USING LANDSCAPE‐LEVEL DATA TO PREDICT THE DISTRIBUTION OF BIRDS ON A MANAGED FOREST: EFFECTS OF SCALE

By M. S. Mitchell, R. Lancia, J. Gerwin. 2001

187 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecological Modeling, Ecology, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/198d74f221b4dc8f3c135b2ae5d442af27c6412a

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecological Modeling

In Ecology

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Effects of Experimental Forest Management on Density and Nesting Success of Bird Species in Missouri Ozark Forests (2003, background): “…frequently conducted at limited spatial and temporal scales irrelevant to the maintenance of bird populations or communities (Marzluff et al. 2000; Mitchell et al. 2001), and many studies lack rigorous experimental designs with adequate replication and randomization (Hurlbert 1984; Raphael &…”
Species distribution modelling for the people: unclassified landsat TM imagery predicts bird occurrence at fine resolutions (2013, background): “Habitat data at a sufficiently fine resolution for most organisms under study (Mladenoff et al., 1999; Bowman et al., 2001; Mitchell et al., 2001; Betts et al., 2006) are rarely available at broad scales.”
AGRICULTURAL PONDS SUPPORT AMPHIBIAN POPULATIONS (2004, methodology): “We evaluated our final models for each species with 2001 data using Somer’s D, percentage concordant, and statistics as criteria for each model’s2Rmax predictive ability (Somers 1980, Guisan and Harrell 2000, Mitchell et al. 2001).”
Effects of forest composition and structure on bird species richness in a Mediterranean context: Implications for forest ecosystem management (2007, background): “This result is in accordance with Mitchell et al. (2001) , who found that generalists were less sensitive to forest characteristics in two managed coniferous forests in South Carolina (USA), whereas specialists appeared to respond to them strongly.”
Reef fish and habitat relationships in a Caribbean seascape: the importance of reef context (2007, background): “Mobility, which is important for animals in terrestrial landscapes (Sisk et al. 1997; Mitchell et al. 2001; Turner et al. 2001), also inXuenced how Wshes relate to the coral reef landscape.”
The effects of species’ range sizes on the accuracy of distribution models: ecological phenomenon or statistical artefact? (2004, background): “Mobility, niche width and feeding habits may all influence how accurately models identify habitat associations ( Mitchell, Lancia & Gerwin 2001; Pearce, Ferrier & Scotts 2001; Kadmon, Farber & Danin 2003).”
Effects of habitat fragmentation on avian nesting success: a review of the evidence at multiple spatial scales (2004, background): “, 1-, 10-, 100-km) will likely vary for different groups of nest predators and has not been explicitly examined (Mitchell et al., 2001); (2) some studies of nesting success conducted at the landscape scale failed to detect effects of fragmentation; and (3) many landscape settings, biogeographic regi”
Effects of species’ ecology on the accuracy of distribution models (2007, background): “. migrants may perceive the landscape at coarser scales, facilitating distribution models based on coarse-grained predictors (Mitchell et al. 2001 ). migration behaviour (categorical) Swaziland, Uganda, and Zimbabwe), distribution records were also geo-referenced to a grid of quarterdegree squares…”
Accuracy of resource selection functions across spatial scales (2006, methodology): “Stepwise approaches were the most commonly used methods to select the final model from a set of candidate models (e.g. Matsuoka et al ., 1997; Mitchell et al ., 2001), although quite a few used informationtheoretical criteria (e.g. Gibson et al ., 2004; Suorsa et al ., 2005).”
Determining the Spatial Scale of Species' Response to Habitat (2004, methodology): “We use the word characteristic to imply that this scale may be an emergent property of a species, determined by the unique relationship between the species and its habitat (Mitchell et al. 2001).”
Assessing the effect of prevalence on the predictive performance of species distribution models using simulated data (2011, background): “, 2002), dispersal mode (Mitchell et al., 2001), habitat tolerance (Hepinstall et al.”
Body size affects the spatial scale of habitat–beetle interactions (2005, methodology): “We use the term ‘characteristic scale’ because this scale of response may be an inherent trait of different species ( Mitchell et al. 2001 ).”
Local forest structure, climate and human disturbance determine regional distribution of boreal bird species richness in Alberta, Canada (2013, result): “These findings appear in contrast to several other studies which find strong effects of stand biomass on species richness of birds (Mitchell et al., 2001; Honkanen et al., 2010; Elo et al., 2012), but are not inconsistent when analysed on the basis of guilds.”