Lost in Space: When Spatial Scale Terms Blur Actual Study Size in Plant Community Ecology

ABSTRACT Questions The detection and interpretation of ecological processes are strongly influenced by the spatial scale at which studies are conducted. Scale terms (e.g., ‘local’ or ‘regional’) are frequently used to denote study scale and imply that studies using the same scale term should be directly comparable. However, whether the area encompassed by a particular scale term is consistent across studies remains unclear. Location Global. Methods We reviewed 385 papers in plant community ecology and analysed 962 spatial scale terms and their reported areas. We tested whether variation in the use of individual scale terms could be explained by habitat, type of study or geographic region, and virtually sampled a simulated plant community to demonstrate the consequences of this variation for calculating common biodiversity metrics. Results Single scale terms covered areas that vary by an average of 4.7 orders of magnitude, with significant overlap between distinct scale terms. Though this variation could be partly explained by habitat type (e.g., scale terms cover larger areas in forests than grasslands), we still found large variability (3.8 orders of magnitude) in the use of single terms within habitats. We also found overall high consistency (but still high variability) in the use of scale terms across geographic regions and study types. Our community simulation showed that Shannon's and Simpson's indices are highly sensitive to this variation, especially at finer spatial scales, suggesting that variation in the use of individual scale terms has major consequences for synthesising biodiversity trends. Conclusions While terminology can make it appear that studies are directly comparable, they may cover vastly different areas and capture different ecological processes. Spatial scales should be reported in a standardised fashion by clearly stating the actual study size in abstracts and methods, and inconsistencies in scale term use should be accounted for when synthesising previous research.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Vegetation Science
Published
2025-05-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/jvs.70035
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Plant and animal studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
6.05

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Lost in Space: When Spatial Scale Terms Blur Actual Study Size in Plant Community Ecology

Joshua I. Brian, Chin‐Chang Hung, María Ángeles Pérez‐Navarro
2 citations
Journal of Vegetation Science
Plant and animal studies
6.05
article

Lost in Space: When Spatial Scale Terms Blur Actual Study Size in Plant Community Ecology

Joshua I. Brian, Chin‐Chang Hung, María Ángeles Pérez‐Navarro
article en
2 citations

Abstract

ABSTRACT Questions The detection and interpretation of ecological processes are strongly influenced by the spatial scale at which studies are conducted. Scale terms (e.g., ‘local’ or ‘regional’) are frequently used to denote study scale and imply that studies using the same scale term should be directly comparable. However, whether the area encompassed by a particular scale term is consistent across studies remains unclear. Location Global. Methods We reviewed 385 papers in plant community ecology and analysed 962 spatial scale terms and their reported areas. We tested whether variation in the use of individual scale terms could be explained by habitat, type of study or geographic region, and virtually sampled a simulated plant community to demonstrate the consequences of this variation for calculating common biodiversity metrics. Results Single scale terms covered areas that vary by an average of 4.7 orders of magnitude, with significant overlap between distinct scale terms. Though this variation could be partly explained by habitat type (e.g., scale terms cover larger areas in forests than grasslands), we still found large variability (3.8 orders of magnitude) in the use of single terms within habitats. We also found overall high consistency (but still high variability) in the use of scale terms across geographic regions and study types. Our community simulation showed that Shannon's and Simpson's indices are highly sensitive to this variation, especially at finer spatial scales, suggesting that variation in the use of individual scale terms has major consequences for synthesising biodiversity trends. Conclusions While terminology can make it appear that studies are directly comparable, they may cover vastly different areas and capture different ecological processes. Spatial scales should be reported in a standardised fashion by clearly stating the actual study size in abstracts and methods, and inconsistencies in scale term use should be accounted for when synthesising previous research.

Journal of Vegetation ScienceVol. 36(3)
King's College London (GB)
King’s College London, King's College London
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Plant and animal studies
6.05
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.