Measuring and Predicting Species Presence: Coastal Sage Scrub Case Study
Uncertainty in positions of spatial locations of relevant ecological and physiographic features of the landscape.
Uncertainty of the type and attributes of land cover at a particular location.
Uncertainty in how different land covers at a position in space and the geometric arrangement of land covers nearby might influence an animal species occurrence or distribution, or the magnitude of some ecological process.
Uncertainty about the relative importance of each spatial location to the overall success or persistence of a population or ecological process.
Uncertainty about how to weight each species or ecological process in determining the overall biodiversity and functioning of ecosystems, local and national resource priorities, and consistency with legislative mandates. We would like to be able to quantify the errors at each step, identify biases, and pass these along to the next analysis step so that our degree of uncertainty regarding potential outcomes is evident at each level (e.g., Stoms et al. 1992).
KeywordsPitfall Trap Amphibian Species Reptile Species Coastal Sage Scrub Drift Fence
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Andersen, A.N. 1990. The use of ant communities to evaluate change in Australian terrestrial ecosystems: a review and a recipe. Proceedings of the Ecological Society of Australia 16:347–357.Google Scholar
- Axelrod, D.I. 1989. Age and origin of chaparral. Pages 7–19 in S.C. Keeley, ed. The California chaparral: paradigms reexamined. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
- Brattstrom, B.H. 1992. Status survey of the Orange-throated whiptail Cnemidophorus hyperythrus beldingi. (Contract FG 8597.) Unpublished final report to California Department of Fish and Game.Google Scholar
- Campbell, H.W. 1953. Observations on snakes DOR in New Mexico. Herpetologica 9:157–160.Google Scholar
- Campbell, H.W., and S.P. Christman. 1982. Field techniques for herpetofaunal community analysis. Pages 193–200 in N. Scott, ed. Herpetological Communities, USFWS, Wildlife Research Report 13.Google Scholar
- Corn, P.S., and R.B. Bury. 1990. Sampling methods for terrestrial amphibians and reptiles (PNW-GTR-256.) U.S. Department of Agriculture, Portland, OR.Google Scholar
- Crooks, K. 2000. Mammalian carnivores as target species for conservation in Southern California. Pages 137–143 in J.E. Keeley, M. Baer-Keeley, and C.J. Fotheringham, eds. Second Conference on the interface between ecology and land development in California. U.S. Geological Survey, Sacramento.Google Scholar
- Fisher, R.N., and T.J. Case. 1997. A field guide to the reptiles and amphibians of coastal Southern California. Science Center, USGS, Sacramento.Google Scholar
- Fisher, R.N., and T J. Case. 2000. Distribution of the herpetofauna of coastal Southern California with reference to elevation effects. Pages 137–143 in J.E. Keeley, M. Baer-Keeley, and C.J. Fotheringham, eds. Second Conference on the interface between ecology and land development in California. U.S. Geological Survey, Sacramento.Google Scholar
- Gibbons, J.W., and R.D. Semlitsch. 1981. Terrestrial drift fences with pitfall traps: an effective technique for quantitative sampling of animal populations. Brimleyana 7:1–16.Google Scholar
- Glaser, H.S.R. 1970. The distribution of amphibians and reptiles in Riverside County, California Riverside Museum Press, Riverside.Google Scholar
- Hitchings, S.P., and T.J.C. Beebee. 1998. Loss of genetic diversity and fitness in common toad (Bufo bufo) populations isolated by inimical habitat. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 11:269–283.Google Scholar
- Hollander, A.D., F.W. Davis, and D.M. Stoms. 1994. Hierarchical representations of species distributions using maps, images, and sighting data. Chapter 5 in R.I. Miller, ed. Mapping the diversity of nature, Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
- Hood, L.C., M. Senatore, W.J. Snappe, and D.A. Hosack. 1998. Frayed safety nets: conservation planning under the endangered species act. Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
- Jasney, M. 1997. Leap of faith, Southern California’s experiment in natural community conservation planning. Natural Resource Defense Council, New York.Google Scholar
- Jennings, M.R., and M.P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division.Google Scholar
- Kareiva, P.L., et al. 1999. Using science in habitat conservation plans. Report from NCEAS and AIBS. http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu.
- Keeley, J.E., and C.C. Swift. 1995. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in Mediterranean-climate California. Pages 121–183 in G.W. Davis, and D.M. Richardson, eds. Mediterranean-type ecosystems: the function of biodiversity. Ecological Studies. Vol 109, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Klauber, L.M. 1939. Studies of reptile life in the arid southwest. Bulletin of the Zoological Society of San Diego 14:4–100.Google Scholar
- Klauber, L.M. 1946. The glossy snake, Arizona, with descriptions of new subspecies. Transactions of the San Diego Society of Natural History 17:311–398.Google Scholar
- Minnich, R.A. 1989. Chaparral fire history in San Diego County and adjacent northern Baja California: an evaluation of natural fire regimes and the effects of suppression management. Pages 37–48 in S.C. Keeley, eds. The California chaparral: paradigms reexamined. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
- Morafka, D.J., and B.H. Banta. 1976. Ecological relationships of the recent herpetofauna of Pinnacles National Monument, Monterey and San Benito Counties, California. Wasmann Journal of Biology 34:304–324.Google Scholar
- Noss, R.F., M.A. O’Connell, and D.D. Murphy. 1997. The science of conservation planning: Habitat conservation under the endangered species act. Island Press, Covelo, CA.Google Scholar
- Peabody, F.E., and J.M. Savage. 1958. Evolution of a coast range corridor in California and its effects on the origin and dispersion of living amphibians and reptiles. American Association Advancement Science, Publication 51:159–186.Google Scholar
- Pianka, E.R., 1986. Ecology and natural history of desert lizards: analyses of the ecological niche and community structure. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
- Scott, J.M., F. Davis, B. Csuti, R. Noss, B. Butterfield, et al. 1993. Gap analysis: a geographic approach to protection of biological diversity. Wildlife Monographs 123:1–41.Google Scholar
- Stacy, P.B., and M. Taper. 1991. Environmental variation and the persistence of small populations. Ecological Applications 2:38–42.Google Scholar
- Stebbins, R.C. 1985. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians, second ed. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.Google Scholar
- Stoms, D.M., F.W. Davis, and C.B. Cogan. 1992. Sensitivity of wildlife habitat models to uncertainties in GIS data. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 58:843–850.Google Scholar
- Vogt, R.C., and R.L. Hine. 1982. Evaluation of techniques for assessment of amphibian and reptile populations in Wisconsin. Pages 201–218 in N. Scott, ed. Herpetological communities, USFWS, Wildlife Research Report 13.Google Scholar
- Wilcove, D.S., C.H. McLellan, and A.P. Dobson. 1986. Habitat fragmentation in the temperate zone. Pages 237–256 in M.E. Soulé, ed. Conservation biology: the science of scarcity and diversity, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.Google Scholar
- Wilson, D.E., et al. 1996. Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: standard methods for mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar