Environmental and Ecological Statistics

, Volume 1, Issue 4, pp 265–286 | Cite as

Diversity pattern and spatial scale: a study of a tropical rain forest of Malaysia

  • Fangliang He
  • Pierre Legendre
  • Claude Bellehumeur
  • James V. LaFrankie
Papers
Received:
Revised:

Abstract

Scale is emerging as one of the critical problems in ecology because our perception of most ecological variables and processes depends upon the scale at which the variables are measured. A conclusion obtained at one scale may not be valid at another scale without sufficient knowledge of the scaling effect, which is also a source of misinterpretation for many ecological problems, such as the design of reserves in conservation biology.

This paper attempts to study empirically how scaling may affect the spatial patterns of diversity (tree density, richness and Shannon diversity) that we may perceive in tropical forests, using as a test-case a 50 ha forest plot in Malaysia. The effect of scale on measurements of diversity patterns, the occurrence of rare species, the fractal dimension of diversity patterns, the spatial structure and the nearest-neighbour autocorrelation of diversity are addressed. The response of a variable to scale depends on the way it is measured and the way it is distributed in space.

We conclude that, in general, the effect of scaling on measures of biological diversity is non-linear; heterogeneity increases with the size of the sampling units, and fine-scale information is lost at a broad scale. Our results should lead to a better understanding of how ecological variables and processes change over scale.

Keywords

fractal dimension richness scale Shannon diversity spatial structure tree density variogram 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen, T.F.H. and Hoekstra, T.W. (1991) Role of heterogeneity in scaling of ecological systems under analysis. In Ecological Heterogeneity (J. Kolasa and S.T.A. Pickett, eds), pp. 47–68. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, T.F.H. and Starr, T.B. (1982) Hierarchy: Perspectives for Ecological Complexity. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  3. Antonovics, J. and Levin, D.A. (1980) The ecological and genetic consequences of density-dependent regulation in plants. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 11, 411–52.Google Scholar
  4. Bolviken, B., Stokke, P.R., Feder, J. and Jossang, T. (1992) The fractal nature of geochemical landscapes. Journal of Geochemical Exploration 43, 91–109.Google Scholar
  5. Borcard, D. and Legendre, P. (1994) Environmental control and spatial structure in ecological communities: an example using Oribatid mites (Acari, Oribatei). Environmental and Ecological Statistics 1, 37–53.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, B.J. and Allen, T.F.H. (1989) The importance of scale in evaluating herbivory impacts. Oikos 54, 189–94.Google Scholar
  7. Burrough, P.A. (1981) Fractal dimensions of landscapes and other environmental data. Nature 294, 240–2.Google Scholar
  8. Burrough, P.A. (1987) Spatial aspects of ecological data. In: Data Analysis in Community and Landscape Ecology (R.H.G. Jongman, C.J.F. ter Braak, and O.F.R. van Tongeren, eds), pp. 213–51. PUDOC, Wageningen.Google Scholar
  9. Carr, J.R. and Benzer, W.B. (1991) On the practice of estimating fractal dimension. Mathematical Geology 23, 945–58.Google Scholar
  10. Chesson, P.L. (1978) Predator-prey theory and variability. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 9, 323–47.Google Scholar
  11. Connell, J.H. (1978) Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs. Science 199, 1302–10.Google Scholar
  12. Culling, W.E.H. (1986) Highly erratic spatial variability of soil-pH on Iping common, West Sussex. CATENA 13, 81–98.Google Scholar
  13. Dale, M.R.T. and Blundon, D.J. (1990) Quadrat variance analysis and pattern development during primary succession. Journal of Vegetation Science 1, 153–64.Google Scholar
  14. Dayton, P.K. and Tegner, M.J. (1984) The importance of scale in community ecology: a kelp forest example with terrestrial analogs. In A New Ecology, Novel Approaches to Interactive Systems (P.W. Price, C.N. Slobodchikoff and W. S. Gaud, eds), pp. 457–81. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  15. den Boer, P.J. (1968) Spreading of the risk and the stabilization of animal numbers. Acta Biotheoretica 18, 165–94.Google Scholar
  16. den Boer, P.J. (1971) Stabilization of animal numbers and the heterogeneity of the environment: The problem of the persistence of sparse populations. In Dynamics of Populations P.J. den Boer and G.R. Gradwell, (eds), pp. 77–97. Proceedings of the Advanced Studies Institute, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  17. Dewdney, A.K. (1984) Sharks and fish wage an ecological war on the toroidal planet Wa-Tor. Scientific American 251, 14–22.Google Scholar
  18. Dutilleul, P. (1993) Spatial heterogeneity and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecology 74, 1646–58.Google Scholar
  19. Dutilleul, P. and Legendre, P. (1993) Spatial heterogeneity against heteroscedasticity: an ecological paradigm versus a statistical concept. Oikos 66, 152–71.Google Scholar
  20. Forman, R.T.T. and Godron, M. (1986) Landscape Ecology. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  21. Fortin, M.-J. and Legendre, P. (1989) Spatial autocorrelation and sampling design in plant ecology. Vegetatio 83, 209–22.Google Scholar
  22. Frontier, S. (1987) Applications of fractal theory to ecology. In Developments in Numerical Ecology. NATO ASI Series, Vol. G 14 (P. Legendre and L. Legendre, eds), pp. 335–78. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  23. Giller, P.S. and Gee, J.H.R. (1987) The analysis of community organization: the influence of equilibrium, scale and terminology. In Organization of Communities, Past and Present (J.H.R. Gee and P.S. Giller, eds), pp. 519–42. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.Google Scholar
  24. Gilpin, M.E. (1989) Spatial structure and population vulnerability. In Viable Populations for Conservation (M.E. Soulé, ed.), pp. 125-39. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Greig-Smith, P. (1952) The use of random and contiguous quadrats in the study of the structure of plant communities. Annals of Botany, New series 16, 293–316.Google Scholar
  26. Harris, L.D. (1984) The Fragmentated Forest: Island Biogeography Theory and the Preservation of Biotic Diversity. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  27. He, F., Legendre, P. and LaFrankie, J.V. Point pattern and intraspecific competition in a tropical rain forest of Malaysia. Submitted.Google Scholar
  28. Hubbell, S.P. (1979) Tree dispersion, abundance, and diversity in a tropical dry forest. Science 203, 1299–1309.Google Scholar
  29. Hubbell, S.P. (1984) Methodologies for the study of the origin and maintenance of tree diversity in tropical rainforest. In Biology International (G. Maury-Lechon, M. Hadley and T. Younes, eds) IUBS, Special Issue No. 6, pp. 8–13.Google Scholar
  30. Hubbell, S.P. and Foster, R.B. (1986) Commonness and rarity in a neotropical rain forest: implications for the tropical tree conservation. In Conservation Biology, the Science of Scarcity and Diversity M.E. Soulé, (ed.) pp. 205–31. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  31. Huffaker, C.B. (1958) Experimental studies on predation: dispersion factors and predator-prey oscillations. Hilgardia 27, 343–83.Google Scholar
  32. Isaaks, E. and Srivastava, R.M. (1989) An Introduction to Applied Geostatistics. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  33. Janzen, D.H. (1970) Herbivores and the number of tree species in tropical forests. American Naturalist 104, 501–28.Google Scholar
  34. Journel, A.G. and Huijbregts, C.J. (1978) Mining Geostatistics. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  35. Kareiva, P. (1982) Experimental and mathematical analyses of herbivore movement: quantifying the influence of plant spacing and quality on foraging discrimination. Ecological Monographs 52, 261–82.Google Scholar
  36. Knight, D.H. (1987) Parasites, lightning, and the vegetation mosaic in wilderness landscapes. In Landscape Heterogeneity and Disturbance (M.G. Turner, ed.), pp. 59–83. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  37. Kochummen, K.M., LaFrankie, J.V. and Manokaran, N. (1991) Floristic composition of Pasoh forest Reserve, a lowland rain forest in Peninsular Malaysia. Journal of Tropical Forest Science 3, 1–13.Google Scholar
  38. Kolasa, J. and Pickett, S.T.A. (eds) (1991) Ecological Heterogeneity, vol. 86. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  39. Krummel, J.P., Gardner, R.H., Sugihara, G., O'Neill, R.V. and Coleman, P.R. (1987) Landscape patterns in a disturbed environment. Oikos 48, 321–4.Google Scholar
  40. Legendre, P. (1993) Spatial autocorrelation: Trouble or new paradigm? Ecology 74, 1659–73.Google Scholar
  41. Legendre, P. and Borcard, D. (1994) Rejoinder. Environmental and Ecological Statistics 1, 57–61.Google Scholar
  42. Legendre, P. and Fortin, M.-J. (1989) Spatial pattern and ecological analysis. Vegetatio 80, 107–38.Google Scholar
  43. Levin, S.A. (1989) Challenges in the development of a theory of ecosystem structure and function. In Perspectives in Ecological Theory (J. Roughgarden, R.M. May and S.A. Levin, eds) pp. 242-55. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Mandelbrot, B.B. (1983) The Fractal Geometry of Nature. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  45. Margalef, R. (1958) Information theory in ecology. General Systems 3, 36–71.Google Scholar
  46. Meentemeyer, V. and Box, E.O. (1987) Scale effect in landscape studies. In Landscape Heterogeneity and Disturbance (M.G. Turner, ed.), pp. 15–34. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  47. Milne, B.T. (1991) Heterogeneity as a multiscale characteristic of landscapes. In Ecological Heterogeneity (J. Kolasa and S.T.A. Pickett, eds), pp. 69–84. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  48. Minnich, R.A. (1983) Fire mosaic in southern California and northern Baja California. Science 219, 1287–94.Google Scholar
  49. Moloney, K.A. (1988). Fine-scale spatial and temporal variation in the demography of a perennial bunchgrass. Ecology 69, 1588–98.Google Scholar
  50. Palmer, M.W. (1988) Fractal geometry: a tool for describing spatial patterns of plant communities. Vegetatio 75, 91–102.Google Scholar
  51. Phillips, J.D. (1985) Measuring complexity of environmental gradients. Vegetatio 64, 95–102.Google Scholar
  52. Prentice, I.C., Cramer, W., Harrison, S.P., Leemans, R., Monserud, R.A. and Solomon, A.M. (1992) A global biome model based on plant physiology and dominance, soil properties and climate. Journal of Biogeography 19, 117–34.Google Scholar
  53. Rossi, R.E., Mulla, D.J., Journel, A.G. and Franz, E.H. (1992) Geostatistical tools for modeling and interpreting ecological spatial dependence. Ecological Monographs 62, 277–314.Google Scholar
  54. Shaffer M.L. (1981) Minimum population sizes for species conservation. BioScience 31, 131–4.Google Scholar
  55. Shorrocks, B., Atkinson, W.D. and Charlesworth, P. (1979) Competition on a divided and ephemeral resource. Journal of Animal Ecology 48, 899–908.Google Scholar
  56. Southwood, T.R.E. (1962) Migration of terrestrial arthropods in relation to habitat. Biological Reviews 37, 171–214.Google Scholar
  57. Steele, J.H. (1991) Can ecological theory cross the land-sea boundary? Journal of Theoretical Biology 153, 425–36.Google Scholar
  58. Turner, M.G., O'Neill, R.V., Gardner, R.H. and Milne, B.T. (1989) Effects of changing spatial scale on the analysis of landscape pattern. Landscape Ecology 3, 153–62.Google Scholar
  59. Wiens, J.A. (1989) Spatial scaling in ecology. Functional Ecology 3, 385–97.Google Scholar
  60. Wiens, J.A. and Milne, B.T. (1989) Scaling of ‘landscapes’ in landscape ecology, or, landscape ecology from beetle's perspective. Landscape Ecology 3, 87–96.Google Scholar
  61. Wiens, J.A., Addicott, J.F., Case, T.J. and Diamond, J. (1986) Overview: The importance of spatial and temporal scale in ecological investigations. In Community Ecology (J. Diamond and T.J. Case, eds), pp. 145–53. Harper and Row, New York.Google Scholar
  62. Wyatt-Smith, J. (1987) Manual of Malayan silviculture for inland forest: red meranti-keruing forest. Research Pamphlet Number 101. Forest Research Institute Malaysia, Kepong, Malaysia.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chapman & Hall 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fangliang He
    • 1
  • Pierre Legendre
    • 1
  • Claude Bellehumeur
    • 1
  • James V. LaFrankie
    • 2
  1. 1.Département de sciences biologiquesUniversité de MontréalMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Smithsonian Tropical Research InstituteBalboaPanama

Personalised recommendations