Snowshoe hare populations in the boreal forests of North America go through 10-year cycles. Supplemental food and mammalian predator abundance were manipulated in a factorial design on 1-square-kilometer areas for 8 years in the Yukon. Two blocks of forest were fertilized to test for nutrient effects. Predator exclosure doubled and food addition tripled hare density during the cyclic peak and decline. Predator exclosure combined with food addition increased density 11-fold. Added nutrients increased plant growth but not hare density. Food and predation together had a more than additive effect, which suggests that a three-trophic-level interaction generates hare cycles.

2002. The consequences of spatial structure for the design and analysis of ecological field surveys. -Ecography 25: 601-615.In ecological field surveys, observations are gathered at different spatial locations. The purpose may be to relate biological response variables (e.g., species abundances) to explanatory environmental variables (e.g., soil characteristics). In the absence of prior knowledge, ecologists have been taught to rely on systematic or random sampling designs. If there is prior knowledge about the spatial patterning of the explanatory variables, obtained from either previous surveys or a pilot study, can we use this information to optimize the sampling design in order to maximize our ability to detect the relationships between the response and explanatory variables? The specific questions addressed in this paper are: a) What is the effect (type I error) of spatial autocorrelation on the statistical tests commonly used by ecologists to analyse field survey data? b) Can we eliminate, or at least minimize, the effect of spatial autocorrelation by the design of the survey? Are there designs that provide greater power for surveys, at least under certain circumstances? c) Can we eliminate or control for the effect of spatial autocorrelation during the analysis? To answer the last question, we compared regular regression analysis to a modified t-test developed by Dutilleul for correlation coefficients in the presence of spatial autocorrelation. Replicated surfaces (typically, 1000 of them) were simulated using different spatial parameters, and these surfaces were subjected to different sampling designs and methods of statistical analysis. The simulated surfaces may represent, for example, vegetation response to underlying environmental variation. This allowed us 1) to measure the frequency of type I error (the failure to reject the null hypothesis when in fact there is no effect of the environment on the response variable) and 2) to estimate the power of the different combinations of sampling designs and methods of statistical analysis (power is measured by the rate of rejection of the null hypothesis when an effect of the environment on the response variable has been created). Our results indicate that: 1) Spatial autocorrelation in both the response and environmental variables affects the classical tests of significance of correlation or regression coefficients. Spatial autocorrelation in only one of the two variables does not affect the test of significance. 2) A broad-scale spatial structure present in data has the same effect on the tests as spatial autocorrelation. When such a structure is present in one of the variables and autocorrelation is found in the other, or in both, the tests of significance have inflated rates of type I error. 3) Dutilleul's modified t-test for the correlation coefficient, corrected for spatial autocorrelation, effectively corrects for spatial autocorrelation in the data. It also effectively corrects for the presence of deterministic structures, with or without spatial aut...

Concepts of spatial scale, such as extent, grain, resolution, range, footprint, support and cartographic ratio are not interchangeable. Because of the potential confusion among the definitions of these terms, we suggest that authors avoid the term “scale” and instead refer to specific concepts. In particular, we are careful to discriminate between observation scales, scales of ecological phenomena and scales used in spatial statistical analysis. When scales of observation or analysis change, that is, when the unit size, shape, spacing or extent are altered, statistical results are expected to change. The kinds of results that may change include estimates of the population mean and variance, the strength and character of spatial autocorrelation and spatial anisotropy, patch and gap sizes and multivariate relationships. The first three of these results (precision of the mean, variance and spatial autocorrelation) can sometimes be estimated using geostatistical support‐effect models. We present four case studies of organism abundance and cover illustrating some of these changes and how conclusions about ecological phenomena (process and structure) may be affected. We identify the influence of observational scale on statistical results as a subset of what geographers call the Modifiable Area Unit Problem (MAUP). The way to avoid the MAUP is by careful construction of sampling design and analysis. We recommend a set of considerations for sampling design to allow useful tests for specific scales of a phenomenon under study. We further recommend that ecological studies completely report all components of observation and analysis scales to increase the possibility of cross‐study comparisons.

The predictability of the physical arrangement of plants, at whatever scale it is viewed, is referred to as their spatial pattern. Spatial pattern is a crucial aspect of vegetation which has important implications not only for the plants themselves, but also for other organisms which interact with plants, such as herbivores and pollinators, or those animals for which plants provide a habitat. This book describes and evaluates methods for detecting and quantifying a variety of characteristics of spatial pattern. As well as discussing the concepts on which these techniques are based, examples from real field studies and worked examples are included, which, together with numerous line figures, help guide the reader through the text. The result is a book that will be of value to graduate students and research workers in the fields of vegetation science, conservation biology and applied ecology.

Graph theory is a powerful body of mathematical knowledge, based on simple concepts, in which structural units are depicted as nodes with relationships between them depicted as lines. The nodes may have qualitative and quantitative characteristics, and the edges may have properties such as weights and directions. Graph theory provides a flexible conceptual model that can clarify the relationship between structures and processes, including the mechanisms of configuration effects and compositional differences. Graph concepts apply to many ecological and evolutionary phenomena, including interspecific associations, spatial structure, dispersal in landscapes, and relationships within metapopulations and metacommunities. We review applications of graph theory in biology, emphasizing graphs with spatial contexts. We show how spatial graph properties can be used for description and comparison as well as to test specific hypotheses. We suggest that future applications should include explicit spatial elements for landscape studies of ecological, genetic and epidemiological phenomena.