Log response ratios to seagrass edge and fragmentation effects from peer-reviewed literature from 1990-06-01 to 2017-08-31 (NCEI Accession 0291773)
This dataset contains biological and survey - biological data collected in the Bass Strait, Great Australian Bight, Gulf of Bothnia, Gulf of Mexico, Labrador Sea, Makassar Strait, Mediterranean Sea, Mediterranean Sea - Eastern Basin, New York Bight, North Atlantic Ocean, North Pacific Ocean, and Tyrrhenian Sea from 1990-06-01 to 2017-08-31. These data include species and taxon. These data were collected by James E. Byers of University of Georgia, F. Joel Fodrie of University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Lauren Yeager of University of Texas - Marine Science Institute as part of the "Collaborative Research: Habitat fragmentation effects on fish diversity at landscape scales: experimental tests of multiple mechanisms (Habitat Fragmentation)" project. The Biological and Chemical Oceanography Data Management Office (BCO-DMO) submitted these data to NCEI on 2021-12-03.
The following is the text of the dataset description provided by BCO-DMO:
Edge effects and fragmentation literature review
Dataset Description:
Acquisition Description:
Literature search and meta-analysis inclusion criteria
We conducted a search using the Institute of Science Information's (ISI) Web of Science (last accessed on May 13, 2021) to gather peer-reviewed literature examining edge effects and fragmentation effects on biogenic complexity, faunal densities, and predation in seagrass ecosystems. Search terms included 1) seagrass AND 2) edge effects OR fragmentation effects AND 3) density OR predation OR survival OR mortality OR trophic interactions. We supplemented this database with additional articles known to us. All candidate studies were judged for inclusion in our meta-analysis based on the following criteria: 1) The study was an original experiment in a mesocosm or natural setting providing edge effect data (i.e., responses in patch edges vs. interiors) or fragmentation effect data (i.e., responses in fragmented vs. continuous landscapes) for one or more of our response metrics of interest in extractable form (i.e., table, figure, or text). Response metrics were natural seagrass shoot density, faunal density, and predation survival. Initially, we considered several metrics of biogenic complexity because they may respond to habitat configuration differently, yet shoot density was ultimately chosen as it was the most common metric reported. Shoot density data were only extracted from studies also examining faunal response metrics, because we were interested in examining faunal-habitat relationships in the context of proximate (e.g., shoot density) and ultimate (e.g., edge, fragmentation) drivers. For faunal density responses, if data for “nested” taxonomic levels were provided (e.g., fish, flounder), we extracted data for the lowest taxonomic level available. Prey survival responses included data expressed as, or converted to, proportion survival or survival time (e.g., h to consumption) of sessile or tethered prey. Only survival from uninhibited predator exposure was considered. 2) The response metric(s) included the mean, sample size, and either standard error (SE), standard deviation (SD), or confidence interval (CI). 3) Levels of edge effects (e.g., edge, interior) and fragmentation (e.g., fragmented, continuous) were typically expressed as discrete categories. Therefore, we accepted the operational definitions used by these studies, but also included meta-data such as edge/interior widths and distances, and fragmentation degree in our database to illustrate the range of definitions used across studies. All included studies examined fragmentation as a state (i.e., configuration), rather than an active process (i.e., changing configuration through time). For studies that included more than two discrete levels of edge (e.g., integer distances) or fragmentation (e.g., continuous, patchy, very patchy), only the most extreme levels were included in effect size calculations (e.g., the distances closest to the patch edge and center; the most continuous and fragmented landscape classifications). Figure data was extracted using DataThief III software (Tummers, 2006).
Calculating Log Response Ratios
Refer to the attached Supplemental File, " 864783_Calculating_Log_Response_Ratios.pdf " for a description of how the log response ratios were calculated.
The following is the text of the dataset description provided by BCO-DMO:
Edge effects and fragmentation literature review
Dataset Description:
Acquisition Description:
Literature search and meta-analysis inclusion criteria
We conducted a search using the Institute of Science Information's (ISI) Web of Science (last accessed on May 13, 2021) to gather peer-reviewed literature examining edge effects and fragmentation effects on biogenic complexity, faunal densities, and predation in seagrass ecosystems. Search terms included 1) seagrass AND 2) edge effects OR fragmentation effects AND 3) density OR predation OR survival OR mortality OR trophic interactions. We supplemented this database with additional articles known to us. All candidate studies were judged for inclusion in our meta-analysis based on the following criteria: 1) The study was an original experiment in a mesocosm or natural setting providing edge effect data (i.e., responses in patch edges vs. interiors) or fragmentation effect data (i.e., responses in fragmented vs. continuous landscapes) for one or more of our response metrics of interest in extractable form (i.e., table, figure, or text). Response metrics were natural seagrass shoot density, faunal density, and predation survival. Initially, we considered several metrics of biogenic complexity because they may respond to habitat configuration differently, yet shoot density was ultimately chosen as it was the most common metric reported. Shoot density data were only extracted from studies also examining faunal response metrics, because we were interested in examining faunal-habitat relationships in the context of proximate (e.g., shoot density) and ultimate (e.g., edge, fragmentation) drivers. For faunal density responses, if data for “nested” taxonomic levels were provided (e.g., fish, flounder), we extracted data for the lowest taxonomic level available. Prey survival responses included data expressed as, or converted to, proportion survival or survival time (e.g., h to consumption) of sessile or tethered prey. Only survival from uninhibited predator exposure was considered. 2) The response metric(s) included the mean, sample size, and either standard error (SE), standard deviation (SD), or confidence interval (CI). 3) Levels of edge effects (e.g., edge, interior) and fragmentation (e.g., fragmented, continuous) were typically expressed as discrete categories. Therefore, we accepted the operational definitions used by these studies, but also included meta-data such as edge/interior widths and distances, and fragmentation degree in our database to illustrate the range of definitions used across studies. All included studies examined fragmentation as a state (i.e., configuration), rather than an active process (i.e., changing configuration through time). For studies that included more than two discrete levels of edge (e.g., integer distances) or fragmentation (e.g., continuous, patchy, very patchy), only the most extreme levels were included in effect size calculations (e.g., the distances closest to the patch edge and center; the most continuous and fragmented landscape classifications). Figure data was extracted using DataThief III software (Tummers, 2006).
Calculating Log Response Ratios
Refer to the attached Supplemental File, " 864783_Calculating_Log_Response_Ratios.pdf " for a description of how the log response ratios were calculated.
Dataset Citation
- Cite as: Fodrie, F. Joel; Byers, James E.; Yeager, Lauren (2024). Log response ratios to seagrass edge and fragmentation effects from peer-reviewed literature from 1990-06-01 to 2017-08-31 (NCEI Accession 0291773). [indicate subset used]. NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information. Dataset. https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/archive/accession/0291773. Accessed [date].
Dataset Identifiers
ISO 19115-2 Metadata
gov.noaa.nodc:0291773
Download Data |
|
Distribution Formats |
|
Ordering Instructions | Contact NCEI for other distribution options and instructions. |
Distributor |
NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information +1-301-713-3277 NCEI.Info@noaa.gov |
Dataset Point of Contact |
NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information ncei.info@noaa.gov |
Time Period | 1990-06-01 to 2017-08-31 |
Spatial Bounding Box Coordinates |
West: 119.325
East: 21.785
South: -38.363
North: 59.923
|
Spatial Coverage Map |
General Documentation |
|
Associated Resources |
|
Publication Dates |
|
Data Presentation Form | Digital table - digital representation of facts or figures systematically displayed, especially in columns |
Dataset Progress Status | Complete - production of the data has been completed Historical archive - data has been stored in an offline storage facility |
Data Update Frequency | As needed |
Purpose | This dataset is available to the public for a wide variety of uses including scientific research and analysis. |
Use Limitations |
|
Dataset Citation |
|
Cited Authors | |
Principal Investigators | |
Contributors | |
Resource Providers | |
Points of Contact | |
Publishers | |
Acknowledgments |
Use Constraints |
|
Data License | |
Access Constraints |
|
Fees |
|
Lineage information for: dataset | |
---|---|
Processing Steps |
|
Output Datasets |
|
Last Modified: 2024-05-31T15:15:28Z
For questions about the information on this page, please email: ncei.info@noaa.gov
For questions about the information on this page, please email: ncei.info@noaa.gov