Landscape Ecology

, Volume 20, Issue 6, pp 675–688 | Cite as

Taxon-dependent Scaling: Beetles, Birds, and Vegetation at Four North American Grassland Sites

  • Jonathan M. Bossenbroek
  • Helene H. Wagner
  • John A. Wiens
Research Article

Abstract

Because organisms respond to the environment at different scales, it is important to develop ways of determining the appropriate scales for a specific ecological process and organism. We consider whether the relative importance of different scales is associated with organism mobility, and whether this relationship is independent of landscape characteristics. We observed abundances of particular species for vascular plants, ground-dwelling beetles and breeding birds along eight 2-km transects of 40 sampling stations each, distributed over four sites along the regional gradient from shortgrass steppe in central Colorado to tallgrass prairie in central Kansas. For each transect and taxonomic group, the relative importance of factors measured at the trap scale (1 m; soil texture and hardness, vegetation height, bare ground), at the local scale (10 m; density of shrubs and cacti) and at the landscape scale (30 m; Landsat 7 TM spectral bands, slope and elevation) was assessed using hierarchical canonical variance partitioning with forward selection of explanatory variables. Plant, beetle and bird community composition was explained by environmental factors measured at all three scales. Factor influence was more consistent between transects and between plants and beetles for the more homogeneous landscapes of the shortgrass steppe than for the more heterogeneous landscapes of the tallgrass prairie. We conclude that, independent of the mobility of a taxonomic group, factors at several scales are important in explaining community composition. The importance of different scales shifts along a regional gradient, and the variability between sites is high even for nearby sites.

Keywords

Canonical correspondence analysis Colorado Hierarchical-variance partitioning Kansas Species–environment relationships Prairie 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Addicott, J.F., Aho, J.M., Antolin, M.F., Padilla, D.K., Richardson, J.S., Soluk, D.A. 1987Ecological neighborhoods – scaling environmental patternsOikos49340346Google Scholar
  2. Allen, T.F.H., Starr, T.B. 1982Hierarchy: Perspectives for Ecological ComplexityUniversity of Chicago PressChicagoIllinois, USAGoogle Scholar
  3. Borcard, D., Legendre, P., Drapeau, P. 1992Partialling out the spatial component of ecological variationEcology7310451055Google Scholar
  4. Brown, J.H. 1984On the relationship between abundance and distribution of speciesAm. Nat.124255279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, J.H., Lomolino, M.V. 1998BiogeographySinauerSunderlandMassachusetts, USAGoogle Scholar
  6. Buckland, S.T., Anderson, D.R., Burnham, K.P., Laake, J.L. 1993Distance Sampling: Estimating Abundance of Biological Populations, 1st ednChapman & HallNew York, USAGoogle Scholar
  7. Cottam, G., Curtis, J.T. 1956The use of distance measures in phytological samplingEcology37451460Google Scholar
  8. Cushman, S.A., McGarigal, K. 2002Hierarchical, multi-scale decomposition of species–environment relationshipsLandscape Ecol.17637646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dodd, M.B., Lauenroth, W.K., Burke, I.C., Chapman, P.L. 2002Associations between vegetation patterns and soil texture in the shortgrass steppePlant Ecol.158127137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dufrene, M., Legendre, P. 1997Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approachEcol. Monogr.67345366Google Scholar
  11. ESRI 2002. ArcGIS version 7.1. ESRI, Redlands, CaliforniaUSA.Google Scholar
  12. Hansen, A.J., Urban, D.L. 1992Avian response to landscape pattern – the role of species life historiesLandscape Ecol.7163180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kinraide, T.B. 1984The influence of soil texture on the vegetation of a grazedshort-grass prairie in ColoradoSouthwest. Nat.29277287Google Scholar
  14. Koivula, M., Kotze, D.J., Hiisivuori, L., Rita, H. 2003Pitfall trap efficiency: do trap sizecollecting fluid and vegetation structure matter?Entomol. Fennica14114Google Scholar
  15. Larsen, K.I., Work, T.T., Purrington, F.F. 2003Habitat use patterns by ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) of northeastern IowaPedobiologia47288299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Legendre, P., Legendre, L. 1998Numerical Ecology2ElsevierAmsterdamThe NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  17. McCulley, R.L., Burke, I.C. 2004Microbial community composition across the Great Plains: landscape versus regional variabilitySoil Sci. Soc. Am. J.68106115Google Scholar
  18. McCune, B. 1997Influence of noisy environmental data on canonical correspondence analysisEcology7826172623Google Scholar
  19. McIntyre, N.E. 1997Scale-dependent habitat selection by the darkling beetle Eleodes hispilabris (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae)Am. Midl. Nat.138230235Google Scholar
  20. Nature Conservancy, T. 2001. Conservation by Design. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VirginiaUSA.Google Scholar
  21. Ohmann, J.L., Spies, T.A. 1998Regional gradient analysis and spatial pattern of woody plant communities of Oregon forestsEcol. Monogr.68151182Google Scholar
  22. Palmer, M.W. 1993Putting things in even better order – the advantages of canonical correspondence-analysisEcology7422152230Google Scholar
  23. Panzer, R., Schwartz, M.W. 1998Effectiveness of a vegetation-based approach to insect conservationConserv. Biol.12693702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ricklefs, R.E. 1987Community diversity – relative roles of local and regional processesScience235167171Google Scholar
  25. Rykken, J.J., Capen, D.E., Mahabir, S.P. 1997Ground beetles as indicators of land type diversity in the Green Mountains of VermontConserv. Biol.11522530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schneider, D.C. 1994Quantitative Ecology: Spatial and Temporal ScalingAcademic PressSan DiegoCaliforniaUSAGoogle Scholar
  27. Stapp, P. 1997Microhabitat use and community structure of darkling beetles (Coleoptera:Tenebrionidae) in shortgrass prairie: effects of season, shrub cover and soil typeAm. Midl. Nat.137298311Google Scholar
  28. Stohlgren, T.J., Falkner, M.B., Schell, L.D. 1995A modified-Whittaker nested vegetation sampling methodVegetatio117113121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Terbraak, C.J.F. 1986Canonical correspondence-analysis – a new eigenvector technique for multivariate direct gradient analysisEcology6711671179Google Scholar
  30. U.S. Fish & Wildlife ServiceT. 1999. Conserving the Nature of America. Department of the InteriorWashington D.C., USA.Google Scholar
  31. USGS 1998. US Geological Survey DEM 7.5 Quadrangle. US Geological Survey, Reston, VAUSA.Google Scholar
  32. Weeks, R.D., McIntyre, N.E. 1997A comparison of live versus kill pitfall trapping techniques using various killing agentsEntomol. Exp. Appl.82267273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Whittaker, R.H. 1975Communities and Ecosystems2MacmillanNew York, USAGoogle Scholar
  34. Wiens, J.A. 1989Spatial scaling in ecologyFunct. Ecol.3385397Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan M. Bossenbroek
    • 1
    • 2
  • Helene H. Wagner
    • 1
    • 3
  • John A. Wiens
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Biology Department and Graduate Degree Program in EcologyColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA
  2. 2.107 Galvin Life Science, Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of Notre DameNotre DameUSA
  3. 3.Swiss Federal Research Institute WSLBirmensdorfSwitzerland
  4. 4.The Nature ConservancyArlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations