Lost in Space: When Spatial Scale Terms Blur Actual Study Size in Plant Community Ecology

IF 2.2 3区 环境科学与生态学 Q2 ECOLOGY
Chung-Yi Hung, María Ángeles Pérez-Navarro, Joshua I. Brian
{"title":"Lost in Space: When Spatial Scale Terms Blur Actual Study Size in Plant Community Ecology","authors":"Chung-Yi Hung,&nbsp;María Ángeles Pérez-Navarro,&nbsp;Joshua I. Brian","doi":"10.1111/jvs.70035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Questions</h3>\n \n <p>The detection and interpretation of ecological processes are strongly influenced by the spatial scale at which studies are conducted. Scale terms (e.g., ‘local’ or ‘regional’) are frequently used to denote study scale and imply that studies using the same scale term should be directly comparable. However, whether the area encompassed by a particular scale term is consistent across studies remains unclear.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Location</h3>\n \n <p>Global.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We reviewed 385 papers in plant community ecology and analysed 962 spatial scale terms and their reported areas. We tested whether variation in the use of individual scale terms could be explained by habitat, type of study or geographic region, and virtually sampled a simulated plant community to demonstrate the consequences of this variation for calculating common biodiversity metrics.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Single scale terms covered areas that vary by an average of 4.7 orders of magnitude, with significant overlap between distinct scale terms. Though this variation could be partly explained by habitat type (e.g., scale terms cover larger areas in forests than grasslands), we still found large variability (3.8 orders of magnitude) in the use of single terms within habitats. We also found overall high consistency (but still high variability) in the use of scale terms across geographic regions and study types. Our community simulation showed that Shannon's and Simpson's indices are highly sensitive to this variation, especially at finer spatial scales, suggesting that variation in the use of individual scale terms has major consequences for synthesising biodiversity trends.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>While terminology can make it appear that studies are directly comparable, they may cover vastly different areas and capture different ecological processes. Spatial scales should be reported in a standardised fashion by clearly stating the actual study size in abstracts and methods, and inconsistencies in scale term use should be accounted for when synthesising previous research.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":49965,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Vegetation Science","volume":"36 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jvs.70035","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Vegetation Science","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jvs.70035","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Questions

The detection and interpretation of ecological processes are strongly influenced by the spatial scale at which studies are conducted. Scale terms (e.g., ‘local’ or ‘regional’) are frequently used to denote study scale and imply that studies using the same scale term should be directly comparable. However, whether the area encompassed by a particular scale term is consistent across studies remains unclear.

Location

Global.

Methods

We reviewed 385 papers in plant community ecology and analysed 962 spatial scale terms and their reported areas. We tested whether variation in the use of individual scale terms could be explained by habitat, type of study or geographic region, and virtually sampled a simulated plant community to demonstrate the consequences of this variation for calculating common biodiversity metrics.

Results

Single scale terms covered areas that vary by an average of 4.7 orders of magnitude, with significant overlap between distinct scale terms. Though this variation could be partly explained by habitat type (e.g., scale terms cover larger areas in forests than grasslands), we still found large variability (3.8 orders of magnitude) in the use of single terms within habitats. We also found overall high consistency (but still high variability) in the use of scale terms across geographic regions and study types. Our community simulation showed that Shannon's and Simpson's indices are highly sensitive to this variation, especially at finer spatial scales, suggesting that variation in the use of individual scale terms has major consequences for synthesising biodiversity trends.

Conclusions

While terminology can make it appear that studies are directly comparable, they may cover vastly different areas and capture different ecological processes. Spatial scales should be reported in a standardised fashion by clearly stating the actual study size in abstracts and methods, and inconsistencies in scale term use should be accounted for when synthesising previous research.

Abstract Image

迷失在空间中:当空间尺度术语模糊了植物群落生态学的实际研究规模
生态过程的检测和解释受到进行研究的空间尺度的强烈影响。规模术语(例如,“本地”或“区域”)经常用于表示研究规模,并暗示使用相同规模术语的研究应该具有直接可比性。然而,某一特定尺度项所涵盖的区域在所有研究中是否一致仍不清楚。位置 全球。方法回顾植物群落生态学相关文献385篇,分析962个空间尺度术语及其报道区域。我们测试了个体尺度术语使用的变化是否可以用栖息地、研究类型或地理区域来解释,并对模拟植物群落进行了虚拟采样,以证明这种变化对计算常见生物多样性指标的影响。结果单个标度项覆盖的区域平均相差4.7个数量级,不同标度项之间存在明显的重叠。虽然这种变化可以部分地用栖息地类型来解释(例如,尺度术语在森林中覆盖的面积比草原大),但我们仍然发现在栖息地中使用单一术语时存在很大的差异(3.8个数量级)。我们还发现,在不同地理区域和研究类型中,尺度术语的使用总体上具有高度一致性(但仍然具有高度可变性)。我们的群落模拟显示,Shannon’s和Simpson’s指数对这种变化非常敏感,特别是在更精细的空间尺度上,这表明个体尺度术语使用的变化对生物多样性趋势的综合具有重要影响。虽然术语可以使研究看起来具有直接可比性,但它们可能涵盖截然不同的领域,捕获不同的生态过程。空间尺度应以标准化的方式报告,在摘要和方法中明确说明实际研究规模,在综合以往的研究时,应考虑尺度术语使用的不一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Vegetation Science
Journal of Vegetation Science 环境科学-林学
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
3.60%
发文量
60
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Vegetation Science publishes papers on all aspects of plant community ecology, with particular emphasis on papers that develop new concepts or methods, test theory, identify general patterns, or that are otherwise likely to interest a broad international readership. Papers may focus on any aspect of vegetation science, e.g. community structure (including community assembly and plant functional types), biodiversity (including species richness and composition), spatial patterns (including plant geography and landscape ecology), temporal changes (including demography, community dynamics and palaeoecology) and processes (including ecophysiology), provided the focus is on increasing our understanding of plant communities. The Journal publishes papers on the ecology of a single species only if it plays a key role in structuring plant communities. Papers that apply ecological concepts, theories and methods to the vegetation management, conservation and restoration, and papers on vegetation survey should be directed to our associate journal, Applied Vegetation Science journal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信