Data on Distribution and Abundance: Monitoring for Research and Management

  • Samuel A. Cushman
  • Kevin S. McKelvey


In the first chapter of this book we identified the interdependence of method, data and theory as an important influence on the progress of science. The first several chapters focused mostly on progress in theory, in the areas of integrating spatial and temporal complexity into ecological analysis, the emergence of landscape ecology and its transformation into a multi-scale gradient-based science. These chapters weaved in some discussion about the interrelationships between method and these theoretical approaches. In particular, we discussed how powerful computing, large spatial databases and GIS cross-fertilized ecological theory by enabling new kinds of analyses and new scopes of investigation. However, up to this point we have given relatively little attention to the third leg of this triad, data. This and following chapters focus explicitly on data. The next several chapters discuss the advances in broad-scale data collection and analysis enabled by remote sensing, molecular genomics and satellite GPS telemetry, and how these data have made fundamental contributions to virtually all branches of ecology, especially spatial ecology, landscape ecology, and global scale research.


Adaptive Management Community Type Data Cube Gradient Modeling Conservat Biol 
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. Andelman SJ, Fagan WF (2000) Umbrellas and flagships: efficient conservation surrogates or expensive mistakes? Proc Natl Acad Sci 97:5954–5959CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Balkenhol N, Gugerli F, Cushman S, Waits L, Coulon A, Arntzen J, Holderegger R, Wagner H (2007) Identifying future research needs in landscape genetics: where to from here? Landscape Ecology 24:455–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Block WM, Brennan LA, Gutierrez, RJ (1987) Evaluation of guild-indicator species for use in resource management. Environ Manag 11:265–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cushman SA, McGarigal K (2002) Hierarchical, multi-scale decomposition of species-environment relationships. Landsc Ecol 17:637–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cushman SA, McGarigal K (2004) Hierarchical analysis of forest bird species-environment relationships in the Oregon Coast Range. Ecological Applications. 14(4):1090–1105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cushman SA, Evans J, McGarigal K (in press) Do classified vegetation maps predict the composition of plant communities? The need for Gleasonian landscape ecology. Landsc EcolGoogle Scholar
  7. Cushman SA, O'Daugerty E, Ruggiero L (2003) Lanscape-level patterns of avian diversity in the Oregon Coast Range. Ecol Monogr 73:259–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cushman SA, O'Daugerty E, Ruggiero L (2004) Hierarchial analysis of forest bird species-environment relationships in the Oregon Coast Range. Ecol Appl 14:1090–1105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cushman SA, McKelvey KS, Hayden J, Schwartz MK (2006) Gene-flow in complex landscapes: testing multiple hypotheses with causal modeling. Am Nat 168:486–499CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Cushman SA, McKenzie D, Peterson DL, Littell J, McKelvey KS (2007) Research agenda for integrated landscape modelling. USDA For Serv Gen Tech Rep RMRS-GTR-194Google Scholar
  11. Cushman SA, O'Daugerty E, Ruggiero L, McKelvey KS, Flather CH, McGarigal K (2008) Do forest community types provide a sufficient basis to evaluate biological diversity? Frontiers in ecology and the environment. 6:13–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cushman SA, O'Daugerty E, Ruggiero L (submitted) Sensitivity of habitat and species surroga-cies to landscape disturbance. EcologyGoogle Scholar
  13. Gause GF (1934) The struggle for existence. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, MDGoogle Scholar
  14. Hansen AJ, Urban DL (1992) Avian response to landscape pattern: the role of species' life histories. Landsc Ecol 7:163–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Holderegger R, Wagner HH (2008) Landscape genetics. Bioscience 58:199–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hutchinson GE (1957) Concluding remarks. Cold Spring Harbor Symp Quant Biol 22:414–427Google Scholar
  17. Lambeck RJ (1997) Focal species: a multi-species umbrella for nature conservation. Conservat Biol 11:849–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Landres PB, Verner J, Thomas JW (1988) Critique of vertebrate indicator species. Conservat Biol 2:316–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lindenmayer DB, Manning AD, Smith PL, Possingham HP, Fischer J, Oliver I, McCarthy MA (2002) The focal-species approach and landscape restoration: a critique. Conservat Biol 16:338–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. MacArthur RH (1967) Limiting similarity, convergence and divergence of coexisting species. Am Nat 101:338–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McGarigal K, Cushman SA (2005) The gradient concept of landscape structure. In: Wiens JA, Moss MR (eds) Issues and perspectives in landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. McGarigal K, Tagil S, Cushman SA (in press) Surface metrics: an alternative to patch metrics for the quantification of landscape structure. Landsc EcolGoogle Scholar
  23. Millspaugh JJ, Thompson III FR, editors (2009) Models for Planning Wildlife Conservation in Large Landscapes. Elsevier Science, San Diego, California, USA. 674 pages.Google Scholar
  24. Noon BR, McKelvey KS, Dickson, BG (2008) Multispecies conservation planning on U S federal lands. In: Millspaugh JJ, Thompson FR (eds) Models for planning wildlife conservation in large landscapes.Google Scholar
  25. Ohmann JL, Gregory MJ (2002) Predictive mapping of forest composition and structure with direct gradient analysis and nearest neighbor imputation in coastal Oregon, USA. Can J Forest Res 32:725–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pulliam HR (2000) On the relationship between niche and distribution. Ecol Lett 3:349–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Roberge J-M, Angelstam P (2004) Usefulness of the umbrella species concept as a conservation tool. Conservat Biol 18:76–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schwartz MK, Luikart G, Waples RS, et al (2007) Genetic monitoring as a promising tool for conservation and management. Trends Ecol Evol 22:25–33CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Sherry TW (1979) Competitive interactions and adaptive strategies of American redstarts and least flycatchers in a northern hardwood forest. Auk 96:265–283Google Scholar
  30. Verner J (1984). The guild concept applied to management of bird populations. Environ Manag 8:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wiens JA., Hayward GD, Holthausen RS, Wisdom MJ (2008) Using surrogate species and groups for conservation planning and management. Bioscience 58:241–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2010

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations