Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T18:50:02.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Regional Technique to Address Land-use Changes and Animal Habitats

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

Jeffrey M. Klopatek  and
J. Thomas Kitchings
Jeffrey M. Klopatek
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor of Botany, Department of Botany and Microbiology, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287, USA
J. Thomas Kitchings
Affiliation:
Environmental and Occupational Safety Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Many of the federal agencies of the United States (e.g. US Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management) are involved in making decisions that alter land-use on a massive scale. Subsequently, these land-use changes may have deleterious or beneficial effects on wildlife habitat and its ability to support wildlife species, both plant and animal. There exists an urgent need to develop methodologies that are capable of predicting the consequences, for wildlife species, of regional land-use changes. This study develops one such methodology to predict the distribution and abundance of animal species at a regional level.

Type
Main Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , Winter 1985 , pp. 343 - 350
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, S.H. & Shugart, H.H. (1974). Habitat selection of breeding birds in an east Tennessee deciduous forest. Ecology, 55, pp. 828–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, R.G. (1976). Ecoregions of the United States. USDA Forest Service, Ogden, Utah, USA: Map and discussion, 2 pp.Google Scholar
Bailey, R.G. (1978). Description of Ecoregions of the United States. USDA Forest Service, Ogden, Utah, USA: 78 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Conner, R.N. & Adkisson, C.S. (1976). Discriminant function analysis: A possible aid in determining the impact of forest management on woodpecker nesting habitat. Forest Science, 22, pp. 122–7.Google Scholar
Dueser, R.D. & Shugart, H.H. (1979). Microhabitats in a forestfloor small mammal fauna. Ecology, 59, pp. 89–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitch, F.W. Jun., (1950). Life-history and ecology of the Scissortail Flycatcher, Muscivora forficata. Auk, 61(2), pp. 145–68.Google Scholar
Hewitt, O.H. (Ed.) (1967). The Wild Turkey and Its Management. The Wildlife Society, Washington, DC, USA: 589 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Hirsch, A., Kronn, W.B., Schweitzer, D.L. & Thomas, C.H. (1979). Trends and needs in federal inventories of wildlife habitat. Pp. 340–59 in Transactions of the 44th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, Washington, DC, USA: iv + 489 pp.Google Scholar
Holling, C.S. (Ed.) (1978). Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. (International Series on Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA).) John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA: xviii + 377 pp.Google Scholar
Kitchings, J.T. & Levey, D.J. (1981). Habitat patterns in a smallmammal community. Journal of Mammalogy, 62(4), pp. 814–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klopatek, J.M., Olson, R.J., Emerson, C.J. & Joness, J.L. (1979). Land-use conflicts with natural vegetation in the United States. Environmental Conservation, 6(3), pp. 191–9, 2 maps.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krzysik, A.J. (1979). Resource allocation, coexistence, and the niche structure of a stream-bank salamander community. Ecological Monographs, 49, pp. 173–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Küchler, A.W. (1964). Manual to Accompany the Map: Potential Natural Vegetation of the Conterminous United States. Special Publication No. 36, American Geographical Society, New York, NY, USA: 39 pp. + appendix.Google Scholar
Morrison, D.F. (1967). Multivariate Statistical Methods. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, NY, USA: 338 pp.Google Scholar
National Academy of Sciences (US) (1970). Land-use and Wildlife Resources. Committee on Agricultural Land-use and Wildlife Research, Division of Biology and Agriculture, National Research Council, Washington, DC, USA: viii + 262 pp.Google Scholar
Oberholser, H.C. (1974). The Bird Life of Texas, Vol. 2. University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas, USA: vii + 319 pp. illustr.Google Scholar
Olson, R.J., Emerson, C.J. & Nungesser, M.K. (1980). Geoecology: A County-level Environmental Data Base for the Conterminous United States. ORNL/TM-7351, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA: 54 pp. + 24 appendixes.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, R.J., Klopatek, J.M. & Emerson, C.J. (1983). Regional environmental analysis and assessment utilizing the Geoecology Data Base. Pp. 102–18 in Computer Mapping of Natural Resources and the Environment, Vol. 10 (Eds Teicholz, E. & Berry, B.J.L.). Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: xxi + 250 pp.Google Scholar
Smith, T.M., Shugart, H.H. & West, D.C. (1981). Forhab: A forest simulation model to predict habitat structure for nongame bird species. Pp. 114–23 in The Use of Multivariate Statistics in Studies of Wildlife Habitat: Proceeding of a Workshop (Ed. Capen, D.E.). General Technical Report Rm-87, United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA: 343 pp.Google Scholar
United States Forest Service [cited as USFS] (1977). The Nation's Renewable Resources—An Assessment, 1977. US Forest Service Resource Report No. 21, Washington, DC, USA: 243 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
United States Forest Service [cited as USFS] (1979). A Report to Congress on the Nation's Renewable Resources. (Review Draft) RPA Assessment and Alternative Program Directions, Washington, DC, USA: 209 pp.Google Scholar
Watt, K.E.F. & Wilson, J.L. (1973). Regional modeling studies by the Environmental Systems Group. Pp. 1–36 in Land-use, Energy Flow, and Decision-Making in Human Society, Vol. 3. Interdisciplinary Systems Group, University of California, Davis, California, USA: 202 pp.Google Scholar