Overlapping landscapes: A persistent, but misdirected concern when collecting and analyzing ecological data

A primary focus of wildlife ecology is studying how the arrangement, quality, and distribution of habitat influence wildlife populations at multiple spatial scales. A practical limitation of conducting wildlife–habitat investigations in the field, however, is that sampling points tend to be close to one another, resulting in spatial clustering. Consequently, when ecologists seek to quantify the effects of environmental predictors surrounding their sampling points, they encounter the issue of using landscapes that are partially or completely overlapping. A presumed problem of overlapping landscapes is that data generated from these landscapes, when used as predictors in statistical modeling, might violate the assumption of independence. However, the independence of error is the critical assumption, not the independence of predictor variables. Nonetheless, many researchers strive to avoid such overlaps through sampling design or alternative analytical procedures and specialized software programs have been created to assist with this. We present theoretical arguments and empirical evidence showing that changing the amount of overlap does not alter the degree of spatial autocorrelation. Using data derived from 2 broad-scaled avian monitoring programs, we quantified the relationship between forest cover and bird abundance and occurrence at multiple landscapes ranging from 100 m to 24 km across. We found no clear evidence that increasing overlap of landscapes increased spatial autocorrelation in model residuals. Our results demonstrate that the concern of overlapping landscapes as a potential cause of violation of spatial independency among sampling units is misdirected and represents an oversimplification of the statistical and ecological issues surrounding spatial autocorrelation. Overlapping landscapes and spatial autocorrelation are separate issues in the modeling of wildlife populations and their habitats; non-overlapping landscapes do not ensure spatial independency and overlapping landscapes do not necessarily lead to greater spatial autocorrelation in model errors. © 2011 The Wildlife Society.

[1]  L. Fahrig,et al.  Determining the Spatial Scale of Species' Response to Habitat , 2004 .

[2]  L. Giraldeau,et al.  Aggregations from using inadvertent social information: a form of ideal habitat selection , 2009 .

[3]  G. B. Schaalje,et al.  Adequacy of approximations to distributions of test statistics in complex mixed linear models , 2002 .

[4]  J. Nocera,et al.  Incorporating Social Information to Improve the Precision of Models of Avian Habitat Use , 2010 .

[5]  J. Diniz‐Filho,et al.  Red herrings revisited: spatial autocorrelation and parameter estimation in geographical ecology , 2007 .

[6]  Jennifer L. Dungan,et al.  A balanced view of scale in spatial statistical analysis , 2002 .

[7]  R. G. Davies,et al.  Methods to account for spatial autocorrelation in the analysis of species distributional data : a review , 2007 .

[8]  Andrew J. Campomizzi,et al.  Conspecific Attraction is a Missing Component in Wildlife Habitat Modeling , 2008 .

[9]  R. O'Neill,et al.  Landscape Ecology Explained@@@Landscape Ecology in Theory and Practice: Pattern and Process , 2001 .

[10]  O. Bjørnstad,et al.  Spatial population dynamics: analyzing patterns and processes of population synchrony. , 1999, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[11]  N. Draper,et al.  Applied Regression Analysis: Draper/Applied Regression Analysis , 1998 .

[12]  Kevin McGarigal,et al.  COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF EXPERIMENTAL APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF HABITAT FRAGMENTATION EFFECTS , 2002 .

[13]  Mark Von Tress,et al.  Generalized, Linear, and Mixed Models , 2003, Technometrics.

[14]  R. Schooley,et al.  Spatial Heterogeneity and Characteristic Scales of Species–Habitat Relationships , 2006 .

[15]  Matthew G. Betts,et al.  The importance of spatial autocorrelation, extent and resolution in predicting forest bird occurrence , 2006 .

[16]  T. Bailey.  Spatial Analysis: A Guide for Ecologists , 2006 .

[17]  S. Hurlbert.  Pseudoreplication and the Design of Ecological Field Experiments , 1984 .

[18]  J. Diniz‐Filho,et al.  Spatial autocorrelation and red herrings in geographical ecology , 2003 .

[19]  Marie-Josée Fortin,et al.  SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF LANDSCAPES: CONCEPTS AND STATISTICS , 2005 .

[20]  N. Koper,et al.  A multi-scaled analysis of avian response to habitat amount and fragmentation in the Canadian dry mixed-grass prairie , 2006, Landscape Ecology.

[21]  N. Draper,et al.  Applied Regression Analysis , 1966 .

[22]  Darren J. Bender,et al.  Integrating Landscape Ecology into Natural Resource Management: Focal patch landscape studies for wildlife management: Optimizing sampling effort across scales , 2002 .

[23]  M. Graham.  CONFRONTING MULTICOLLINEARITY IN ECOLOGICAL MULTIPLE REGRESSION , 2003 .

[24]  L. Fahrig,et al.  Sub-optimal study design has major impacts on landscape-scale inference , 2011 .

[25]  J. Wickham,et al.  Completion of the 2001 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States , 2007 .

[26]  J. Diniz‐Filho,et al.  Spatial Autocorrelation Analysis and the Identification of Operational Units for Conservation in Continuous Populations , 2002 .

[27]  Jeffrey J. Buler,et al.  A multi-scale examination of stopover habitat use by birds. , 2007, Ecology.

[28]  Colin M Beale,et al.  Regression analysis of spatial data. , 2010, Ecology letters.

[29]  Douglas H. Johnson,et al.  Proximate and landscape factors influence grassland bird distributions. , 2006, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[30]  Richard Field,et al.  Coefficient shifts in geographical ecology: an empirical evaluation of spatial and non-spatial regression , 2009 .

[31]  C. Gallagher.  Extending the Linear Model With R: Generalized Linear, Mixed Effects and Nonparametric Regression Models , 2007 .

[32]  Lenore Fahrig,et al.  Issues and Perspectives in Landscape Ecology: When is a landscape perspective important? , 2005 .

[33]  Download Here.  Focal patch landscape studies for wildlife management : Optimizing sampling effort across scales , 2003 .

[34]  T. Simons,et al.  Spatial autocorrelation and autoregressive models in ecology , 2002 .

[35]  C. Braak,et al.  Toward Ecologically Scaled Landscape Indices , 2001, The American Naturalist.

[36]  W. Falck,et al.  Nonparametric spatial covariance functions: Estimation and testing , 2001, Environmental and Ecological Statistics.

[37]  M. Knutson,et al.  Scaling Local Species-habitat Relations to the Larger Landscape with a Hierarchical Spatial Count Model , 2007, Landscape Ecology.

[38]  Y. Yamaura,et al.  Reversing habitat loss: deciduous habitat fragmentation matters to birds in a larch plantation matrix , 2006 .

[39]  N. Williams,et al.  Resource distributions among habitats determine solitary bee offspring production in a mosaic landscape. , 2007, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[40]  Wesley M. Hochachka,et al.  Area‐sensitivity by forest songbirds: theoretical and practical implications of scale‐dependency , 2010 .

[41]  W. Pan.  Akaike's Information Criterion in Generalized Estimating Equations , 2001, Biometrics.

[42]  Jack J. Lennon,et al.  Red-shifts and red herrings in geographical ecology , 2000 .

[43]  David N. Bonter,et al.  Citizen Science as an Ecological Research Tool: Challenges and Benefits , 2010 .

[44]  K. McGarigal,et al.  Relationships Between Landscape Structure and Breeding Birds in the Oregon Coast Range , 1995 .

[45]  P. Legendre.  Spatial Autocorrelation: Trouble or New Paradigm? , 1993 .

[46]  Sw. Banerjee,et al.  Hierarchical Modeling and Analysis for Spatial Data , 2003 .

[47]  J. Metzger,et al.  Is bird incidence in Atlantic forest fragments influenced by landscape patterns at multiple scales? , 2009, Landscape Ecology.

[48]  Dm Pearson,et al.  Issues and Perspectives in Landscape Ecology , 2006 .