Preface to the Princeton Landmarks in Biology Edition vii Preface xi Symbols Used xiii 1. The Importance of Islands 3 2. Area and Number of Speicies 8 3. Further Explanations of the Area-Diversity Pattern 19 4. The Strategy of Colonization 68 5. Invasibility and the Variable Niche 94 6. Stepping Stones and Biotic Exchange 123 7. Evolutionary Changes Following Colonization 145 8. Prospect 181 Glossary 185 References 193 Index 201

The Theory of Island Biogeography

Statistical method for testing the neutral mutation hypothesis by DNA polymorphism.

■ Abstract The literature on effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity is huge. It is also very diverse, with different authors measuring fragmentation in different ways and, as a consequence, drawing different conclusions regarding both the magnitude and direction of its effects. Habitat fragmentation is usually defined as a landscape-scale process involving both habitat loss and the breaking apart of habitat. Results of empirical studies of habitat fragmentation are often difficult to interpret because (a) many researchers measure fragmentation at the patch scale, not the landscape scale and (b) most researchers measure fragmentation in ways that do not distinguish between habitat loss and habitat fragmentation per se, i.e., the breaking apart of habitat after controlling for habitat loss. Empirical studies to date suggest that habitat loss has large, consistently negative effects on biodiversity. Habitat fragmentation per se has much weaker effects on biodiversity that are at least as likely to be positive as negative. Therefore, to correctly interpret the influence of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity, the effects of these two components of fragmentation must be measured independently. More studies of the independent effects of habitat loss and fragmentation per se are needed to determine the factors that lead to positive versus negative effects of fragmentation per se. I suggest that the term “fragmentation” should be reserved for the breaking apart of habitat, independent of habitat loss.

/pdf/effects-of-habitat-fragmentation-on-biodiversity-4qxfu95ock.pdf

Effects of Habitat Fragmentation on Biodiversity

http://www.rexano.org/Federal_Canada/EconomicCosts_invasives2004.pdf

Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States

I. CONTEXT * The Ecosystem Concept * Earth's Climate System * Geology and Soils * II. MECHANISMS * Terrestrial Water and Energy Balance * Carbon Input to Terrestrial Ecosystems * Terrestrial Production Processes * Terrestrial Decomposition * Terrestrial Plant Nutrient Use * Terrestrial Nutrient Cycling * Aquatic Carbon and Nutrient Cycling * Trophic Dynamics * Community Effects on Ecosystem Processes * III. PATTERNS * Temporal Dynamics * Landscape Heterogeneity and Ecosystem Dynamics * IV. INTEGRATION * Global Biogeochemical Cycles * Managing and Sustaining Ecosystem * Abbreviations * Glossary * References

Principles of Terrestrial Ecosystem Ecology

Regional differences in species number have puzzled naturalists ince the early 1800's, and explanations account for a large part of modern ecological research. Two venerable observations form the cornerstone of our knowledge on the subject: The number of species within a taxonomic group tends to increase with decreasing latitude (see Fischer 1960; Pianka 1966); and the number of species within a taxonomic group tends to increase with increasing area (see Preston 1960, 1962; Williams 1964; MacArthur and Wilson 1967; Simberloff 1972). Despite early research on the latter trend (the species-area relationship), ecologists have studied it intensely only in the last 50 yr. The relationship was originally envisioned as an empirical tool and used in three principle ways: (1) to determine optimal sample size and sample number, (2) to determine the minimum area of a \"community,\" and (3) to predict the number of species in areas larger than those sampled. All three uses are discussed by Kilburn (1966). More recently interest in the species-area relationship has focused on mechanistic explanations, its precise mathematical descriptions, and interpretations of parameters derived from these mathematical descriptions. Williams (1964) and Preston (1960, 1962) have proposed that the exponential and power function models (\"exponential model\" throughout his paper also refers to the species/log area transformation, and \"power function\" also refers to the log species/log area transformation) of the species-area relationship result from the way in which individuals are distributed among species. Williams' (1964) exponential model, which emphasizes habitat heterogeneity, was considered important by many plant ecologists but is now largely ignored. Preston's (1960, 1962) power function model was based on the assumption of a dynamic equilibrium of species exchanges between islands in an archipelago. This assumption led to the equation of the power function model with the idea of a dynamic equilibrium as expounded by MacArthur and Wilson (1963, 1967), such that an adequate fit of this model to observed species numbers has been viewed as support of the equilibrium hypothesis (Grant 1970; Diamond 1973; Simpson 1974). The interplay of the equilibrium hypothesis and the power function model of the species-area relationship has led to interpretation of the slope and intercept of the power function model exclusively in the context of the equilibrium hypothesis. In particular, specific values of the slope of the power function are often construed to * Order of authorship determined by the toss of a coin. t Present address: Department of Biology, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida 33620. Am. Nat. 1979. Vol. 113, pp. 791-833. c) 1979 by The University of Chicago. 0003-0147/79/1306-0002$03.26

/pdf/the-statistics-and-biology-of-the-species-area-relationship-442cynzyis.pdf

The statistics and biology of the species-area relationship

Part 1 Patterns: habitat structures - the evolution and diversification of a complex topic, E.D.McCoy and S.S.Bell development of habitat structure through succession in an Amazonian floodplain forest, J.Terborgh and K.Petren alternative models and tests of the interaction between habitat structure and species-area relationships, D.D.Hart and R.J.Horwitz measuring habitat structure with fractal geometry, M.Williamson and J.Lawton the effect of habitat structure on the spatial distribution of freshwater invertebrates, J.A.Downing Part 2 Responses - colonization, succession, resource use: habitat structure and morphological patterns in arboreal vertebrates, J.A.Pounds microtopography as habitat structure for mosses on rocks, P.Alpert the effects of changes in habitat structure during succession in terrestrial communities, V.K.Brown influence of patch size, vegetation texture, and host plant architecture on the diversity, abundance and life history styles of sap-feeding herbivores, R.F.Denno and G.K.Roderick habitat structure and recruitment in coral reef fishes, P.F.Sale habitat structure and community dynamics in marine benthic systems, K.P.Sebens. Part 3 Responses - predation, parasitism, disturbance: the effects of fire periodicity on habitat structure, H.R.Mushinsky and D.J.Gibson a new look at habitat structure - consequences of herbivore-modified plant architecture, S.Mopper et al habitat structure and predator-prey interactions in vegetated aquatic systems, K.L.Heck and L.B.Crowder the influence of habitat structure on the transmission of parasites, W.P.Sousa and E.D.Grosholz habitat structure and spider foraging, G.W.Uetz the influence of habitat structure and stability on the species diversity of polychaetes in vermetid reefs, U.N.Safriel and M.N.Ben-Eliahu Part 4 Applications: habitat structure and the design of nature reserves, M.B. Usher habitat structure, biogeography, and greenspace planning, E.L.Goldstein-Golding habitat structure and the design of artificial reefs, J.A.Bohnsack habitat structure - systhesis and perspectives.

Habitat structure: the physical arrangement of objects in space.

Habitat structure, by definition, is a component of every ecological study. This book deals with a particular type of structure, that provided by the arrangement of objects in space. Even restricted in this way, habitat structure conjures up a multitude of images in the minds of ecologists, from concrete topographic features to near-abstractions like ‘patches’, ‘mosaics’, and ‘gradients’. The variety of types of physical habitat structure has, in turn, spawned a wealth of narrowly defined terms meant to convey subtle aspects of the relationship between organism and structure. While these terms may do exactly what was intended of them, we suggest that the gain in precision is offset by a loss in generality. The various subdisciplines of ecology adopt terminologies, and experimental techniques related to them, largely for the cognoscente. ‘Profile of vegetational density’ and ‘canopy surface structure’, for instance, may end up having explicit meaning for a particular ecologist, whereas ‘substrate heterogeneity’ and ‘enemy free space’ may not. Yet, all reside under the broad umbrella of habitat structure.

Habitat Structure: The Evolution and Diversification of a Complex Topic

In this volume, the authors discuss what practical contributions ecology can and can't make in applied science and environmental problem solving. In the first section, they discuss conceptual problems that have often prevented the formulation and evaluation of powerful, precise, general theories, explain why island biogeography is still beset with controversy and examine the ways in which science is value laden. In the second section, they describe how ecology can give us specific answers to practical environmental questions posed in individual case studies, and argue for a new way to look at scientific error. A case study using the Florida panther is examined in the light of these findings. They end by suggesting a bright future for the important, but relatively undeveloped task of applying ecology to practical environmental problem solving.

Method in ecology : strategies for conservation

The distribution of insects along elevational gradients is controversial Recent longterm sampling studies have concluded that mid-elevational peaks in species richness identified previously may have come from the short-term sampling regimes employed, and from disturbance at lower elevations Long-term sampling seems likely to reveal peaks at lower elevations Analysis of 20 studies taken from the literature add the possibility that the latitude at which a study is undertaken influences the elevation of peak species richness A study of 12 open sites in the southeastern US, ranging in elevation from 100 m to 1700 m, reveals that both principal reasons advanced previously for mid-elevational peaks may be valid, if short-term sampling is employed Taken together, all of the evidence indicates that a complex interplay of local ecological interactions, latitude, disturbance, and sampling regime determines the elevation of maximum insect species richness The temporal and spatial scale employed strongly influences the evaluation of this ecological "pattern"

Earl D. McCoy

Papers

The statistics and biology of the species-area relationship

Habitat structure: the physical arrangement of objects in space.

Habitat Structure: The Evolution and Diversification of a Complex Topic

Method in ecology : strategies for conservation

The distribution of insects along elevational gradients