不同时空的生态效应规模各不相同

IF 5.4 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Ecography Pub Date : 2024-06-14 DOI:10.1111/ecog.07163
Brent S. Pease
{"title":"不同时空的生态效应规模各不相同","authors":"Brent S. Pease","doi":"10.1111/ecog.07163","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The spatial scale at which an environmental variable is summarized can have considerable impacts on ecological inference of species distribution and abundance. While several analytical approaches have emerged to determine biologically relevant spatial scales – the spatial scale that most strongly influences the ecological patterns observed – identifying key ecological drivers of scale of effect is still underway. Additionally, several predicted ecological drivers of scale of effect can vary across space and time, but little research on spatiotemporal patterns has occurred. Here, I assessed spatial and temporal variation in scales of effect across 32 North American bird species using 18 years of empirical data from the North American breeding bird survey. Scale estimation was then coupled with trait-based analyses and hypotheses testing of underlying processes of spatial and temporal variation in scales of effect. All 32 species tested exhibited varied scales of effect across years (average annual scales of effect ranging from 0.2 to 4.97 km) and Bird Conservation Regions (BCR), with spatial variability being the most pronounced. Trait-based analyses revealed a contrary relationship between hand-wing index, body size, and scale of effect, though the strength of this relationship was contingent on migratory status. Temporal variation in scales of effect was best explained by changes in human development over time, indicating that avian space use can be explained by an increasing human footprint. Additionally, relative population size, consistent with theoretical predictions stemming from density-dependent population dynamics, explained notable variation in spatial and temporal scales of effect. These findings contribute to the growing landscape ecology literature by providing empirical evidence for hypothesized drivers of scales of effect. By delineating species-specific scales of effect and elucidating their ecological drivers, this study enhances our understanding of spatial and temporal scales in ecological processes, aiding conservation efforts in a rapidly changing world.</p>","PeriodicalId":51026,"journal":{"name":"Ecography","volume":"2024 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ecog.07163","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ecological scales of effect vary across space and time\",\"authors\":\"Brent S. Pease\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ecog.07163\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The spatial scale at which an environmental variable is summarized can have considerable impacts on ecological inference of species distribution and abundance. While several analytical approaches have emerged to determine biologically relevant spatial scales – the spatial scale that most strongly influences the ecological patterns observed – identifying key ecological drivers of scale of effect is still underway. Additionally, several predicted ecological drivers of scale of effect can vary across space and time, but little research on spatiotemporal patterns has occurred. Here, I assessed spatial and temporal variation in scales of effect across 32 North American bird species using 18 years of empirical data from the North American breeding bird survey. Scale estimation was then coupled with trait-based analyses and hypotheses testing of underlying processes of spatial and temporal variation in scales of effect. All 32 species tested exhibited varied scales of effect across years (average annual scales of effect ranging from 0.2 to 4.97 km) and Bird Conservation Regions (BCR), with spatial variability being the most pronounced. Trait-based analyses revealed a contrary relationship between hand-wing index, body size, and scale of effect, though the strength of this relationship was contingent on migratory status. Temporal variation in scales of effect was best explained by changes in human development over time, indicating that avian space use can be explained by an increasing human footprint. Additionally, relative population size, consistent with theoretical predictions stemming from density-dependent population dynamics, explained notable variation in spatial and temporal scales of effect. These findings contribute to the growing landscape ecology literature by providing empirical evidence for hypothesized drivers of scales of effect. By delineating species-specific scales of effect and elucidating their ecological drivers, this study enhances our understanding of spatial and temporal scales in ecological processes, aiding conservation efforts in a rapidly changing world.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51026,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ecography\",\"volume\":\"2024 8\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ecog.07163\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ecography\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ecog.07163\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecography","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ecog.07163","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

总结环境变量的空间尺度会对物种分布和丰度的生态推断产生相当大的影响。虽然已经出现了几种分析方法来确定与生物相关的空间尺度(即对所观察到的生态模式影响最大的空间尺度),但确定影响尺度的关键生态驱动因素的工作仍在进行中。此外,一些预测的生态效应尺度驱动因素会在不同的空间和时间发生变化,但有关时空模式的研究却很少。在此,我利用北美繁殖鸟类调查的 18 年经验数据,评估了 32 种北美鸟类的效应规模的时空变化。在进行规模估计的同时,还进行了基于性状的分析,并对影响规模的空间和时间变化的潜在过程进行了假设检验。所有 32 个受测物种在不同年份和鸟类保护区(BCR)都表现出不同的影响范围(年平均影响范围从 0.2 到 4.97 千米不等),其中空间变化最为明显。基于性状的分析表明,手翅指数、体型与影响范围之间存在相反的关系,但这种关系的强度取决于迁徙状况。随着时间的推移,人类发展的变化最能解释影响规模的时间变化,这表明鸟类对空间的利用可以用人类足迹的增加来解释。此外,相对种群数量也能解释空间和时间影响范围的显著变化,这与密度依赖型种群动力学的理论预测一致。这些研究结果为假定的影响范围驱动因素提供了实证证据,从而为日益增多的景观生态学文献做出了贡献。通过划分物种特有的效应尺度并阐明其生态驱动因素,这项研究增强了我们对生态过程中空间和时间尺度的理解,有助于在快速变化的世界中开展保护工作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Ecological scales of effect vary across space and time

Ecological scales of effect vary across space and time

The spatial scale at which an environmental variable is summarized can have considerable impacts on ecological inference of species distribution and abundance. While several analytical approaches have emerged to determine biologically relevant spatial scales – the spatial scale that most strongly influences the ecological patterns observed – identifying key ecological drivers of scale of effect is still underway. Additionally, several predicted ecological drivers of scale of effect can vary across space and time, but little research on spatiotemporal patterns has occurred. Here, I assessed spatial and temporal variation in scales of effect across 32 North American bird species using 18 years of empirical data from the North American breeding bird survey. Scale estimation was then coupled with trait-based analyses and hypotheses testing of underlying processes of spatial and temporal variation in scales of effect. All 32 species tested exhibited varied scales of effect across years (average annual scales of effect ranging from 0.2 to 4.97 km) and Bird Conservation Regions (BCR), with spatial variability being the most pronounced. Trait-based analyses revealed a contrary relationship between hand-wing index, body size, and scale of effect, though the strength of this relationship was contingent on migratory status. Temporal variation in scales of effect was best explained by changes in human development over time, indicating that avian space use can be explained by an increasing human footprint. Additionally, relative population size, consistent with theoretical predictions stemming from density-dependent population dynamics, explained notable variation in spatial and temporal scales of effect. These findings contribute to the growing landscape ecology literature by providing empirical evidence for hypothesized drivers of scales of effect. By delineating species-specific scales of effect and elucidating their ecological drivers, this study enhances our understanding of spatial and temporal scales in ecological processes, aiding conservation efforts in a rapidly changing world.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ecography
Ecography 环境科学-生态学
CiteScore
11.60
自引率
3.40%
发文量
122
审稿时长
8-16 weeks
期刊介绍: ECOGRAPHY publishes exciting, novel, and important articles that significantly advance understanding of ecological or biodiversity patterns in space or time. Papers focusing on conservation or restoration are welcomed, provided they are anchored in ecological theory and convey a general message that goes beyond a single case study. We encourage papers that seek advancing the field through the development and testing of theory or methodology, or by proposing new tools for analysis or interpretation of ecological phenomena. Manuscripts are expected to address general principles in ecology, though they may do so using a specific model system if they adequately frame the problem relative to a generalized ecological question or problem. Purely descriptive papers are considered only if breaking new ground and/or describing patterns seldom explored. Studies focused on a single species or single location are generally discouraged unless they make a significant contribution to advancing general theory or understanding of biodiversity patterns and processes. Manuscripts merely confirming or marginally extending results of previous work are unlikely to be considered in Ecography. Papers are judged by virtue of their originality, appeal to general interest, and their contribution to new developments in studies of spatial and temporal ecological patterns. There are no biases with regard to taxon, biome, or biogeographical area.
×
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