Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (13) (remove)
Year of publication
- 2018 (13) (remove)
Language
- English (13)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (13)
Keywords
- Plant community model (2)
- 3D-acceleration sensor (1)
- Aridity gradient (1)
- Baltic Sea (1)
- Bet-hedging germination (1)
- Biodiversity (1)
- Brachypodium hybridum (1)
- Ciconia ciconia (1)
- Coexistence mechanisms (1)
- Community-level effects (1)
GrassPlot is a collaborative vegetation-plot database organised by the Eurasian Dry Grassland Group (EDGG) and listed in the Global Index of Vegetation-Plot Databases (GIVD ID EU-00-003). GrassPlot collects plot records (releves) from grasslands and other open habitats of the Palaearctic biogeographic realm. It focuses on precisely delimited plots of eight standard grain sizes (0.0001; 0.001;... 1,000 m(2)) and on nested-plot series with at least four different grain sizes. The usage of GrassPlot is regulated through Bylaws that intend to balance the interests of data contributors and data users. The current version (v. 1.00) contains data for approximately 170,000 plots of different sizes and 2,800 nested-plot series. The key components are richness data and metadata. However, most included datasets also encompass compositional data. About 14,000 plots have near-complete records of terricolous bryophytes and lichens in addition to vascular plants. At present, GrassPlot contains data from 36 countries throughout the Palaearctic, spread across elevational gradients and major grassland types. GrassPlot with its multi-scale and multi-taxon focus complements the larger international vegetationplot databases, such as the European Vegetation Archive (EVA) and the global database " sPlot". Its main aim is to facilitate studies on the scale-and taxon-dependency of biodiversity patterns and drivers along macroecological gradients. GrassPlot is a dynamic database and will expand through new data collection coordinated by the elected Governing Board. We invite researchers with suitable data to join GrassPlot. Researchers with project ideas addressable with GrassPlot data are welcome to submit proposals to the Governing Board.
Non-consumptive effects of predators within ecosystems can alter the behavior of individual prey species, and have cascading effects on other trophic levels. In this context, an understanding of non-consumptive predator effects on the whole prey community is crucial for predicting community structure and composition, hence biodiversity patterns. We used an individual-based, spatially-explicit modelling approach to investigate the consequences of landscapes of fear on prey community metrics. The model spans multiple hierarchical levels from individual home range formation based on food availability and perceived predation risk to consequences on prey community structure and composition. This mechanistic approach allowed us to explore how important factors such as refuge availability and foraging strategy under fear affect prey community metrics. Fear of predators affected prey space use, such as home range formation. These adaptations had broader consequences for the community leading to changes in community structure and composition. The strength of community responses to perceived predation risk was driven by refuge availability in the landscape and the foraging strategy of prey animals. Low refuge availability in the landscape strongly decreased diversity and total biomass of prey communities. Additionally, body mass distributions in prey communities facing high predation risk were shifted towards small prey animals. With increasing refuge availability the consequences of non-consumptive predator effects were reduced, diversity and total biomass of the prey community increased. Prey foraging strategies affected community composition. Under medium refuge availability, risk-averse prey communities consisted of many small animals while risk-taking prey communities showed a more even body mass distribution. Our findings reveal that non-consumptive predator effects can have important implications for prey community diversity and should therefore be considered in the context of conservation and nature management.
Home range estimation is routine practice in ecological research. While advances in animal tracking technology have increased our capacity to collect data to support home range analysis, these same advances have also resulted in increasingly autocorrelated data. Consequently, the question of which home range estimator to use on modern, highly autocorrelated tracking data remains open. This question is particularly relevant given that most estimators assume independently sampled data. Here, we provide a comprehensive evaluation of the effects of autocorrelation on home range estimation. We base our study on an extensive data set of GPS locations from 369 individuals representing 27 species distributed across five continents. We first assemble a broad array of home range estimators, including Kernel Density Estimation (KDE) with four bandwidth optimizers (Gaussian reference function, autocorrelated‐Gaussian reference function [AKDE], Silverman's rule of thumb, and least squares cross‐validation), Minimum Convex Polygon, and Local Convex Hull methods. Notably, all of these estimators except AKDE assume independent and identically distributed (IID) data. We then employ half‐sample cross‐validation to objectively quantify estimator performance, and the recently introduced effective sample size for home range area estimation ( N̂ area
) to quantify the information content of each data set. We found that AKDE 95% area estimates were larger than conventional IID‐based estimates by a mean factor of 2. The median number of cross‐validated locations included in the hold‐out sets by AKDE 95% (or 50%) estimates was 95.3% (or 50.1%), confirming the larger AKDE ranges were appropriately selective at the specified quantile. Conversely, conventional estimates exhibited negative bias that increased with decreasing N̂ area. To contextualize our empirical results, we performed a detailed simulation study to tease apart how sampling frequency, sampling duration, and the focal animal's movement conspire to affect range estimates. Paralleling our empirical results, the simulation study demonstrated that AKDE was generally more accurate than conventional methods, particularly for small N̂ area. While 72% of the 369 empirical data sets had >1,000 total observations, only 4% had an N̂ area >1,000, where 30% had an N̂ area <30. In this frequently encountered scenario of small N̂ area, AKDE was the only estimator capable of producing an accurate home range estimate on autocorrelated data.