Do forest community types provide a sufficient basis to evaluate biological diversity?

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 13-17

  Cushman, Samuel A ^a   McKelvey, Kevin S ^a   Flather, Curtis H ^b   McGarigal, Kevin ^c  

^a ROCKY MOUNTAIN RESEARCH STATION   (United States)

^b ROCKY MOUNTAIN RESEARCH STATION   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; COMMUNITY FORESTRY; FOREST ECOSYSTEM; GUILD; HABITAT CONSERVATION; POPULATION DISTRIBUTION; POPULATION SIZE; SPECIES CONSERVATION; SPECIES DIVERSITY; WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT;

NORTH AMERICA; OREGON; UNITED STATES;

AVES;

EID: 38949115917     PISSN: 15409295     EISSN: 15409309     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1890/070039     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Bergeron Y, Leduc A, Harvey BD, and Gauthier S. 2002. Natural fire regime: a guide for sustainable management of the Canadian boreal forest. Silva Fenn 36: 81-95.
2. Brooks T, da Fonseca GAB, and Rodrigues AL. 2004. Species, data, and conservation planning. Conserv Biol 18: 1682-1688
3. Cody ML. 1985. Habitat selection in birds. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
4. Cushman SA and McGarigal K. 2002. Hierarchical, multi-scale decomposition of species-environment relationships. Landscape Ecol 17: 637-46.
5. Cushman SA and McGarigal K. 2004. Hierarchial analysis of forest bird species-environment relationships in the Oregon Coast Range. Ecol Appl 14: 1090-1105.
6. Hansen AJ and Urban DL. 1992. Avian response to landscape pattern: the role of species' life histories. Landscape Ecol 7: 163-80.
7. Haufler JB, Mehl CA, and Roloff GJ. 1996. Using a coarse-filter approach with species assessment for ecosystem management. Wildlife Soc B 24: 200-08.
8. Hunter Jr ML, George Jr LJ, and Webb III T. 1988. Paleoecology and the coarse-filter approach to maintaining biological diversity. Conserv Biol 2: 375-85.
9. Legendre P and Gallagher ED. 2001. Ecologically meaningful transformations for ordination of species data. Oecologia 129: 271-80.
10. Lemelin LV and Darveau M. 2006. Coarse and fine filters, gap analysis, and systematic conservation planning. Forest Chron 82: 802-05.
11. Lichstein JW, Simons TR, and Franzreb KE. 2002. Landscape effects on breeding songbird abundance in managed forests. Ecol Appl 12: 836-57.
12. McGarigal K and McComb WC. 1995. Relationships between landscape structure and breeding birds in the Oregon Coast Range. Ecol Monogr 65: 235-60.
13. Noon BR, Murphy DD, Beissinger SR, et al. 2003. Conservation planning for US National Forests: conducting comprehensive biodiversity assessments. BioScience 53: 1217-20.
14. Noss RF 1987. From plant communities to landscapes in conservation inventories: a look at The Nature Conservancy (USA). Biol Conserv 41: 11-37.
15. Oksanen J and Minchin PR. 1997. Instability of ordination results under changes in input data order: explanations and remedies. J Veg Sci 8: 447-54.
16. Rohr JR, Mahan CG, and Kim KC. Developing a monitoring program for invertebrates: guidelines and a case study. Conserv Biol. In press.
17. Schulte LA, Mitchell RJ, Hunter Jr ML, et al. 2006. Evaluating the conceptual tools for forest biodiversity conservation and their implementation in the US. Forest Ecol Manag 232: 1-11.
18. Steffan-Dewenter I, Muenzenberg U, Buerger C, et al. 2002. Scale-dependent effects of landscape context on three pollinator guilds. Ecology 83: 1421-32.
19. ter Braak CJ and Smilauer P. 1998. CANOCO reference manual and user's guide for Windows: software for canonical community ordination (Version 4). Ithaca, NY: Microcomputer Power.
20. Venables WN and Ripley BD. 2002. Modern applied statistics with S-PLUS, 4th edn. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
21. Wilcove DS and Master LL. 2005. How many endangered species are there in the United States? Front Ecol Environ 3: 414-20