Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMartin, Tyson SH
dc.contributor.authorOlds, Andrew D
dc.contributor.authorOlalde, Asier BH
dc.contributor.authorBerkstrom, Charlotte
dc.contributor.authorGilby, Ben L
dc.contributor.authorSchlacher, Thomas A
dc.contributor.authorButler, Ian R
dc.contributor.authorYabsley, Nicholas A
dc.contributor.authorZann, Maria
dc.contributor.authorConnolly, Rod M
dc.date.accessioned2019-05-29T13:14:41Z
dc.date.available2019-05-29T13:14:41Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.identifier.issn0921-2973
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s10980-018-0680-6
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/381990
dc.description.abstractContext: Connectivity is an important property of landscapes that shapes populations and ecosystem functioning. We do not know, however, whether and how different types of spatial linkages combine to influence ecological functions, and this hampers their integration into conservation planning. Objectives: We used coral reef seascapes in eastern Australia as a model system to test whether the proximity of other reefs (habitat proximity) or the proximity of other habitats (seascape proximity) exert stronger effects on two key ecological functions (herbivory and piscivory). Methods: We measured rates of herbivory (on fleshy macroalgae) and piscivory (on prey fish) on reefs that differed in their proximity to both other reefs and nearby mangroves and seagrass. Results: The extent of habitat proximity between reefs significantly influenced both ecological functions, but in different ways: isolated reefs supported high herbivory but low piscivory, whilst, conversely, reefs that were closer to other reefs supported high piscivory but low herbivory. This was not caused by herbivores avoiding their predators, as the dominant piscivores (small predatory snappers) were too small to consume the dominant herbivores (large rabbitfishes). Seascape proximity (e.g., distance to mangroves or seagrass) was less important in shaping ecological functions on reefs in this system. Conclusions: We suggest that the effects of seascape configuration on ecological functions depends on the type of spatial linkage, and the ecological functions in question. To better integrate connectivity into conservation, we must develop a deeper understanding of how different spatial linkages combine to shape ecosystem functioning across landscapes.
dc.description.peerreviewedYes
dc.languageEnglish
dc.publisherSpringer
dc.publisher.placeNetherlands
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom1273
dc.relation.ispartofpageto1286
dc.relation.ispartofissue8
dc.relation.ispartofjournalLandscape Ecology
dc.relation.ispartofvolume33
dc.subject.fieldofresearchEnvironmental Sciences not elsewhere classified
dc.subject.fieldofresearchEarth Sciences
dc.subject.fieldofresearchEnvironmental Sciences
dc.subject.fieldofresearchBiological Sciences
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode059999
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode04
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode05
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode06
dc.titleHabitat proximity exerts opposing effects on key ecological functions
dc.typeJournal article
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Articles
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articles
dc.description.versionPost-print
gro.facultyGriffith Sciences, School of Environment and Science
gro.rights.copyright© 2018 Springer Netherlands. This is an electronic version of an article published in Landscape Ecology, August 2018, Volume 33, Issue 8, pp 1273–1286. Landscape Ecology is available online at: http://link.springer.com// with the open URL of your article.
gro.hasfulltextFull Text
gro.griffith.authorConnolly, Rod M.
gro.griffith.authorMartin, Tyson S.


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record