Measuring and Predicting Species Presence: Coastal Sage Scrub Case Study

  • Ted J. Case
  • Robert N. Fisher


In ecological applications of large-scale spatial data to management decisions concerning land planning and conservation, errors and biases may creep into the analysis and decision making at several steps (see Chaps. 1, 2, and 3), including:
  1. Uncertainty in positions of spatial locations of relevant ecological and physiographic features of the landscape.

  2. Uncertainty of the type and attributes of land cover at a particular location.

  3. 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.

  4. Uncertainty about the relative importance of each spatial location to the overall success or persistence of a population or ecological process.

  5. 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).



Pitfall Trap Amphibian Species Reptile Species Coastal Sage Scrub Drift Fence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. Block, W.M., and M.L. Morrison. 1998. Habitat relationships of amphibians and reptiles in California oak woodlands. Journal of Herpetology 32:51–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boiger, D.T., A.C. Alberts, and M.E. Soulé. 1991. Occurrence patterns of bird species in habitat fragments: sampling, extinction, and nested species subsets. American Naturalist 137:155–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boiger, D.T., T.A, Scott, and J.T. Rotenberry. 1997. Breeding bird abundance in an urbanizing landscape in coastal southern California. Conservation Biology 11: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bolger, D.T., A.V. Suarez, K. Crooks, S. Morrison, and T.J. Case. 2000. Arthropod diversity in coastal sage scrub fragments: contrasting effects of area, edge, and nonnative species. Ecological Applications 10:1230–1248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Campbell, H.W. 1953. Observations on snakes DOR in New Mexico. Herpetologica 9:157–160.Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Dobson, A.P., J.P. Rodriguez, W.M. Roberts, and D.S. Wilcove. 1997. Geographic distribution of endangered species in the United States. Science 275:550–553.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Drost, CA., and G.M. Fellers. 1996. Collapse of a regional frog fauna in the Yosemite area of the California Sierra Nevada, USA. Conservation Biology 10:414–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fahrig, L., J.H. Pedlar, S.E. Pope, P.D. Taylor, and J.F. Wegner. 1995. Effect of road traffic on amphibian density. Biological Conservation 73:177–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fisher, R.N., and H.B. Shaffer. 1996. The decline of amphibians in California’s great Central Valley. Conservation Biology 10:1387–1397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. Fitch, H.S. 1949. Study of snake populations in central California. American Midland Naturalist 41:513–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fuentes, E.R. 1976. Ecological convergence of lizard communities in Chile and California. Ecology 57:3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gap Analysis Program. 1997. A handbook for Gap analysis. USGS/BRD Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, ID. Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Glaser, H.S.R. 1970. The distribution of amphibians and reptiles in Riverside County, California Riverside Museum Press, Riverside.Google Scholar
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. Jasney, M. 1997. Leap of faith, Southern California’s experiment in natural community conservation planning. Natural Resource Defense Council, New York.Google Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Kareiva, P.L., et al. 1999. Using science in habitat conservation plans. Report from NCEAS and AIBS.
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. Lande, R. 1987. Extinction thresholds in demographic models of territorial populations. American Naturalist 130:624–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Luiselli, L., and D. Capizzi. 1997. Influences of area, isolation and habitat features on distribution of snakes in Mediterranean fragmented woodlands. Biodiversity Conservation 6:1339–1351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Macartney, J.M., P.T. Gregory, and K.W. Larsen. 1988. A tabular survey of data on movements and home ranges of snakes. Journal of Herpetology 22:61–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. 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
  40. Pulliam, H.R., and B. Babbitt. 1997. Science and the protection of endangered species. Science 275:499–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Robinson, S.K., F.R. Thompson III, T.M. Donovan, D.R. Whitehead, J. Faaborg. 1995. Regional forest fragmentation and the nesting success of migratory birds. Science 267:1987–1990.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rosen, P.C., and C.H. Lowe. 1994. Highway mortality of snakes in the Sonoran Desert of southern Arizona. Biological Conservation 68:143–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Savage, J.M. 1960. Evolution of a peninsular herpetofauna. Systematic Zoology 9:184–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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
  45. Soulé, M.E, D.T. Bolger, A.C. Alberts, J. Wright, M. Sourice, and S. Hill. 1988. Reconstructed dynamics of rapid extinctions of chaparral-requiring birds in urban habitat islands. Conservation Biology 2:75–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stacy, P.B., and M. Taper. 1991. Environmental variation and the persistence of small populations. Ecological Applications 2:38–42.Google Scholar
  47. Stebbins, R.C. 1985. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians, second ed. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.Google Scholar
  48. 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
  49. Suarez, A.V., D.T. Bolger, and T.J. Case. 1998. The effects of fragmentation and invasion on the native ant community in coastal Southern California. Ecology 79:2041–2056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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
  51. Westman, W.E. 1981. Factors influencing the distribution of species of Californian coastal sage scrub. Ecology 62:439–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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
  53. Wilson, D.E., et al. 1996. Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: standard methods for mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  54. Wright, D.H., B.D. Patterson, G.M. Mikkelson, A. Cutler, and W. Atmar. 1998. A comparative analysis of nested subset patterns of species composition. Oecologia 113:1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ted J. Case
  • Robert N. Fisher

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations