Body size affects the spatial scale of habitat–beetle interactions

118 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Fish movement and habitat use depends on water body size and shape (2009, background): “It is possible that there are interactions between water body size (habitat availability) and body size as this has been seen in other ecosystems (Englund and Krupa 2000; Holland et al. 2005) and spatial scaling approaches predict this relationship could be positive (Tyler & Brandt 2001).”
A species-centered approach for uncovering generalities in organism responses to habitat loss and fragmentation (2014, unknown): “However, the variations across taxa would be useful for generating hypotheses and testing the degree to which various life-history and ecological traits inﬂ uence sensitivity to landscape structure (Vance et al. 2003, Holland et al. 2005).”
Rethinking patch size and isolation effects: the habitat amount hypothesis (2013, background): “We know that landscape structure affects different species most strongly at different spatial scales, the ‘scale of effect’ (e.g. Holland et al., 2005; Eigenbrod et al., 2008; Martin & Fahrig, 2012), and that if landscape structure is measured at an inappropriate scale, relationships may go…”
How much and at what scale? Multiscale analyses as decision support for conservation of saproxylic oak beetles (2012, methodology): “, 2002), niche breadth (Gehring and Swihart, 2003), behaviour (Van Dyck and Baguette, 2005), body size (Holland et al., 2005) and habitat stability (Southwood, 1977).”