Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 640

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Are ecologists conducting research at the optimal scale?

Open access
Jackson, Heather Bird, Fahrig, Lenore·2015·Global Ecology and Biogeography

Abstract

Aim: The spatial extent (scale) at which landscape attributes are measured has a strong impact on inferred species–landscape relationships. Consequently, researchers commonly measure landscape variables at multiple scales to select one scale (the ‘scale of effect’) that yields the strongest species–landscape relationship. Scales of effect observed in multiscale studies may not be true scales of effect if scales are arbitrarily selected and/or are too narrow in range. Miscalculation of the scale of effect may explain why the theoretical relationship between scale of effect and species traits, e.g. dispersal distance, is not empirically well supported. Location: World‐wide. Methods: Using data from 583 species in 71 studies we conducted a quantitative review of multiscale studies to evaluate whether research has been conducted at the true scale of effect. Results: Multiple lines of evidence indicated that multiscale studies are often conducted at suboptimal scales. We did not find convincing evidence of a relationship between observed scale of effect and any of 29 species traits. Instead, observed scales of effect were strongly positively predicted by the smallest and largest scales evaluated by researchers. Only 29% of studies reported biological reasons for the scales evaluated. Scales tended to be narrow in range (the mean range is 0.9 orders of magnitude) and few (the mean number of scales evaluated is four). Many species (44%) had observed scales of effect equal to the smallest or largest scale evaluated, suggesting a better scale was outside that range. Increasing the range of scales evaluated decreased the proportion of species with scales of effect equal to the smallest or largest scale evaluated. Main conclusions: To ensure that species–landscape relationships are well estimated, we recommend that the scales at which landscape variables are measured range widely, from the size of a single territory to well above the average dispersal distance.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/geb.12233

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 29 references

Cited by

See all 640

Metadata

Authors
Jackson, H. B., & Fahrig, L.
Venue
Global Ecology and Biogeography
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-09-26
Volume
24
Issue
1
Pages
52-63
ISSN
  • 1466-822X (ISSN-L)
  • 1466-8238
OpenAlex
W1497165213
Cited by
640
References
29
FWCI
18.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Are ecologists conducting research at the optimal scale? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/geb.12233
The paper
Jackson, H. B., & Fahrig, L. (2015). Are ecologists conducting research at the optimal scale? Global Ecology and Biogeography. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12233

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.