Search

Menu
Search
in Ecology

Ecologically defined scales outperform grids in models of mammal diversity

153 Views


Abstract

Vegetation structure has emerged as a key determinant of terrestrial biodiversity based on studies using randomly placed sampling grids. The resultant grid cells often contain substantial heterogeneity in ecological conditions that are highly relevant for the taxa of interest, potentially undermining our ability to detect relevant drivers of diversity. Here we use 12 structural metrics measured using a ground-based light detection and ranging (lidar) scanner to model mammalian diversity at 58 sampling locations across seven distinct tropical forest types in Indonesian Borneo. We conducted analyses at four spatial scales using over five years of camera trap data. Models predicting mammal diversity based on ecologically defined scales (i.e., forest type boundaries) outperformed models using a grid scale of comparable resolution. Our results highlight the importance of incorporating ecologically meaningful spatial scales in biodiversity studies and underscore the value of lidar in capturing forest structural metrics relevant to mammals.

Similar content being viewed by others

Spaceborne LiDAR reveals the effectiveness of European Protected Areas in conserving forest height and vertical structure

Article
Open access
29 March 2023

Expanding forest research with terrestrial LiDAR technology

Article
Open access
06 October 2025

Maps of forest vertical structure for Colombia, a megadiverse country

Article
Open access
03 December 2025

Data availability

All data used for analyses are available electronically on Zenodo66— https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18438528. Summary data are available in the Supplementary Materials.

Code availability

All code used for analyses is available electronically on Zenodo66—https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18438528.

References

  1. Hawkins, B. A. et al. Energy, water, and broad-scale geographic patterns of species richness. Ecology 84, 3105–3117 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Wiens, J. J. The niche, biogeography and species interactions. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0059 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Currie, D. J. Energy and large-scale patterns of animal- and plant-species richness. Am. Nat. 137, 27–49 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  4. MacArthur, R. H. & Wilson, E. O. The Theory of Island Biogeography. vol. 1 (Princeton University Press, 1967).

  5. McCoy, E. D. & Connor, E. F. Latitudinal gradients in the species diversity of North American mammals. Evolution 34, 193–203 (1980).

    Google Scholar 

  6. McCain, C. M. Elevational gradients in diversity of small mammals. Ecology 86, 366–372 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kissling, W. D., Field, R., Korntheuer, H., Heyder, U. & Böhning-Gaese, K. Woody plants and the prediction of climate-change impacts on bird diversity. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 365, 2035–2045 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Chase, J. M. & Leibold, M. A. Ecological Niches: Linking Classical and Contemporary Approaches. (University of Chicago Press, 2003).

  9. Tews, J. et al. Animal species diversity driven by habitat heterogeneity/diversity: the importance of keystone structures. J. Biogeogr. 31, 79–92 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Stein, A., Gerstner, K. & Kreft, H. Environmental heterogeneity as a universal driver of species richness across taxa, biomes and spatial scales. Ecol. Lett. 17, 866–880 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  11. MacArthur, R. H. & MacArthur, J. W. On bird species diversity. Ecology 42, 594–598 (1961).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hazell, R. J. et al. Spatial scaling of plant and bird diversity from 50 to 10,000 ha in a lowland tropical rainforest. Oecologia 196, 101–113 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Püttker, T., Pardini, R., Meyer-Lucht, Y. & Sommer, S. Responses of five small mammal species to micro-scale variations in vegetation structure in secondary Atlantic Forest remnants, Brazil. BMC Ecol. 8, 9 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ehbrecht, M. et al. Global patterns and climatic controls of forest structural complexity. Nat. Commun. 12, 519 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Pillay, R. et al. Tropical forests are home to over half of the world’s vertebrate species. Front. Ecol. Environ. 20, 10–15 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Bradshaw, C. J., Sodhi, N. S. & Brook, B. W. Tropical turmoil: a biodiversity tragedy in progress. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7, 79–87 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Penone, C. et al. Specialisation and diversity of multiple trophic groups are promoted by different forest features. Ecol. Lett. 22, 170–180 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Stark, S. C. et al. Amazon forest carbon dynamics predicted by profiles of canopy leaf area and light environment. Ecol. Lett. 15, 1406–1414 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Drake, J. B. et al. Estimation of tropical forest structural characteristics using large-footprint lidar. Remote Sens. Environ. 79, 305–319 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ioki, K. et al. Estimating above-ground biomass of tropical rainforest of different degradation levels in Northern Borneo using airborne LiDAR. For. Ecol. Manag. 328, 335–341 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Tang, H. et al. Retrieval of vertical LAI profiles over tropical rain forests using waveform lidar at La Selva, Costa Rica. Remote Sens. Environ. 124, 242–250 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  22. White, J. C. et al. Remote sensing technologies for enhancing forest inventories: a review. Can. J. Remote Sens. 42, 619–641 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Aiba, S., Akutsu, K. & Onoda, Y. Canopy structure of tropical and sub-tropical rain forests in relation to conifer dominance analysed with a portable LIDAR system. Ann. Bot. 112, 1899–1909 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Palace, M., Sullivan, F. B., Ducey, M. & Herrick, C. Estimating tropical forest structure using a terrestrial lidar. PLoS ONE 11, e0154115 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Yao, Z. et al. Multidimensional beta-diversity across local and regional scales in a Chinese subtropical forest: the role of forest structure. Ecol. Evol. 13, e10607 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Johnson, D. H. The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference. Ecology 61, 65–71 (1980).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Wu, J. Effects of changing scale on landscape pattern analysis: scaling relations. Landsc. Ecol. 19, 125–138 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Slater, H. D. et al. Living on the edge: forest edge effects on microclimate and terrestrial mammal activity in disturbed lowland forest in Sumatra, Indonesia. Oryx Int. J. Conserv. 58, 228–239 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hofmeester, T. R., Rowcliffe, J. M. & Jansen, P. A. A simple method for estimating the effective detection distance of camera traps. Remote Sens. Ecol. Conserv. 3, 81–89 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Gorczynski, D. et al. Tropical forest mammal occupancy and functional diversity increase with microhabitat surface area. Ecology 104, e4181 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Holt, R. D. Bringing the Hutchinsonian niche into the 21st century: ecological and evolutionary perspectives. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106, 19659–19665 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Nadkarni, N. M. Diversity of species and interactions in the upper tree canopy of forest ecosystems1. Am. Zool. 34, 70–78 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Stark, S. C. et al. Linking canopy leaf area and light environments with tree size distributions to explain Amazon forest demography. Ecol. Lett. 18, 636–645 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Čepelka, L. & Dokulilová, M. Ecological roles and forest management implications of small terrestrial mammals in temperate and Boreal forests—a Review. Forests 16, 994 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Appanah, S. Mass flowering of dipterocarp forests in the aseasonal tropics. J. Biosci. 18, 457–474 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Ashton, P. S., Givnish, T. J. & Appanah, S. Staggered flowering in the dipterocarpaceae: new insights into floral induction and the evolution of mast fruiting in the aseasonal tropics. Am. Nat. 132, 44–66 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Curran, L. M. & Leighton, M. Vertebrate responses to spatiotemporal variation in seed production of mast-fruiting dipterocarpaceae. Ecol. Monogr. 70, 101–128 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Wilkes, P. et al. Using discrete-return airborne laser scanning to quantify number of canopy strata across diverse forest types. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7, 700–712 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Grubb, P. J., Lloyd, J. R., Pennington, T. D. & Whitmore, T. C. A comparison of montane and lowland rain forest in Ecuador I. The forest structure, physiognomy, and floristics. J. Ecol. 51, 567–601 (1963).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Calders, K. et al. Terrestrial laser scanning in forest ecology: expanding the horizon. Remote Sens. Environ. 251, 112102 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Iglseder, A. et al. The potential of combining satellite and airborne remote sensing data for habitat classification and monitoring in forest landscapes. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinformation 117, 103131 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Mitchell, M. S., Lancia, R. A. & Gerwin, J. A. Using landscape-level data to predict the distribution of birds on a managed forest: effects of scale. Ecol. Appl. 11, 1692–1708 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Marshall, A. J. Are montane forests demographic sinks for Bornean White-bearded Gibbons Hylobates albibarbis? Biotropica 41, 257–267 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Marshall, A. J., Beaudrot, L. & Wittmer, H. U. Responses of primates and other frugivorous vertebrates to plant resource variability over space and time at Gunung Palung National Park. Int. J. Primatol. 35, 1178–1201 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Marshall, A. J. et al. Biotic and abiotic drivers of dispersion dynamics in a large-bodied tropical vertebrate, the Western Bornean orangutan. Oecologia 196, 707–721 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  46. R. Core Team. _R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing_. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2024).

  47. Molina-Valero, J. A. et al. Operationalizing the use of TLS in forest inventories: the R package FORTLS. Environ. Model. Softw. 150, 105337 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Roussel, J.-R. et al. lidR: An R package for analysis of Airborne Laser Scanning (ALS) data. Remote Sens. Environ. 251, 112061 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Tompalski, P. _lidRmetrics: point cloud metrics for the lidR package._. R package version 03. https://ptompalski.github.io/lidRmetrics/ (2024).

  50. Jones, K. E. et al. PanTHERIA: a species-level database of life history, ecology, and geography of extant and recently extinct mammals. Ecology 90, 2648–2648 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Phillipps, Q. Phillipps’ Field Guide to the Mammals of Borneo and Their Ecology: Sabah, Sarawak, Brunei, and Kalimantan. (Princeton University Press, 2016).

  52. Dixon, P. VEGAN, a package of R functions for community ecology. J. Veg. Sci. 14, 927–930 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Laliberté, E., Legendre, P. & Shipley, B. FD: Measuring Functional Diversity from Multiple Traits, and Other Tools for Functional Ecology. R Package Version 1.0-12 (2014).

  54. Getis, A. Spatial autocorrelation. in Handbook of Applied Spatial Analysis: Software Tools, Methods and Applications, pp 255–278 (Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2009).

  55. Bivand, R. et al. Package ‘spdep’. Spatial Dependence: Weighting Schemes, Statistics, R Package Version, 1. (2017).

  56. Legendre, P. & Legendre, L. Multiscale analysis: spatial eigenfunctions. Dev. Environ. Model. 24, 859–906 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Murakami, D. spmoran: An R package for Moran’s eigenvector-based spatial regression analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.04467. (2017).

  58. Bartoń, K. _MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference_. R Package Version 1.48.4. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn (2024).

  59. Sokal, R. R. & Braumann, C. A. Significance tests for coefficients of variation and variability profiles. Syst. Biol. 29, 50–66 (1980).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Canty, A. & Ripley, B. boot: Bootstrap R (S-Plus) Functions. R Package Version 1.3-28 (2022).

  61. Gorog, A. J. Historical Biogeography of Small Mammals in the Sunda Region of Southeast Asia. (University of Michigan, United States, Michigan, 2003).

  62. Cannon, C. H. & Leighton, M. Comparative locomotor ecology of gibbons and macaques: selection of canopy elements for crossing gaps. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 93, 505–524 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  63. Atkins, J. W., Stovall, A. E. L. & Alberto Silva, C. Open-source tools in R for forestry and forest ecology. For. Ecol. Manag. 503, 119813 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  64. Arroyo-Rodríguez, V., Asensio, N., Dunn, J. C., Cristóbal-Azkarate, J. & Gonzalez-Zamora, A. Use of lianas by primates: more than a food source. in Ecology of Lianas 407–426 (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2015). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118392409.ch27.

  65. Schnitzer, S. A. The Contribution of Lianas to Forest Ecology, Diversity, and Dynamics. in Biodiversity of Lianas (ed Parthasarathy, N.) pp 149–160 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14592-1_9.

  66. Estrada, G. R., Wittmer, H. U., Setiawan, E. & Marshall, A. J. LiDAR_Forest_structure: Forest structure data [Data set]. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18438528 (2026).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Indonesian Ministry of Higher Education and Research and Technology and the Gunung Palung National Park Bureau for supporting research at the Cabang Panti Research Site. Our work was supported by funding from the University of Michigan, Victoria University of Wellington, the National Science Foundation (award No. 2216525), the Leakey Foundation, the Orangutan Conservancy, the Mohamed bin Zayed Species Conservation Fund, the AZA Ape TAG Initiative, the American Society of Primatologists, and the Lewis and Clark Fund Grant from the American Philosophical Society.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Gene R. Estrada & Andrew J. Marshall

  2. School of Biological Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand

    Heiko U. Wittmer

  3. Gunung Palung National Park Bureau, Ketapang, West Kalimantan, Indonesia

    Endro Setiawan

  4. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Andrew J. Marshall

  5. School for Environment and Sustainability, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Andrew J. Marshall

  6. Program in the Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Andrew J. Marshall

  7. Program in Computing for the Arts and Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Andrew J. Marshall

Authors

  1. Gene R. Estrada
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Heiko U. Wittmer
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Endro Setiawan
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andrew J. Marshall
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

G.R.E. and A.J.M. designed the study; G.R.E., H.U.W., and A.J.M. raised funds for data collection; G.R.E., E.S., H.U.W., and A.J.M. collected the data; G.R.E. conducted the analyses, wrote the R code, and produced the figures; G.R.E. and A.J.M. wrote the paper. All authors contributed to the drafts and gave final approval for publication.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to
Gene R. Estrada.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Communications Biology thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editors: Michele Repetto and George Inglis. A peer review file is available.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information (download PDF )

Reporting Summary (download PDF )

Transparent Peer Review file (download PDF )

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Estrada, G.R., Wittmer, H.U., Setiawan, E. et al. Ecologically defined scales outperform grids in models of mammal diversity.
Commun Biol (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-026-09790-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-026-09790-w

Source: Ecology - nature.com

Proof-of-concept of harvest peak control using a strawberry cultivation emulator with artificial weather chambers

Morphology and energetics of the wake behind a continuously swimming crucian carp at different flow velocities

This portal is not a newspaper as it is updated without periodicity. It cannot be considered an editorial product pursuant to law n. 62 of 7.03.2001. The author of the portal is not responsible for the content of comments to posts, the content of the linked sites. Some texts or images included in this portal are taken from the internet and, therefore, considered to be in the public domain; if their publication is violated, the copyright will be promptly communicated via e-mail. They will be immediately removed.

Back to Top
Close