ArticlePeerJ2015
Do the effects of crops on skylark (Alauda arvensis) differ between the field and landscape scales?
Article in PeerJ, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The promotion of biodiversity in agricultural areas involves actions at the landscape scale, and the management of cropping patterns is considered an important means of achieving this goal. However, most of the available knowledge about the impact of crops on biodiversity has been obtained at the field scale, and is generally grouped together under the umbrella term "crop suitability." Can field-scale knowledge be used to predict the impact on populations across landscapes? We studied the impact of maize and rapeseed on the abundance of skylark (Alauda arvensis). Field-scale studies in Western Europe have reported diverse impacts on habitat selection and demography. We assessed the consistency between field-scale knowledge and landscape-scale observations, using high-resolution databases describing crops and other habitats for the 4 km(2) grid scales analyzed in the French Breeding Bird Survey. We used generalized linear models to estimate the impact of each studied crop at the landscape scale. We stratified the squares according to the local and geographical contexts, to ensure that the conclusions drawn were valid in a wide range of contexts. Our results were not consistent with field knowledge for rapeseed, and were consistent for maize only in grassland contexts. However, the effect sizes were much smaller than those of structural landscape features. These results suggest that upscaling from the field scale to the landscape scale leads to an integration of new agronomic and ecological processes, making the objects studied more complex than simple "crop ∗ species" pairs. We conclude that the carrying capacity of agricultural landscapes cannot be deduced from the suitability of their components.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.