Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T01:26:30.982Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - Scale and an organism-centric focus for studying interspecific interactions in landscapes

from PART II - Theory, experiments, and models in landscape ecology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2009

By
Ralph Mac Nally
Edited by
John A. Wiens  and
Michael R. Moss
Ralph Mac Nally
Affiliation:
Monash University Australia
John A. Wiens
Affiliation:
The Nature Conservancy, Washington DC
Michael R. Moss
Affiliation:
University of Guelph, Ontario
Get access

Summary

Ecologists arguably have been remiss in not developing a formal underpinning for the epistemology of ecology, at least not until the 1980s. At that time, the rather forced imposition of deterministic or heavily constrained stochastic population and community models (see Roughgarden, 1979) drew fire, principally through the emergence of ideas of system “openness” (Wiens, 1984; Gaines and Roughgarden, 1985; Amarasekare, 2000; Hughes et al., 2000; Thrush et al., 2000), non-equilibria (DeAngelis and Waterhouse, 1987; Seastadt and Knapp, 1993) and, especially, “scale” (Wiens et al., 1987; Kotliar and Wiens, 1990; Holling, 1992; Levin, 1992, 2000; Pascual and Levin, 1999). Scales of measurement and observation have tremendous impact on the interpretation of what we think we know about systems and how they operate, which clearly has ramifications for most of the hotly contested areas in community ecology. One such dispute concerns the respective roles of “top-down” (large-scale patterns determine the possibilities for small-scale ones; Whittaker et al., 2001) and “bottom-up” (large-scales are emergent properties of small-scale processes; Wootton, 2001; Ludwig, this volume, Chapter 6) processes in pattern generation in ecological communities (Carpenter et al., 1985).

An increasing number of field studies (e.g., Bowers and Dooley, 1999; Orrock et al., 2000) and simulations (e.g., Bevers and Flather, 1999; Mac Nally, 2000b, 2001) conducted at multiple spatial scales show that outcomes depend upon how the study is constructed and conducted.

Type
Chapter
Information
Issues and Perspectives in Landscape Ecology , pp. 52 - 69
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amarasekare, P. (2000). The geometry of coexistence. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 71, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berlow, E. L. (1999). Strong effects of weak interactions in ecological communities. Nature, 398, 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berlow, E. L., Navarette, S. A., Briggs, C. J., Power, M. E., and Menge, B. A. (1999). Quantifying variation in the strengths of species interactions. Ecology, 80, 2206–2224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bevers, M., and Flather, C. H. (1999). The distribution and abundance of populations limited at multiple spatial scales. Journal of Animal Ecology, 68, 976–987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowers, M. A. and Dooley, J. L. (1999). A controlled, hierarchical study of habitat fragmentation: responses at the individual, patch, and landscape scale. Landscape Ecology, 14, 381–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, S., Kitchell, J., and Hodgson, J. (1985). Cascading trophic interactions and lake productivity. BioScience 35, 634–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, S. R. (1996). Microcosm experiments have limited relevance for community and ecosystem ecology. Ecology, 77, 677–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cernusca, A., Bahn, M., Chemini, C., et al.(1998). ECOMONT: a combined approach of field measurements and process-based modelling for assessing effects of land-use changes in mountain landscapes. Ecological Modelling, 113, 167–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, S. D., Walde, S. J., and Peckarsky, B. L. (1990). Prey exchange rates and the impact of predators on prey populations in streams. Ecology, 71, 1503–1514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeAngelis, D. L. and Petersen, J. H. (2001). Importance of the predator's ecological neighborhood in modeling predation on migrating prey. Oikos, 94, 315–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeAngelis, D. L. and Waterhouse, J. C. (1987). Equilibrium and nonequilibrium concepts in ecological models. Ecological Monographs, 57, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delbeek, J. C. and Williams, D. D. (1987). Food resource partitioning between sympatric populations of brackish water sticklebacks. Journal of Animal Ecology, 56, 949–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Englund, G. (1997). Importance of spatial scale and prey movements in predator caging experiments. Ecology, 78, 2316–2325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleming, T. H., Sahley, C. T., Holland, J. N., Nason, J. D., and Hamrick, J. L. (2001). Sonoran Desert columnar cacti and the evolution of generalized pollination systems. Ecological Monographs, 71, 511–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frost, T. M., DeAngelis, D. L., Bartell, S. M., Hall, D. J., and Hurlbert, S. H. (1988). Scale in the design and interpretation of aquatic community research. In Complex Interactions in Lake Communities, ed. Carpenter, S. R.. New York, NY: Springer, pp. 229–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaines, S. and Roughgarden, J. (1985). Larval settlement rate: a leading determinant of structure in an ecological community of the marine intertidal zone. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 82, 3707–3711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garnett, S. T. and Crowley, G. M. (2000). The Action Plan for Australian Birds. Canberra: Environment Australia.Google Scholar
Gurevitch, J., Morrow, L. L., Wallace, A., and Walsh, J. S. (1992). A meta-analysis of competition in field experiments. American Naturalist, 140, 539–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobbs, R. J. (1987). Disturbance regimes in remnants of natural vegetation. In Nature Conservation: the Role of Remnants of Native Vegetation, ed. Saunders, D. A., Arnold, G. W., Burbidge, A. A., and Hopkins, A. J. M.. Sydney: Surrey Beatty, pp. 233–240.Google Scholar
Holling, C. S. (1992). Cross-scale morphology, geometry, and dynamics of ecosystems. Ecological Monographs, 62, 447–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, T. P., Baird, A. H., Dinsdale, E. A., et al. (2000). Supply-side ecology works both ways: the link between benthic adults, fecundity, and larval recruits. Ecology, 81, 2241–2249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irwin, R. E. and Brody, A. K. (1998). Nectar robbing in Ipomopsis aggregata : effects on pollinator behavior and plant fitness. Oecologia, 116, 519–527.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
King, A. W. (1991). Translating models across scales in the landscape. In Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology, ed. Turner, M. G. and Gardner, R. H.. New York, NY: Springer, pp. 479–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kotliar, N. B. and Wiens, J. A. (1990). Multiple scales of patchiness and patch structure: a hierarchical framework for the study of heterogeneity. Oikos, 59, 253–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lange, R. S. and Scott, P. E. (1999). Hummingbird and bee pollination of Penstemon pseudospectabilis. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society, 126, 99–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, S. A. (1992). The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology, 73, 1943–1967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, S. A. (2000). Multiple scales and the maintenance of biodiversity. Ecosystems, 3, 498–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindbladh, M., Bradshaw, R., and Holmqvist, B. H. (2000). Pattern and process in south Swedish forests during the last 3000 years, sensed at stand and regional scales. Journal of Ecology, 88, 113–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linder, E. T., Villard, M. A., Maurer, B. A., and Schmidt, E. V. (2000). Geographic range structure in North American landbirds: variation with migratory strategy, trophic level, and breeding habitat. Ecography, 23, 678–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mac Nally, R. (1997). Scaling artefacts in confinement experiments: a simulation model. Ecological Modelling, 99, 229–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mac Nally, R. (2000a). Co-existence of a locally undifferentiated foraging guild: avian snatchers in a southeastern Australian forest. Austral Ecology, 25, 69–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mac Nally, R. (2000b). Modelling confinement experiments in community ecology: differential mobility among competitors. Ecological Modelling, 129, 65–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mac Nally, R. (2001). Interaction strengths and spatial scale in community ecology: quadrat-sampling and confinement experiments involving animals of different mobilities. Ecological Modelling, 144, 139–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mac Nally, R. and Horrocks, G. (2000). Landscape-scale conservation of an endangered migrant: the Swift Parrot Lathamus discolor in its winter range. Biological Conservation, 92, 335–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mac Nally, R. and Horrocks, G. (2002). Proportionate spatial sampling and equal-time sampling of mobile animals: a dilemma for inferring areal dependence. Austral Ecology, 27, 405–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mac Nally, R. and McGoldrick, J. M. (1997). Landscape dynamics of bird communities in relation to mass flowering in some eucalypt forests of central Victoria, Australia. Journal of Avian Biology, 28, 171–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mac Nally, R. and Quinn, G. P. (1998). Symposium introduction: the general significance of ecological scale. Australian Journal of Ecology, 23, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milne, B. T. (1991). Lessons from applying fractal models to landscape patterns. In Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology, ed. Turner, M. G. and Gardner, R. H.. New York, NY: Springer, pp. 199–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, M. L. and Hall, L. S. (2001). Standard terminology: toward a common language to advance ecological understanding and application. In Predicting Species Occurrences: Issues of Accuracy and Scale, ed. Scott, J. M., Heglund, P. J., and Morrison, M. L.. Washington, DC: Island Press, pp. 43–53.Google Scholar
Navarro, L. (1999). Pollination ecology and effect of nectar removal in Macleania bullata (Ericaceae). Biotropica, 31, 618–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orrock, J. L., Pagels, J. F., McShea, W. J., and Harper, E. K. (2000). Predicting presence and abundance of a small mammal species: the effect of scale and resolution. Ecological Applications, 10, 1356–1366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, M. W. (1992). The coexistence of species in fractal landscapes. American Naturalist, 139, 375–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pascual, M. and Levin, S. A. (1999). From individuals to population densities: searching for the intermediate scale of nontrivial determinism. Ecology, 80, 2225–2236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paton, D. C. (1980). The importance of manna, honeydew and lerp in the diets of honeyeaters. Emu, 80, 213–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, R. H. (1983). The Ecological Implications of Body Size. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, R. H. (1991). A Critique for Ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Petersen, J. E. and Hastings, A. (2001). Dimensional approaches to scaling experimental ecosystems: designing mousetraps to catch elephants. American Naturalist, 157, 324–333.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petersen, J. E., Cornwell, J. C., and Kemp, W. M. (1999). Implicit scaling in the design of experimental aquatic ecosystems. Oikos, 85, 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petraitis, P. S., Dunham, A. E., and Niewiarowski, P. H. (1996). Inferring multiple causality : the limitations of path analysis. Functional Ecology, 10, 421–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, C., Johnson, L. B., and Host, G. E. (1996). Landscape-scale influences on stream habitats and biota. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 53, 295–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roughgarden, J. (1979). Theory of Population Genetics and Evolutionary Ecology: an Introduction. New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Schmitz, O. J. (2000). Combining field experiments and individual-based modeling to identify the dynamically relevant organizational scale in a field system. Oikos, 89, 471–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitz, O. J., Beckerman, A. P., and O'Brien, K. M. (1997). Behaviorally induced risk on food-web interactions. Ecology, 78, 1388–1399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, D. C. (1994). Quantitative Ecology: Spatial and Temporal Scaling. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schoener, T. W. (1983). Field experiments on interspecific competition. American Naturalist, 122, 240–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seastadt, T. R. and Knapp, A. K. (1993). Consequences of nonequilibrium resource availability across multiple time scales: the transient maxima hypothesis. American Naturalist, 141, 621–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smallwood, K. S. and Schonewald, C. (1996). Scaling population density and spatial pattern for terrestrial, mammalian carnivores. Oecologia, 105, 329–335.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, F. A., Brown, J. H., and Valone, T. J. (1997). Path analysis : a critical evaluation using long-term experimental data. American Naturalist, 149, 29–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thrush, S. F., Hewitt, J. E., Cummings, V. J., Green, M. O., Funnell, G. A., and Wilkinson, M. R. (2000). The generality of field experiments: interactions between local and broad-scale processes. Ecology, 81, 399–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, M. G. and Dale, V. H. (1991). Modeling landscape disturbance. In Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology, ed. Turner, M. G. and Gardner, R. H.. New York, NY: Springer, pp. 323–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Underwood, A. (1986). The analysis of competition by field experiments. In Community Ecology: Pattern and Process, ed. Kikkawa, J. and Anderson, D. J.. Melbourne: Blackwell, pp. 240–268.Google Scholar
Walde, S. J. and Davies, R. W. (1984). Invertebrate predation and lotic prey communities: evaluation of in situ enclosure/exclosure experiments. Ecology, 65, 1206–1213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whigham, D. F., Olmstead, I., Cano, E. C., and Harmon, M. E. (1991). The impact of hurricane Gilbert on trees, litterfall, and woody debris in a dry tropical forest in the northwestern Yucatan peninsula. Biotropica, 23, 434–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittaker, R. J., Willis, K. J., and Field, R. (2001). Scale and species richness: towards a general, hierarchical theory of species diversity. Journal of Biogeography, 28, 453–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiens, J. A. (1984). Resource systems, populations and communities. In A New Ecology: Novel Approaches to Interactive Systems, ed. Price, P. W., Slobodchikoff, C. N., and Gaud, W. S.. New York, NY: Wiley, pp. 397–436.Google Scholar
Wiens, J. A., Rotenberry, J. T., and Horne, B. (1987). Habitat occupancy patterns of North American shrubsteppe birds: the effects of spatial scale. Oikos, 48, 132–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, T. C. and Webb, T. (1996). Neotropical bird migration during the ice ages: orientation and ecology. Auk, 113, 105–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, J. and Bennett, A. F. (1999). Patchiness of a floral resource: flowering of red ironbark Eucalyptus tricarpa in a box and ironbark forest. Victorian Naturalist, 116, 48–53.Google Scholar
Wootton, J. T. (1994a). The nature and consequences of indirect effects in ecological communities. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 25, 443–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wootton, J. T. (1994b). Predicting direct and indirect effects: an integrated approach using experiments and path analysis. Ecology, 75, 151–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wootton, J. T. (1997). Estimates and tests of per capita interaction strength : diet, abundance, and impact of intertidally foraging birds. Ecological Monographs, 67, 45–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wootton, J. T. (2001). Local interactions predict large-scale pattern in empirically derived cellular automata. Nature, 413, 841–844.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ziv, Y. (2000). On the scaling of habitat specificity with body size. Ecology, 81, 2932–2938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×