 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9852-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9852-6