Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMartin, Tysonen_US
dc.contributor.authorOlds, Andrewen_US
dc.contributor.authorOlalde, Asieren_US
dc.contributor.authorBerkstrom, Charlotteen_US
dc.contributor.authorGilby, Benen_US
dc.contributor.authorSchlacher, Thomasen_US
dc.contributor.authorButler, Ianen_US
dc.contributor.authorYabsley, Nicholasen_US
dc.contributor.authorZann, Mariaen_US
dc.contributor.authorConnolly, Rodericken_US
dc.date.accessioned2019-05-29T13:14:41Z
dc.date.available2019-05-29T13:14:41Z
dc.date.issued2018en_US
dc.identifier.issn1572-9761en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s10980-018-0680-6en_US
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.en_US
dc.description.peerreviewedYesen_US
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.publisherSpringeren_US
dc.publisher.placeNetherlandsen_US
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom1273en_US
dc.relation.ispartofpageto1286en_US
dc.relation.ispartofissue8en_US
dc.relation.ispartofjournalLandscape Ecologyen_US
dc.relation.ispartofvolume33en_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchEnvironmental Sciences not elsewhere classifieden_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchEarth Sciencesen_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchEnvironmental Sciencesen_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode059999en_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode04en_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode05en_US
dc.titleHabitat proximity exerts opposing effects on key ecological functionsen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Articlesen_US
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articlesen_US
dc.description.versionPost-printen_US
gro.facultyGriffith Sciences, School of Environment and Scienceen_US
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.en_US
gro.hasfulltextFull Text


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