EcoService Models Library (ESML)
loading
Variables Details
: (EM-777)
Back
Selected
EM-777: Bee diversity in tallgrass prairies affected by management and its effects on above‐ and below‐ground resources
- Collapse All Expand All
- Export Data to Spreadsheet (Free Viewers)
- View Variable Relationship Diagram (PDF)(1 pp, 80 KB, About PDF)
EM-777 | |
Document Author
variable.detail.emDocumentAuthorHelp
?
|
Buckles, B. J., and A. N. Harmon-Threatt |
Document Year
variable.detail.emDocumentYearHelp
?
|
2019 |
Bee community composition ?Comment:Using multiple sampling methods should provide a more complete picture of the bee community during the sampling time (Geroff, Gibbs, & McCravy, 2014). All bees were later identified to species. These data resulted in three response variables that are tested here: bee community composition, bee richness and bee abundance. |
Floristic Quality Index (FQI) ?Comment:Using floral richness recorded in plots, we calculated Floristic Quality Index (FQI). FQI is a metric devised by botanists to assess the vegetative quality of a habitat. This metric combines the floral richness of the plot and the coefficient of conservatism (CC), and thus provides a rank‐based assessment of the sensitivity of a plant species to disturbance (on a scale of 1–10). FQI can provide important information on the overall conservation status of the habitat. Using the CC for each plant species as designated in Ladd and Thomas (2015) for Missouri or Taft et al. (1997) for Illinois when absent from the Missouri list, we calculated the FQI for each plot as FQI=mean CC∗√N where N is the native species richness and mean CC is the mean of the coefficient of conservatism. All invasive species were assigned a C of 0 and not included in the native species richness calculation as implemented by Maginel, Knapp, Kabrick, Olson, and Muzika (2016). FQI was designed to evaluate the entire plant community, but we only evaluated the flowering community. |
Log(floral abundance) |
Plant community composition ?Comment:Differences in plant community composition relative to management was visualized in Non‐metric dimensional scaling (NMDS) ordination. Multivariate analysis showed management was the most important variable in determining plant community composition. |
|
Variable ID
variable.detail.varIdHelp
?
|
18930 | 18934 | 18923 | 18920 |
Not reported | FQI | Not reported | Not reported | |
Qualitative-Quantitative
variable.detail.continuousCategoricalHelp
?
|
Quantitative (Cardinal Only) | Quantitative (Cardinal Only) | Quantitative (Cardinal Only) | Quantitative (Cardinal Only) |
Cardinal-Ordinal
variable.detail.cardinalOrdinalHelp
?
|
Cardinal | Cardinal | Cardinal | Cardinal |
unitless | unitless | No. | unitless |
Bee community composition ?Comment:Using multiple sampling methods should provide a more complete picture of the bee community during the sampling time (Geroff, Gibbs, & McCravy, 2014). All bees were later identified to species. These data resulted in three response variables that are tested here: bee community composition, bee richness and bee abundance. |
Floristic Quality Index (FQI) ?Comment:Using floral richness recorded in plots, we calculated Floristic Quality Index (FQI). FQI is a metric devised by botanists to assess the vegetative quality of a habitat. This metric combines the floral richness of the plot and the coefficient of conservatism (CC), and thus provides a rank‐based assessment of the sensitivity of a plant species to disturbance (on a scale of 1–10). FQI can provide important information on the overall conservation status of the habitat. Using the CC for each plant species as designated in Ladd and Thomas (2015) for Missouri or Taft et al. (1997) for Illinois when absent from the Missouri list, we calculated the FQI for each plot as FQI=mean CC∗√N where N is the native species richness and mean CC is the mean of the coefficient of conservatism. All invasive species were assigned a C of 0 and not included in the native species richness calculation as implemented by Maginel, Knapp, Kabrick, Olson, and Muzika (2016). FQI was designed to evaluate the entire plant community, but we only evaluated the flowering community. |
Log(floral abundance) |
Plant community composition ?Comment:Differences in plant community composition relative to management was visualized in Non‐metric dimensional scaling (NMDS) ordination. Multivariate analysis showed management was the most important variable in determining plant community composition. |
|
Predictor-Intermediate-Response
variable.detail.displayVariableTypeHelp
?
|
Response |
Response |
Response |
Response |
Predictor Variable Type
variable.detail.displayPredictorVariableTypeHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
Response Variable Type
variable.detail.resClassHelp
?
|
Computed Variable |
Computed Variable |
Computed Variable |
Computed Variable |
Data Source/Type
variable.detail.dataTypeHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
Variable Classification Hierarchy
variable.detail.vchLevel1Help
?
|
5. Ecosystem Attributes and Potential Supply of Ecosystem Goods and Services |
5. Ecosystem Attributes and Potential Supply of Ecosystem Goods and Services |
5. Ecosystem Attributes and Potential Supply of Ecosystem Goods and Services |
5. Ecosystem Attributes and Potential Supply of Ecosystem Goods and Services |
--Biological characteristics, processes or requirements of living ecosystem components |
--Ecosystem- or landscape-level metrics or indices of ecological condition, rarity or vulnerability |
--Biological characteristics, processes or requirements of living ecosystem components |
--Biological characteristics, processes or requirements of living ecosystem components |
|
----Biological characteristics, processes or requirements of fauna |
----Grassland/herbaceous condition, rarity or vulnerability |
----Biological characteristics, processes or requirements of flora and fungi |
----Biological characteristics, processes or requirements of flora and fungi |
|
------Pollinators (nonspecific) |
------Cover characteristics (canopy cover, herbaceous cover or leaf area) |
------Herbaceous plants (grasses, forbs) |
Bee community composition ?Comment:Using multiple sampling methods should provide a more complete picture of the bee community during the sampling time (Geroff, Gibbs, & McCravy, 2014). All bees were later identified to species. These data resulted in three response variables that are tested here: bee community composition, bee richness and bee abundance. |
Floristic Quality Index (FQI) ?Comment:Using floral richness recorded in plots, we calculated Floristic Quality Index (FQI). FQI is a metric devised by botanists to assess the vegetative quality of a habitat. This metric combines the floral richness of the plot and the coefficient of conservatism (CC), and thus provides a rank‐based assessment of the sensitivity of a plant species to disturbance (on a scale of 1–10). FQI can provide important information on the overall conservation status of the habitat. Using the CC for each plant species as designated in Ladd and Thomas (2015) for Missouri or Taft et al. (1997) for Illinois when absent from the Missouri list, we calculated the FQI for each plot as FQI=mean CC∗√N where N is the native species richness and mean CC is the mean of the coefficient of conservatism. All invasive species were assigned a C of 0 and not included in the native species richness calculation as implemented by Maginel, Knapp, Kabrick, Olson, and Muzika (2016). FQI was designed to evaluate the entire plant community, but we only evaluated the flowering community. |
Log(floral abundance) |
Plant community composition ?Comment:Differences in plant community composition relative to management was visualized in Non‐metric dimensional scaling (NMDS) ordination. Multivariate analysis showed management was the most important variable in determining plant community composition. |
|
Spatial Extent Area
variable.detail.spExtentHelp
?
|
1000-10,000 km^2. | 1000-10,000 km^2. | 1000-10,000 km^2. | 1000-10,000 km^2. |
Spatially Distributed?
variable.detail.spDistributedHelp
?
|
Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Observations Spatially Patterned?
variable.detail.regularSpGrainHelp
?
|
Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Spatial Grain Type
variable.detail.spGrainTypeHelp
?
|
area, for pixel or radial feature | area, for pixel or radial feature | area, for pixel or radial feature | area, for pixel or radial feature |
Spatial Grain Size
variable.detail.spGrainSizeHelp
?
|
1 ha | 1 ha | 1 ha | 1 ha |
Spatial Density
variable.detail.spDensityHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
EnviroAtlas URL
variable.detail.enviroAtlasURLHelp
?
|
Bee community composition ?Comment:Using multiple sampling methods should provide a more complete picture of the bee community during the sampling time (Geroff, Gibbs, & McCravy, 2014). All bees were later identified to species. These data resulted in three response variables that are tested here: bee community composition, bee richness and bee abundance. |
Floristic Quality Index (FQI) ?Comment:Using floral richness recorded in plots, we calculated Floristic Quality Index (FQI). FQI is a metric devised by botanists to assess the vegetative quality of a habitat. This metric combines the floral richness of the plot and the coefficient of conservatism (CC), and thus provides a rank‐based assessment of the sensitivity of a plant species to disturbance (on a scale of 1–10). FQI can provide important information on the overall conservation status of the habitat. Using the CC for each plant species as designated in Ladd and Thomas (2015) for Missouri or Taft et al. (1997) for Illinois when absent from the Missouri list, we calculated the FQI for each plot as FQI=mean CC∗√N where N is the native species richness and mean CC is the mean of the coefficient of conservatism. All invasive species were assigned a C of 0 and not included in the native species richness calculation as implemented by Maginel, Knapp, Kabrick, Olson, and Muzika (2016). FQI was designed to evaluate the entire plant community, but we only evaluated the flowering community. |
Log(floral abundance) |
Plant community composition ?Comment:Differences in plant community composition relative to management was visualized in Non‐metric dimensional scaling (NMDS) ordination. Multivariate analysis showed management was the most important variable in determining plant community composition. |
|
Temporal Extent
variable.detail.tempExtentHelp
?
|
2012-2016 | 2012-2016 | 2012-2016 | 2012-2016 |
Temporally Distributed?
variable.detail.tempDistributedHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
Regular Temporal Grain?
variable.detail.regularTempGrainHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
Temporal Grain Size Value
variable.detail.tempGrainSizeValHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
Temporal Grain Size Units
variable.detail.tempGrainSizeUnitHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
Temporal Density
variable.detail.tempDensityHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
Bee community composition ?Comment:Using multiple sampling methods should provide a more complete picture of the bee community during the sampling time (Geroff, Gibbs, & McCravy, 2014). All bees were later identified to species. These data resulted in three response variables that are tested here: bee community composition, bee richness and bee abundance. |
Floristic Quality Index (FQI) ?Comment:Using floral richness recorded in plots, we calculated Floristic Quality Index (FQI). FQI is a metric devised by botanists to assess the vegetative quality of a habitat. This metric combines the floral richness of the plot and the coefficient of conservatism (CC), and thus provides a rank‐based assessment of the sensitivity of a plant species to disturbance (on a scale of 1–10). FQI can provide important information on the overall conservation status of the habitat. Using the CC for each plant species as designated in Ladd and Thomas (2015) for Missouri or Taft et al. (1997) for Illinois when absent from the Missouri list, we calculated the FQI for each plot as FQI=mean CC∗√N where N is the native species richness and mean CC is the mean of the coefficient of conservatism. All invasive species were assigned a C of 0 and not included in the native species richness calculation as implemented by Maginel, Knapp, Kabrick, Olson, and Muzika (2016). FQI was designed to evaluate the entire plant community, but we only evaluated the flowering community. |
Log(floral abundance) |
Plant community composition ?Comment:Differences in plant community composition relative to management was visualized in Non‐metric dimensional scaling (NMDS) ordination. Multivariate analysis showed management was the most important variable in determining plant community composition. |
|
Not reported ?Comment:The Morisita dissimilarity was used for bees. The Morisita dissimilarity matrix is more robust in under sampled datasets, which would be expected for bees. Multivariate analysis results for effects of resources and management on bee community composition after backward selection showed that management and Soil PC1 had the greatest effects. |
unitless ?Comment:Values captured from linear regression figure. Bee resources (i.e. Soil PC1, floral richness, FQI and floral abundance) as well as bee abundance and richness were analysed with generalised least squares (GLS) models. Soil PC1 was the most predictive variable for FQI. |
Not reported ?Comment:Bee resources (i.e. Soil PC1, floral richness, FQI and floral abundance) as well as bee abundance and richness were analysed with generalised least squares (GLS) models. Management was the most predictive variable for Log(floral abundance). |
Not reported | |
Min Value
variable.detail.minEstHelp
?
|
Not reported | Varies by run; view runs to see value | Not reported | Not reported |
Max Value
variable.detail.estHelp
?
|
Not reported | Varies by run; view runs to see value | Not reported | Not reported |
Other Value Type
variable.detail.natureOtherEstHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Not applicable | Mean | Not applicable |
Other Value
variable.detail.otherEstHelp
?
|
Not reported | Not reported | Varies by run; view runs to see value | Not reported |
Bee community composition ?Comment:Using multiple sampling methods should provide a more complete picture of the bee community during the sampling time (Geroff, Gibbs, & McCravy, 2014). All bees were later identified to species. These data resulted in three response variables that are tested here: bee community composition, bee richness and bee abundance. |
Floristic Quality Index (FQI) ?Comment:Using floral richness recorded in plots, we calculated Floristic Quality Index (FQI). FQI is a metric devised by botanists to assess the vegetative quality of a habitat. This metric combines the floral richness of the plot and the coefficient of conservatism (CC), and thus provides a rank‐based assessment of the sensitivity of a plant species to disturbance (on a scale of 1–10). FQI can provide important information on the overall conservation status of the habitat. Using the CC for each plant species as designated in Ladd and Thomas (2015) for Missouri or Taft et al. (1997) for Illinois when absent from the Missouri list, we calculated the FQI for each plot as FQI=mean CC∗√N where N is the native species richness and mean CC is the mean of the coefficient of conservatism. All invasive species were assigned a C of 0 and not included in the native species richness calculation as implemented by Maginel, Knapp, Kabrick, Olson, and Muzika (2016). FQI was designed to evaluate the entire plant community, but we only evaluated the flowering community. |
Log(floral abundance) |
Plant community composition ?Comment:Differences in plant community composition relative to management was visualized in Non‐metric dimensional scaling (NMDS) ordination. Multivariate analysis showed management was the most important variable in determining plant community composition. |
||
Variability Expression Given?
variable.detail.variabilityExpHelp
?
|
No | No | Yes | No | |
Variability Metric
variable.detail.variabilityMetricHelp
?
|
None | None |
|
None | |
Variability Value
variable.detail.variabilityValueHelp
?
|
None | None |
|
None | |
Variability Units
|
None | None |
|
None | |
Resampling Used?
variable.detail.bootstrappingHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | |
Variability Expression Used in Modeling?
variable.detail.variabilityUsedHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Not applicable | Yes | Not applicable |
Bee community composition | Floristic Quality Index (FQI) | Log(floral abundance) | Plant community composition | ||
Variable ID
variable.detail.varIdHelp
?
|
18930 | 18934 | 18923 | 18920 | |
Validated?
variable.detail.resValidatedHelp
?
|
Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | |
Validation Approach (within, between, etc.)
variable.detail.validationApproachHelp
?
|
None | None | None | None | |
Validation Quality (Qual/Quant)
variable.detail.validationQualityHelp
?
|
None | None | None | None | |
Validation Method (Stat/Deviance)
variable.detail.validationMethodHelp
?
|
None | None | None | None | |
Validation Metric
variable.detail.validationMetricHelp
?
|
None | None | None | None | |
Validation Value
variable.detail.validationValHelp
?
|
None | None | None | None | |
Validation Units
|
None | None | None | None | |
Use of Measured Response Data
variable.detail.measuredResponseDataHelp
?
|
|
None | None | None |