JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. British Ecological Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Functional Ecology.

No abstract

No abstract

As the rate and magnitude of climate change accelerate, understanding the consequences becomes increasingly important. Species distribution models (SDMs) based on current ecological niche constraints are used to project future species distributions. These models contain assumptions that add to the uncertainty in model projections stemming from the structure of the models, the algorithms used to translate niche associations into distributional probabilities, the quality and quantity of data, and mismatches between the scales of modeling and data. We illustrate the application of SDMs using two climate models and two distributional algorithms, together with information on distributional shifts in vegetation types, to project fine-scale future distributions of 60 California landbird species. Most species are projected to decrease in distribution by 2070. Changes in total species richness vary over the state, with large losses of species in some ''hotspots'' of vulnerability. Differences in distributional shifts among species will change species co-occurrences, creating spatial variation in similarities between current and future assemblages. We use these analyses to consider how assumptions can be addressed and uncertainties reduced. SDMs can provide a useful way to incorporate future conditions into conservation and management practices and decisions, but the uncertainties of model projections must be balanced with the risks of taking the wrong actions or the costs of inaction. Doing this will require that the sources and magnitudes of uncertainty are documented, and that conservationists and resource managers be willing to act despite the uncertainties. The alternative, of ignoring the future, is not an option.birds ͉ California ͉ ecological niche ͉ species distribution models ͉ conservation

SUMMARY1. Landscape ecology deals with the influence of spatial pattern on ecological processes. It considers the ecological consequences of where things are located in space, where they are relative to other things, and how these relationships and their consequences are contingent on the characteristics of the surrounding landscape mosaic at multiple scales in time and space. Traditionally, landscape ecologists have focused their attention on terrestrial ecosystems, and rivers and streams have been considered either as elements of landscape mosaics or as units that are linked to the terrestrial landscape by flows across boundaries or ecotones. Less often, the heterogeneity that exists within a river or stream has been viewed as a 'riverscape' in its own right. 2. Landscape ecology can be unified about six central themes: (1) patches differ in quality (2) patch boundaries affect flows, (3) patch context matters, (4) connectivity is critical, (5) organisms are important, and (6) the importance of scale. Although riverine systems differ from terrestrial systems by virtue of the strong physical force of hydrology and the inherent connectivity provided by water flow, all of these themes apply equally to aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, and to the linkages between the two. 3. Landscape ecology therefore has important insights to offer to the study of riverine ecosystems, but these systems may also provide excellent opportunities for developing and testing landscape ecological theory. The principles and approaches of landscape ecology should be extended to include freshwater systems; it is time to take the 'land' out of landscape ecology.