A review of methods for quantifying spatial predator–prey overlap

Background Studies that attempt to measure shifts in species distributions often consider a single species in isolation. However, understanding changes in spatial overlap between predators and their prey might provide deeper insight into how species redistribution affects food web dynamics. Predator...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Global ecology and biogeography 2019-11, Vol.28 (11), p.1561-1577
Hauptverfasser: Carroll, Gemma, Holsman, Kirstin K., Brodie, Stephanie, Thorson, James T., Hazen, Elliott L., Bograd, Steven J., Haltuch, Melissa A., Kotwicki, Stan, Samhouri, Jameal, Spencer, Paul, Willis‐Norton, Ellen, Selden, Rebecca L., Peres‐Neto, Pedro
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1577
container_issue 11
container_start_page 1561
container_title Global ecology and biogeography
container_volume 28
creator Carroll, Gemma
Holsman, Kirstin K.
Brodie, Stephanie
Thorson, James T.
Hazen, Elliott L.
Bograd, Steven J.
Haltuch, Melissa A.
Kotwicki, Stan
Samhouri, Jameal
Spencer, Paul
Willis‐Norton, Ellen
Selden, Rebecca L.
Peres‐Neto, Pedro
description Background Studies that attempt to measure shifts in species distributions often consider a single species in isolation. However, understanding changes in spatial overlap between predators and their prey might provide deeper insight into how species redistribution affects food web dynamics. Predator–prey overlap metrics Here, we review a suite of 10 metrics [range overlap, area overlap, the local index of collocation (Pianka's O), Hurlbert's index, biomass‐weighted overlap, asymmetrical alpha, Schoener's D, Bhattacharyya's coefficient, the global index of collocation and the AB ratio] that describe how two species overlap in space, using concepts such as binary co‐occurrence, encounter rates, spatial niche similarity, spatial independence, geographical similarity and trophic transfer. We describe the specific ecological insights that can be gained using each overlap metric, in order to determine which is most appropriate for describing spatial predator–prey interactions for different applications. Simulation and case study We use simulated predator and prey distributions to demonstrate how the 10 metrics respond to variation in three types of predator–prey interactions: changing spatial overlap between predator and prey, changing predator population size and changing patterns of predator aggregation in response to prey density. We also apply these overlap metrics to a case study of a predatory fish (arrowtooth flounder, Atheresthes stomias) and its prey (juvenile walleye pollock, Gadus chalcogrammus) in the Eastern Bering Sea, AK, USA. We show how the metrics can be applied to understand spatial and temporal variation in the overlap of species distributions in this rapidly changing Arctic ecosystem. Conclusions Using both simulated and empirical data, we provide a roadmap for ecologists and other practitioners to select overlap metrics to describe particular aspects of spatial predator–prey interactions. We outline a range of research and management applications for which each metric may be suited.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/geb.12984
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2305643094</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2305643094</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2974-aa3bbb46c2ae7c264bff49a8c5f5ec3a49ff07438c37565a96b81198b96a4e233</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kL1OwzAURi0EEqUw8AaWmBjS-j_xWKpSkCqxgMRm2a5dUqV1aqetsvEOvCFPQiCIjbvcbzjfvdIB4BqjEe5mvHJmhIks2AkYYCZEVhBanP5l8noOLlJaI4Q442IAphMY3aF0Rxg83LjmLSwT9CHC3V5vm9K35XYFU62bUlewjm6pmxA_3z-62MJwcLHS9SU487pK7up3D8HL_ex5-pAtnuaP08kis0TmLNOaGmOYsES73BLBjPdM6sJyz52lmknvUc5oYWnOBddSmAJjWRgpNHOE0iG46e_WMez2LjVqHfZx271UhCIuGEWSddRtT9kYUorOqzqWGx1bhZH6dqQ6R-rHUceOe_ZYVq79H1Tz2V3f-AKpsmlA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2305643094</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A review of methods for quantifying spatial predator–prey overlap</title><source>Wiley-Blackwell Journals</source><creator>Carroll, Gemma ; Holsman, Kirstin K. ; Brodie, Stephanie ; Thorson, James T. ; Hazen, Elliott L. ; Bograd, Steven J. ; Haltuch, Melissa A. ; Kotwicki, Stan ; Samhouri, Jameal ; Spencer, Paul ; Willis‐Norton, Ellen ; Selden, Rebecca L. ; Peres‐Neto, Pedro</creator><contributor>Peres‐Neto, Pedro</contributor><creatorcontrib>Carroll, Gemma ; Holsman, Kirstin K. ; Brodie, Stephanie ; Thorson, James T. ; Hazen, Elliott L. ; Bograd, Steven J. ; Haltuch, Melissa A. ; Kotwicki, Stan ; Samhouri, Jameal ; Spencer, Paul ; Willis‐Norton, Ellen ; Selden, Rebecca L. ; Peres‐Neto, Pedro ; Peres‐Neto, Pedro</creatorcontrib><description>Background Studies that attempt to measure shifts in species distributions often consider a single species in isolation. However, understanding changes in spatial overlap between predators and their prey might provide deeper insight into how species redistribution affects food web dynamics. Predator–prey overlap metrics Here, we review a suite of 10 metrics [range overlap, area overlap, the local index of collocation (Pianka's O), Hurlbert's index, biomass‐weighted overlap, asymmetrical alpha, Schoener's D, Bhattacharyya's coefficient, the global index of collocation and the AB ratio] that describe how two species overlap in space, using concepts such as binary co‐occurrence, encounter rates, spatial niche similarity, spatial independence, geographical similarity and trophic transfer. We describe the specific ecological insights that can be gained using each overlap metric, in order to determine which is most appropriate for describing spatial predator–prey interactions for different applications. Simulation and case study We use simulated predator and prey distributions to demonstrate how the 10 metrics respond to variation in three types of predator–prey interactions: changing spatial overlap between predator and prey, changing predator population size and changing patterns of predator aggregation in response to prey density. We also apply these overlap metrics to a case study of a predatory fish (arrowtooth flounder, Atheresthes stomias) and its prey (juvenile walleye pollock, Gadus chalcogrammus) in the Eastern Bering Sea, AK, USA. We show how the metrics can be applied to understand spatial and temporal variation in the overlap of species distributions in this rapidly changing Arctic ecosystem. Conclusions Using both simulated and empirical data, we provide a roadmap for ecologists and other practitioners to select overlap metrics to describe particular aspects of spatial predator–prey interactions. We outline a range of research and management applications for which each metric may be suited.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1466-822X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1466-8238</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/geb.12984</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>arrowtooth flounder ; Case studies ; climate change ; cold pool ; Collocation ; Eastern Bering Sea ; ecosystem models ; Environmental changes ; Food chains ; Food webs ; Gadus chalcogrammus ; Niches ; Polar environments ; Population number ; Predator-prey interactions ; Predator-prey simulation ; Predators ; predator–prey overlap ; Prey ; Similarity ; Simulation ; spatial overlap ; Species ; species distribution models ; species interactions ; Temporal variations ; walleye pollock</subject><ispartof>Global ecology and biogeography, 2019-11, Vol.28 (11), p.1561-1577</ispartof><rights>2019 John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2974-aa3bbb46c2ae7c264bff49a8c5f5ec3a49ff07438c37565a96b81198b96a4e233</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2974-aa3bbb46c2ae7c264bff49a8c5f5ec3a49ff07438c37565a96b81198b96a4e233</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-7776-0946</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fgeb.12984$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fgeb.12984$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,1418,27929,27930,45579,45580</link.rule.ids></links><search><contributor>Peres‐Neto, Pedro</contributor><creatorcontrib>Carroll, Gemma</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Holsman, Kirstin K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brodie, Stephanie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thorson, James T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hazen, Elliott L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bograd, Steven J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haltuch, Melissa A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kotwicki, Stan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Samhouri, Jameal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spencer, Paul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Willis‐Norton, Ellen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Selden, Rebecca L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peres‐Neto, Pedro</creatorcontrib><title>A review of methods for quantifying spatial predator–prey overlap</title><title>Global ecology and biogeography</title><description>Background Studies that attempt to measure shifts in species distributions often consider a single species in isolation. However, understanding changes in spatial overlap between predators and their prey might provide deeper insight into how species redistribution affects food web dynamics. Predator–prey overlap metrics Here, we review a suite of 10 metrics [range overlap, area overlap, the local index of collocation (Pianka's O), Hurlbert's index, biomass‐weighted overlap, asymmetrical alpha, Schoener's D, Bhattacharyya's coefficient, the global index of collocation and the AB ratio] that describe how two species overlap in space, using concepts such as binary co‐occurrence, encounter rates, spatial niche similarity, spatial independence, geographical similarity and trophic transfer. We describe the specific ecological insights that can be gained using each overlap metric, in order to determine which is most appropriate for describing spatial predator–prey interactions for different applications. Simulation and case study We use simulated predator and prey distributions to demonstrate how the 10 metrics respond to variation in three types of predator–prey interactions: changing spatial overlap between predator and prey, changing predator population size and changing patterns of predator aggregation in response to prey density. We also apply these overlap metrics to a case study of a predatory fish (arrowtooth flounder, Atheresthes stomias) and its prey (juvenile walleye pollock, Gadus chalcogrammus) in the Eastern Bering Sea, AK, USA. We show how the metrics can be applied to understand spatial and temporal variation in the overlap of species distributions in this rapidly changing Arctic ecosystem. Conclusions Using both simulated and empirical data, we provide a roadmap for ecologists and other practitioners to select overlap metrics to describe particular aspects of spatial predator–prey interactions. We outline a range of research and management applications for which each metric may be suited.</description><subject>arrowtooth flounder</subject><subject>Case studies</subject><subject>climate change</subject><subject>cold pool</subject><subject>Collocation</subject><subject>Eastern Bering Sea</subject><subject>ecosystem models</subject><subject>Environmental changes</subject><subject>Food chains</subject><subject>Food webs</subject><subject>Gadus chalcogrammus</subject><subject>Niches</subject><subject>Polar environments</subject><subject>Population number</subject><subject>Predator-prey interactions</subject><subject>Predator-prey simulation</subject><subject>Predators</subject><subject>predator–prey overlap</subject><subject>Prey</subject><subject>Similarity</subject><subject>Simulation</subject><subject>spatial overlap</subject><subject>Species</subject><subject>species distribution models</subject><subject>species interactions</subject><subject>Temporal variations</subject><subject>walleye pollock</subject><issn>1466-822X</issn><issn>1466-8238</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kL1OwzAURi0EEqUw8AaWmBjS-j_xWKpSkCqxgMRm2a5dUqV1aqetsvEOvCFPQiCIjbvcbzjfvdIB4BqjEe5mvHJmhIks2AkYYCZEVhBanP5l8noOLlJaI4Q442IAphMY3aF0Rxg83LjmLSwT9CHC3V5vm9K35XYFU62bUlewjm6pmxA_3z-62MJwcLHS9SU487pK7up3D8HL_ex5-pAtnuaP08kis0TmLNOaGmOYsES73BLBjPdM6sJyz52lmknvUc5oYWnOBddSmAJjWRgpNHOE0iG46e_WMez2LjVqHfZx271UhCIuGEWSddRtT9kYUorOqzqWGx1bhZH6dqQ6R-rHUceOe_ZYVq79H1Tz2V3f-AKpsmlA</recordid><startdate>201911</startdate><enddate>201911</enddate><creator>Carroll, Gemma</creator><creator>Holsman, Kirstin K.</creator><creator>Brodie, Stephanie</creator><creator>Thorson, James T.</creator><creator>Hazen, Elliott L.</creator><creator>Bograd, Steven J.</creator><creator>Haltuch, Melissa A.</creator><creator>Kotwicki, Stan</creator><creator>Samhouri, Jameal</creator><creator>Spencer, Paul</creator><creator>Willis‐Norton, Ellen</creator><creator>Selden, Rebecca L.</creator><creator>Peres‐Neto, Pedro</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>C1K</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7776-0946</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201911</creationdate><title>A review of methods for quantifying spatial predator–prey overlap</title><author>Carroll, Gemma ; Holsman, Kirstin K. ; Brodie, Stephanie ; Thorson, James T. ; Hazen, Elliott L. ; Bograd, Steven J. ; Haltuch, Melissa A. ; Kotwicki, Stan ; Samhouri, Jameal ; Spencer, Paul ; Willis‐Norton, Ellen ; Selden, Rebecca L. ; Peres‐Neto, Pedro</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2974-aa3bbb46c2ae7c264bff49a8c5f5ec3a49ff07438c37565a96b81198b96a4e233</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>arrowtooth flounder</topic><topic>Case studies</topic><topic>climate change</topic><topic>cold pool</topic><topic>Collocation</topic><topic>Eastern Bering Sea</topic><topic>ecosystem models</topic><topic>Environmental changes</topic><topic>Food chains</topic><topic>Food webs</topic><topic>Gadus chalcogrammus</topic><topic>Niches</topic><topic>Polar environments</topic><topic>Population number</topic><topic>Predator-prey interactions</topic><topic>Predator-prey simulation</topic><topic>Predators</topic><topic>predator–prey overlap</topic><topic>Prey</topic><topic>Similarity</topic><topic>Simulation</topic><topic>spatial overlap</topic><topic>Species</topic><topic>species distribution models</topic><topic>species interactions</topic><topic>Temporal variations</topic><topic>walleye pollock</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Carroll, Gemma</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Holsman, Kirstin K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brodie, Stephanie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thorson, James T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hazen, Elliott L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bograd, Steven J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haltuch, Melissa A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kotwicki, Stan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Samhouri, Jameal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spencer, Paul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Willis‐Norton, Ellen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Selden, Rebecca L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peres‐Neto, Pedro</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><jtitle>Global ecology and biogeography</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Carroll, Gemma</au><au>Holsman, Kirstin K.</au><au>Brodie, Stephanie</au><au>Thorson, James T.</au><au>Hazen, Elliott L.</au><au>Bograd, Steven J.</au><au>Haltuch, Melissa A.</au><au>Kotwicki, Stan</au><au>Samhouri, Jameal</au><au>Spencer, Paul</au><au>Willis‐Norton, Ellen</au><au>Selden, Rebecca L.</au><au>Peres‐Neto, Pedro</au><au>Peres‐Neto, Pedro</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A review of methods for quantifying spatial predator–prey overlap</atitle><jtitle>Global ecology and biogeography</jtitle><date>2019-11</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>28</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>1561</spage><epage>1577</epage><pages>1561-1577</pages><issn>1466-822X</issn><eissn>1466-8238</eissn><abstract>Background Studies that attempt to measure shifts in species distributions often consider a single species in isolation. However, understanding changes in spatial overlap between predators and their prey might provide deeper insight into how species redistribution affects food web dynamics. Predator–prey overlap metrics Here, we review a suite of 10 metrics [range overlap, area overlap, the local index of collocation (Pianka's O), Hurlbert's index, biomass‐weighted overlap, asymmetrical alpha, Schoener's D, Bhattacharyya's coefficient, the global index of collocation and the AB ratio] that describe how two species overlap in space, using concepts such as binary co‐occurrence, encounter rates, spatial niche similarity, spatial independence, geographical similarity and trophic transfer. We describe the specific ecological insights that can be gained using each overlap metric, in order to determine which is most appropriate for describing spatial predator–prey interactions for different applications. Simulation and case study We use simulated predator and prey distributions to demonstrate how the 10 metrics respond to variation in three types of predator–prey interactions: changing spatial overlap between predator and prey, changing predator population size and changing patterns of predator aggregation in response to prey density. We also apply these overlap metrics to a case study of a predatory fish (arrowtooth flounder, Atheresthes stomias) and its prey (juvenile walleye pollock, Gadus chalcogrammus) in the Eastern Bering Sea, AK, USA. We show how the metrics can be applied to understand spatial and temporal variation in the overlap of species distributions in this rapidly changing Arctic ecosystem. Conclusions Using both simulated and empirical data, we provide a roadmap for ecologists and other practitioners to select overlap metrics to describe particular aspects of spatial predator–prey interactions. We outline a range of research and management applications for which each metric may be suited.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><doi>10.1111/geb.12984</doi><tpages>17</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7776-0946</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1466-822X
ispartof Global ecology and biogeography, 2019-11, Vol.28 (11), p.1561-1577
issn 1466-822X
1466-8238
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2305643094
source Wiley-Blackwell Journals
subjects arrowtooth flounder
Case studies
climate change
cold pool
Collocation
Eastern Bering Sea
ecosystem models
Environmental changes
Food chains
Food webs
Gadus chalcogrammus
Niches
Polar environments
Population number
Predator-prey interactions
Predator-prey simulation
Predators
predator–prey overlap
Prey
Similarity
Simulation
spatial overlap
Species
species distribution models
species interactions
Temporal variations
walleye pollock
title A review of methods for quantifying spatial predator–prey overlap
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-13T22%3A54%3A39IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20review%20of%20methods%20for%20quantifying%20spatial%20predator%E2%80%93prey%20overlap&rft.jtitle=Global%20ecology%20and%20biogeography&rft.au=Carroll,%20Gemma&rft.date=2019-11&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=1561&rft.epage=1577&rft.pages=1561-1577&rft.issn=1466-822X&rft.eissn=1466-8238&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/geb.12984&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2305643094%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2305643094&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true