Determining the Spatial Scale of Species' Response to Habitat

BioScience

Volumn 54, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 227-233

  Holland, Jeffrey D ^a   Bert, Daniel G ^b   Fahrig, Lenore ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WINDSOR   (Canada)

^b CARLETON UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Cerambycidae; Focus; Forest cover; Habitat interaction; Spatial scale

Indexed keywords

CERAMBYCIDAE; COLEOPTERA;

EID: 1542318331     PISSN: 00063568     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0227:DTSSOS]2.0.CO;2     Document Type: Review

References (40)

1. Åberg J, Jansson G, Swenson JE, Angelstam P. 1995. The effect of matrix on the occurrence of hazel grouse (Bonasa bonasia) in isolated habitat fragments. Oecologia 103: 235-269.
2. Addicott JF, Aho JM, Antolin MF, Padilla DK, Richardson JS, Soluk DA. 1987. Ecological neighborhoods: Scaling environmental patterns. Oikos 49: 340-346.
3. Barbalat S. 1998. Importance of forest structures on four beetle families (Col.: Buprestidae, Cerambycidae, Lucanidae and phytophagous Scarabaeidae) in the Areuse Gorges (Neuchâtel, Switzerland). Revue Suisse de Zoologie 105: 569-580.
4. Brennan J, Bender DJ, Conteras TA, Fahrig L. 2002. Focal patch landscape studies for wildlife management: Optimizing sampling effort across scales. Pages 68-91 in Liu J, Taylor WW, eds. Integrating Landscape Ecology into Natural Resource Management. Cambridge (United Kingdom): Cambridge University Press.
5. Cale PG, Hobbs RJ. 1994. Landscape heterogeneity indices: Problems of scale and applicability, with particular reference to animal habitat description. Pacific Conservation Biology 1: 183-193.
6. Dungan JL, Perry JN, Dale MRT, Legendre P, Citron-Pousty S, Fortin M-J, Jakomulska A, Miriti M, Rosenberg MS. 2002. A balanced view of scale in spatial statistical analysis. Ecography 25: 626-640.
7. Elliott NC, Kieckhefer RW, Lee J-H, French BW 1998. Influence of within-field and landscape factors on aphid predator populations in wheat. Landscape Ecology 14: 239-252.
8. Fahrig L. 2001. How much habitat is enough? Biological Conservation 100: 65-74.
9. Findlay CS, Houlahan J. 1997. Anthropogenic correlates of species richness in southeastern Ontario wetlands. Conservation Biology 11: 1000-1009.
10. Gascon C, Lovejoy TE, Bierregaard RO, Malcolm JR, Stouffer PC, Vasconcelos HL, Laurance WF, Zimmerman B, Tocher M, Borges S. 1999. Matrix habitat and species richness in tropical forest remnants. Biological Conservation 91: 223-229.
11. Holland JD, Fahrig L. 2000. Effect of woody borders on insect density and diversity in crop fields: A landscape-scale analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 78: 115-122.
12. Jonsen I, Fahrig L. 1997. Response of generalist and specialist insect herbivores to landscape spatial structure. Landscape Ecology 12: 185-197.
13. Jonsen I, Taylor PD. 2000. Calopteryx damselfly dispersions arising from multiscale responses to landscape structure. Conservation Ecology 4: 57-76.
14. Kinnunen H, Tiainen J, Tukia H. 2001. Farmland carabid beetle communities at multiple levels of spatial scale. Ecography 24: 189-197.
15. Kletecka Z. 1996. The xylophagous beetles (Insecta, Coleoptera) community and its succession on Scotch elm (Ulmus glabra) branches. Biologia 51: 143-152.
16. Kotliar NB, Wiens JA. 1990. Multiple scales of patchiness and patch structure: A hierarchical framework for the study of heterogeneity. Oikos 59: 253-260.
17. Linsley EG. 1954. Ecology of Cerambycidae. Annual Review of Entomology 4: 99-138.
18. _. 1962. Taxonomy and Classification of the Subfamily Cerambycinae, Tribes Opsimini through Megaderini. Part III of The Cerambycidae of North America. Berkeley: University of California Press.
19. _. 1963. Taxonomy and Classification of the Subfamily Cerambycinae, Haphidionini through Rhinotragini. Part IV of The Cerambycidae of North America. Berkeley: University of California Press.
20. _. 1964. Taxonomy and Classification of the Subfamily Cerambycinae, Tribes Callichromini through Ancylocerini. Part V of The Cerambycidae of North America. Berkeley: University of California Press.
21. Linsley EG, Chemsak JA. 1972. Taxonomy and Classification of the Subfamily Lepturinae. Part VI, no. 1, of The Cerambycidae of North America. Berkeley: University of California Press.
22. _. 1976. Taxonomy and Classification of the Subfamily Lepturinae. Part VI, no. 2, of The Cerambycidae of North America. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
23. McGarigal K, McComb W. 1995. Relationships between landscape structure and breeding birds in the Oregon coast range. Ecological Monographs 65: 235-260.
24. Mitchell MS, Lancia RA, Gerwin JA. 2001. Using landscape-level data to predict the distribution of birds on a managed forest: Effects of scale. Ecological Applications 11: 1692-1708.
25. Nathan R. 2001. The challenges of studying dispersal. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16: 481-483.
26. National Capital Commission. 1999. 1:25,000 scale topographic mapping [computer file]. Ottawa (Canada): National Capital Commission.
27. Økland B, Bakke A, Hågvar S, Kvamme T. 1996. What factors influence the diversity of saproxylic beetles? A multiscaled study from a spruce forest in southern Norway. Biodiversity Conservation 5: 75-100.
28. Pedlar JH, Fahrig L, Merriam HG. 1997. Raccoon habitat use at two spatial scales. Journal of Wildlife Management 61: 102-112.
29. Pope SE, Fahrig L, Merriam HG. 2000. Landscape complementation and metapopulation effects on leopard frog populations. Ecology 81: 2498-2508.
30. Roland J, Taylor PD. 1997. Insect parasitoid species respond to forest structure at different spatial scales. Nature 386: 710-713.
31. Rukke BA, Midtgaard F. 1998. The importance of scale and spatial variables for the fungivorous beetle Bolitophagus reticulatus (Coleoptera, Tenebrionidae) in a fragmented forest landscape. Ecography 21: 561-572.
32. Saab V. 1999. Importance of spatial scale to habitat use by breeding birds in riparian forests: A hierarchical analysis. Ecological Applications 9: 135-151.
33. Savignac C, Desrochers A, Huot J. 2000. Habitat use by pileated woodpeckers at two spatial scales in eastern Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78: 219-225.
34. Schiegg K. 2000. Effects of dead wood volume and connectivity on saproxylic insect species diversity. Ecoscience 7: 290-298.
35. Szacki J. 1999. Spatially structured populations: How much do they match the classic metapopulation concept? Landscape Ecology 14: 369-379.
36. Trzcinski MK, Fahrig L, Merriam HG. 1999. Independent effects of forest cover and fragmentation on the distribution of forest breeding birds. Ecological Applications 9: 586-593.
37. Vos CC, Verboom J, Opdam PFM, Ter Braak CJF. 2001. Toward ecologically scaled landscape indices. American Naturalist 157: 24-41.
38. Wiens JA, Milne BT. 1989. Scaling of "landscapes" in landscape ecology, or, landscape ecology from a beetle's perspective. Landscape Ecology 3: 87-96.
39. Wiens JA, Crist TO, Milne BT. 1993. On quantifying insect movements. Environmental Entomology 22: 709-715.
40. Yanega D. 1996. Field Guide to Northeastern Longhorned Beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Illinois Natural History Survey Manual 6. Champaign (IL): Illinois Natural History Survey.