Occupancy-abundance relationships and sampling scales

Ecography

Volumn 23, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 503-511

  He, Fangliang ^a   Gaston, Kevin J ^b  

^a LAURENTIAN FORESTRY CENTRE   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ABUNDANCE; SAMPLING; SCALE EFFECT;

EID: 0033849983     PISSN: 09067590     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2000.tb00306.x     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Anon. 1994. IUCN Red List categories. IUCN. Gland.
2. Bock, C. E. 1987. Distribution-abundance relationships of some Arizona landbirds: a matter of scale? - Ecology 68: 124-129.
3. Brown, J. H. 1984. On the relationship between abundance and distribution of species. - Am. Nat. 124: 255-279.
4. Dazley, R. A. and Trodd, P. 1994. An atlas of the breeding birds of Bedfordshire: 1988-92. - Bedfordshire Nat. Hist. Soc., Bedford.
5. Gaston, K. J. 1991. How large is a species' geographic range? - Oikos 61: 434-438.
6. Gaston, K. J. 1994a. Rarity. - Chapman and Hall.
7. Gaston, K. J. 1994b. Measuring geographic range sizes. - Ecography 17: 198-205.
8. Gaston, K. J. 1996. The multiple forms of the interspecific abundance-distribution relationship. - Oikos 76: 211-220.
9. Gaston, K. J. 1998. Species-range size distributions: products of speciation, extinction and transformation. - Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 353: 219-230.
10. Gaston, K. J. 1999. Implications of interspecific and intraspecific abundance-occupancy relationships. - Oikos 86: 195-207.
11. Gaston, K. J. and Lawton, J. H. 1990. Effects of scale and habitat on the relationship between regional distribution and local abundance. - Oikos 58: 329-335.
12. Gaston, K. J. and Blackburn, T. M. 1996. Range size-body size relationships: evidence of scale dependence. - Oikos 75: 479-485.
13. Gaston, K. J. and Blackburn, T. M. 1999. A critique for macroecology. - Oikos 84: 353-368.
14. Gaston, K. J., Blackburn, T. M. and Lawton, J. H. 1997. Interspecific abundance-range size relationships: an appraisal of mechanisms. - J. Anim. Ecol. 66: 579-601.
15. Gaston, K. J., Blackburn, T. M. and Lawton, J. H. 1998. Aggregation and the interspecific abundance-occupancy relationship. - J. Anim. Ecol. 67: 995-999.
16. Gaston, K. J., Blackburn, T. M. and Gregory, R. D. 1999. Does variation in census area confound density comparisons? - J. Appl. Ecol. 36: 191-204.
17. Greig-Smith, P. 1983. Quantitative plant ecology. 3rd ed. - Blackwell.
18. Haining, R. P. 1990. Spatial data analysis in the social and environmental sciences. - Cambridge Univ. Press.
19. Hanski, I. and Gyllenberg, M. 1997. Uniting two general patterns in the distribution of species. - Science 275: 397-400.
20. Hanski, I., Kouki, J. and Halkka, A. 1993. Three explanations of the positive relationship between distribution and abundance of species. - In: Ricklefs, R. E. and Schluter, D. (eds), Species diversity in ecological communities: historical and geographical perspectives. Univ. of Chicago Press, pp. 108-116.
21. Hartley, S. 1998. A positive relationship between local abundance and regional occupancy is almost inevitable (but not all positive relationships are the same). - J. Anim. Ecol. 67: 992-994.
22. He, F. and Legendre, P. 1996. On species-area relations. - Am. Nat. 148: 719-737.
23. He, F. and Gaston, K. J. Estimating species abundance from occurrence. - Am. Nat., in press.
24. He, F. et al. 1994. Diversity pattern and spatial scale: a study of a tropical rain forest of Malaysia. - Environ. Ecol. Stat. 1: 265-286.
25. He, F., Legendre. P. and LaFrankie, J. V. 1997. Distribution patterns of tree species in a Malaysian tropical rain forest. - J. Veg. Sci. 8: 105-114.
26. Jelinski, D. E. and Wu, J. 1996. The modifiable areal unit problem and implications for landscape ecology. - Landscape Ecol. 11: 129-140.
27. Leitner, W. A. and Rosenzweig, M. L. 1997. Nested species-area curves and stochastic sampling: a new theory. - Oikos 79: 503-512.
28. Manokaran, N. et al. 1999. The Pasoh 50-ha forest dynamics plot: 1999 CD-ROM version. - For. Res. Inst. of Malaysia.
29. Maurer, B. A. 1990. The relationship between distribution and abundance in a patchy environment. - Oikos 58: 181-189.
30. Maurer, B. A. 1999. Untangling ecological complexity. - Univ. of Chicago Press.
31. Nachman, G. 1981. A mathematical model of the functional relationship between density and spatial distribution of a population. - J. Anim. Ecol. 50: 453-460.
32. Ney-Nifle, M. and Mangel, M. 1999. Species-area curves based on geographic range and occupancy. - J. Theor. Biol. 196: 327-342.
33. Openshaw, S. 1984. The modifiable areal unit problem. - CATMOG 38. Geobooks, Norwich.
34. Palmer, M. W. and White, P. S. 1994. Scale dependence and the species-area relationship. - Am. Nat. 144: 717-740.
35. Stoms, D. M. 1994. Scale dependence of species richness maps. - Prof. Geogr. 46: 346-358.
36. Turner, M. G. et al. 1989. Effects of changing spatial scale on the analysis of landscape pattern. - Landscape Ecol. 3: 153-162.
37. Wright, D. H. 1991. Correlations between incidence and abundance are expected by chance. - J. Biogeogr. 18: 463-466.
38. Wu, J. and Louks, O. L. 1995. From balance-of-nature to hierarchical patch dynamics: a paradigm shift in ecology. - Quart. Rev. Biol. 70: 439-466.