4.7 Article

Large-scale effects on the spatial distribution of seabirds in the Northwest Atlantic

期刊

LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY
卷 21, 期 7, 页码 1089-1108

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10980-006-7246-8

关键词

across-scale analysis; autocorrelation; binning; GIS; large-scale; Northwest Atlantic; PIROP seabird monitoring long-term database; seascape; seasonal seabird patches

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Scale questions are particularly important for organisms which range over large areas, as pelagic seabirds do. The investigations of scale are of practical importance for describing patch size of predator and prey, determining the appropriate scale of study and correcting survey transects. We conducted this study in order to explore a substantially wider diversity of spatial scales than has previously been attempted in the pelagic bird literature. As an example of large monitoring datasets dealing with seabirds, we use the PIROP (Programme integre pour le recherche des oiseaux pelagiques) data set to investigate relevant large scale issues for these species in the Northwestern Atlantic. We analyzed autocorrelation within selected winter and summer transects, and for 1 degree analysis units ('bins') for data collected June-August 1966-1992. We also investigated effects of the analysis unit on counting results and on the links between seabirds and their environment (depth, sea surface salinity and temperature). We selected scales of 1, 2, 5 and 10 degrees analysis units; an ecological mapping scale ('Banks' not deeper than 200 m) and a political scale (management convention zones of the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization, NAFO) were also included. Using 'binning' of various scales, our results show that the Coefficient of Variation for seabird abundances varies among aggregation scales, and that seabird associations with their environment can show scale effects. Autocorrelation of analysis units indicated some distinct larger scale patch sizes for particular species during the breeding season.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据