Making statistics biologically relevant in fragmented landscapes

Trends in Ecology and Evolution

Volumn 25, Issue 12, 2010, Pages 699-704

  Ewers, Robert M ^a   Marsh, Charles J ^a   Wearn, Oliver R ^a  

^a IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ECOSYSTEM APPROACH; GIS; HABITAT FRAGMENTATION; HABITAT TYPE; LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY; NUMERICAL MODEL; SPATIAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

ANIMAL; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; BIRD; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM; INSECT; METHODOLOGY; MOUSE; POPULATION DYNAMICS; SHORT SURVEY; SPECIES DIFFERENCE; STATISTICS;

ANIMALS; BIRDS; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS; INSECTS; MICE; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; POPULATION DYNAMICS; SPECIES SPECIFICITY; STATISTICS AS TOPIC;

EID: 78149361837     PISSN: 01695347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2010.09.008     Document Type: Short Survey

References (45)

1. Sala O.E., et al. Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 2000, 287:1770-1774.
2. Tilman D., et al. Habitat destruction and the extinction debt. Nature 1994, 371:65-66.
3. Gardner T.A., et al. Prospects for tropical forest biodiversity in a human-modified world. Ecol. Lett. 2009, 12:561-582.
4. Fazey I., et al. What do conservation biologists publish?. Biol. Conserv. 2005, 124:63-73.
5. Lindenmayer D.B., Fischer J. Tackling the habitat fragmentation panchreston. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2007, 22:127-132.
6. Fahrig L. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2003, 34:487-515.
7. Ewers R.M., Didham R.K. Confounding factors in the detection of species responses to habitat fragmentation. Biol. Rev. 2006, 81:117-142.
8. Ewers R.M., Didham R.K. Habitat fragmentation: panchreston or paradigm?. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2007, 22:511.
9. Nunes M., Galetti M. Use of forest fragments by blue-winged macaws (Primolius maracana) within a fragmented landscape. Biodivers. Conserv. 2007, 16:953-967.
10. Witt W.C., Huntly N. Effects of isolation on red-backed voles (Clethrionomys gapperi) and deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus) in a sage-steppe matrix. Can. J. Zool. 2001, 79:1597-1603.
11. Peltonen M., Heliovaara K. Incidence of Xylechinus pilosus and Cryphalus saltuarius (Scolytidae) in forest-clearcut edges. For. Ecol. Manage. 1998, 103:141-147.
12. Bender D.J., et al. Habitat loss and population decline: a meta-analysis of the patch size effect. Ecology 1998, 79:517-533.
13. Prugh L.R., et al. Effect of habitat area and isolation on fragmented animal populations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2008, 105:20770-20775.
14. Ries L., et al. Ecological responses to habitat edges: mechanisms, models and variability explained. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2004, 35:491-522.
15. Harper K.A., et al. Edge influence on forest structure and composition in fragmented landscapes. Conserv. Biol. 2005, 19:768-782.
16. Banks-Leite C., et al. Edge effects as the principal cause of area effects on birds in fragmented secondary forest. Oikos 2010, 119:918-926.
17. Fletcher R.J., et al. The role of habitat area and edge in fragmented landscapes: definitively distinct or inevitably intertwined?. Can. J. Zool. 2007, 85:1017-1030.
18. Ewers R.M., et al. Synergistic interactions between edge and area effects in a heavily fragmented landscape. Ecology 2007, 88:96-106.
19. Shraderfrechette K.S., McCoy E.D. Statistics, costs and rationality in ecological inference. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1992, 7:96-99.
20. Anderson D.R., et al. Null hypothesis testing: problems, prevalence, and an alternative. J. Wildl. Manage. 2000, 64:912-923.
21. Yoccoz N.G. Use, overuse, and misuse of significance tests in evolutionary biology and ecology. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Am. 1991, 72:106-111.
22. Stephens P.A., et al. Inference in ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2007, 22:192-197.
23. Ewers R.M., Didham R.K. Continuous response functions for quantifying the strength of edge effects. J. Appl. Ecol. 2006, 43:527-536.
24. Ewers R.M., Didham R.K. Pervasive impact of large-scale edge effects on a beetle community. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2008, 105:5426-5429.
25. Ewers R.M., Didham R.K. The effect of fragment shape and species' sensitivity to habitat edges on animal population size. Conserv. Biol. 2007, 21:926-936.
26. Fletcher R.J. Multiple edge effects and their implications in fragmented landscapes. J. Anim. Ecol. 2005, 74:342-352.
27. Temple S.A. Predicting impacts of habitat fragmentation on forest birds: a comparison of two models. Wildlife 2000: Modelling Habitat Relationships of Terrestrial Vertebrates 1986, 301-304. University of Wisconsin Press. J. Verner (Ed.).
28. Kupfer J.A., et al. Not seeing the ocean for the islands: the mediating influence of matrix-based processes on forest fragmentation effects. Global Ecol. Biogeog. 2006, 15:8-20.
29. Marsh C.J., et al. Community-level diversity modelling of birds and butterflies on Anjouan, Comoro Islands. Biol. Conserv. 2010, 143:1364-1374.
30. Sisk T.D., et al. Bird assemblages in patchy woodlands: modeling the effects of edge and matrix habitats. Ecol. Appl. 1997, 7:1170-1180.
31. Ewers R.M., et al. Mapping community change in modified landscapes. Biol. Conserv. 2009, 142:2872-2880.
32. Lafortezza R., et al. Assessing the impacts of forest fragmentation in New Zealand: scaling from survey plots to landscapes. Global Ecol. Biogeog. 2010, 19:741-754.
33. McRae B.H., Beier P. Circuit theory predicts gene flow in plant and animal populations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2007, 104:19885-19890.
34. McRae B.H., et al. Using circuit theory to model connectivity in ecology, evolution, and conservation. Ecology 2008, 89:2712-2724.
35. Hanski I., Ovaskainen O. The metapopulation capacity of a fragmented landscape. Nature 2000, 404:755-758.
36. Drielsma M., Ferrier S. Rapid evaluation of metapopulation persistence in highly variegated landscapes. Biol. Conserv. 2009, 142:529-540.
37. Ferrier S., et al. Extended statistical approaches to modelling spatial pattern in biodiversity in northeast New South Wales. I. Species-level modelling. Biodivers. Conserv. 2002, 11:2275-2307.
38. Elith J., et al. Novel methods improve prediction of species' distributions from occurrence data. Ecography 2006, 29:129-151.
39. Meyer C.B., Thuiller W. Accuracy of resource selection functions across spatial scales. Divers. Distrib. 2006, 12:288-297.
40. Baum J.K., Myers R.A. Shifting baselines and the decline of pelagic sharks in the Gulf of Mexico. Ecol. Lett. 2004, 7:135-145.
41. Gurevitch J., Hedges L.V. Meta-analysis: combining the results of independent experiments. Design and Analysis of Ecological Experiments 1993, 378-398. Chapman & Hall. S.M. Scheiner, J. Gurevitch (Eds.).
42. Ferrier S., Guisan A. Spatial modelling of biodiversity at the community level. J. Appl. Ecol. 2006, 43:393-404.
43. Ferrier S., et al. Using generalized dissimilarity modelling to analyse and predict patterns of beta diversity in regional biodiversity assessment. Divers. Distrib. 2007, 13:252-264.
44. Bailey R.C., et al. Biological assessment of freshwater ecosystems using a reference condition approach: comparing predicted and actual benthic invertebrate communities in Yukon streams. Freshwater Biol. 1998, 39:765-774.
45. Henle K., et al. Predictors of species sensitivity to fragmentation. Biodivers. Conserv. 2004, 13:207-251.