An Upland Forest Continuum in the Prairie‐Forest Border Region of Wisconsin

Curtis, John T.; McIntosh, Robert P.

doi:10.2307/1931725

Cited by 1,495 publications

(911 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

793

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In this study, we measured plant dominance using the importance value, which is the sum of the relative density, relative frequency, and relative basal area of the plant group (Curtis & McIntosh, 1951). Relative density is related to the number of individuals, relative frequency is related to the distribution type, and the relative basal area is related to body size.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The importance value ( IV ) of one tree species is the average of its relative density ( RD ), relative frequency ( RF ), and relative GBH (girth at breast height, i.e., 1.3 m from the ground; RG ) (Equation (1)), whereas the IV of one grass species is the average of its RD , RF, and relative coverage ( RC ) (Equation (2)).

I V = (R D + R F + R G) / 3

I V = (R D + R F + R C) / 3

where RD = the density of a species/the total density of all species, RF = the frequency of a species/the sum of all frequencies, RG = the GBH of a tree species/the sum of all GBH values, and RC = the coverage of a grass species / the sum of all coverage values (Curtis & McIntosh, 1951; Gonmadje et al., 2011; Mori et al., 1983; Zhang, 2007). …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although many quantitative traits, such as density, cover, or biomass, can be used to measure community dominance, the use of combinations of multiple variables may be more appropriate (Guo & Rundel, 1997). As the importance value encompasses cover, frequency, abundance, and, occasionally, diversity (Curtis & McIntosh, 1951; Gonmadje et al., 2011; Mori, Boom, de Carvalino, & dos Santos, 1983), it is expected to be a good indicator of dominance or apparency (Brandt, Zimmermann, Hensen, Mariscal Castro, & Rist, 2012; Dahdouh‐Guebas, Koedam, Satyanarayana, & Cannicci, 2011; Dahdouh‐Guebas, Verheyden, De Genst, Hettiarachchi, & Koedam, 2000; Dai, Zhang, Xu, Duffy, & Guo, 2017; Gonçalves, Albuquerque, & de Medeiros, 2016; Guèze et al., 2014; Guo, Li, Liu, & Zhou, 2012; Hu, Su, Li, Li, & Ke, 2015; Smith & Smith, 2001; Soldati, de Medeiros, Duque‐Brasil, Coelho, & Albuquerque, 2017; Thomas, Vandebroek, & Van Damme, 2009). Importance values can be applied to detect dominant species in different communities, especially along ecological gradients (Greig‐Smith, 1983; Henkel, Chambers, & Baker, 2016; Kent, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Are dominant plant species more susceptible to leaf‐mining insects? A case study at Saihanwula Nature Reserve, China

Dai

Long

et al. 2018

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dominant species significantly affect interspecific relationships, community structure, and ecosystem function. In the field, dominant species are often identified by their high importance values. Selective foraging on dominant species is a common phenomenon in ecology. Our hypothesis is that dominant plant groups with high importance values are more susceptible to leaf‐mining insects at the regional level. Here, we used the Saihanwula National Nature Reserve as a case study to examine the presence–absence patterns of leaf‐mining insects on different plants in a forest‐grassland ecotone in Northeast China. We identified the following patterns: (1) After phylogenetic correction, plants with high importance values are more likely to host leafminers at the species, genus, or family level. (2) Other factors including phylogenetic isolation, life form, water ecotype, and phytogeographical type of plants have different influences on the relationship between plant dominance and leafminer presence. In summary, the importance value is a valid predictor of the presence of consumers, even when we consider the effects of plant phylogeny and other plant attributes. Dominant plant groups are large and susceptible targets of leaf‐mining insects. The consistent leaf‐mining distribution pattern across different countries, vegetation types, and plant taxa can be explained by the “species‐area relationship” or the “plant apparency hypothesis.”

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

I V = (R D + R F + R G) / 3

I V = (R D + R F + R C) / 3

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Are dominant plant species more susceptible to leaf‐mining insects? A case study at Saihanwula Nature Reserve, China

Dai

Long

et al. 2018

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Definitions of each measure are also provided in Table 1. Data were converted to relative values, which were then summed and divided by three to yield a relative importance value out of 100 for each species (Curtis and McIntosh 1951;see Price 1971 for complete details).…”

Section: Original Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Four Decades of Plant Community Change in the Alpine Tundra of Southwest Yukon, Canada

Danby

Koh

Hik

et al. 2011

AMBIO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Repeat measurements from long-term plots provide precise data for studying plant community change. In 2010, we visited a remote location in Yukon, Canada, where a detailed survey of alpine tundra communities was conducted in 1968. Plant community composition was resurveyed on the same four slopes using the same methods as the original study. Species richness and diversity increased significantly over the 42 years and non-metric multidimensional scaling indicated that community composition had also changed significantly. However, the direction and magnitude of change varied with aspect. Dominant species were not replaced or eliminated but, instead, declined in relative importance. Fine-scale changes in vegetation were evident from repeat photography and dendro-ecological analysis of erect shrubs, supporting the community-level analysis. The period of study corresponds to a mean annual temperature increase of 2°C, suggesting that climate warming has influenced these changes.

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, Gleasonians emphasized the dynamic nature of plant communities in time and space. Continuity in space formed the underlying concept for the continuum research approach started by Curtis and McIntosh (1951). This approach led to the development of formalized methods of gradient analysis and ordination (Whittaker 1967), from polar ordination (PO) (Bray & Curtis 1957) and principal component analysis (PCA) (Orlóci 1966) to the currently widely used non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) (Prentice 1977), detrended correspondence analysis (DCA) (Hill & Gauch 1980), and canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) (Ter Braak 1986).…”

Section: Biogeography Of the Twentieth Centurymentioning

confidence: 99%

Human Geography and the “New Ecology”: The Prospect and Promise of Integration

Zimmerer

1994

Annals of the Association of American Geographers

321

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biogeography is, in essence, the geography of nature or more specifically, the study of the distribution of Earth's life forms at all spatial and temporal scales. This paper traces the historical development of biogeography from ancient times to the twenty-first century, highlights contemporary trends and expansions, and previews future prospects. The cumulative discovery of biogeographic patterns culminated in the development of the theory of evolution -biogeography's greatest contribution to science. The paradigm shift to causal approaches in the early twentieth century led to ecological biogeography emerging as the second pillar of biogeography in addition to historical biogeography. Fostered by the acceptance of plate tectonics, the equilibrium theory of island biogeography, the rapid advancement of new perspectives and methods in historical biogeography, and revolutionary advances in compiling, visualizing, and analyzing spatially explicit information, biogeography evolved into a rigorous science during the second half of the twentieth century. Currently, major active sub-fields are phylogeography, macroecology, and conservation biogeography. Biogeography is on the way to becoming a 'big science', entering an era of increasingly integrative and multi-faceted approaches, increasingly accessible and available data, tools, and techniques, and interdisciplinary collaboration.

show abstract

An Upland Forest Continuum in the Prairie‐Forest Border Region of Wisconsin

Cited by 1,495 publications

References 28 publications

Are dominant plant species more susceptible to leaf‐mining insects? A case study at Saihanwula Nature Reserve, China

Are dominant plant species more susceptible to leaf‐mining insects? A case study at Saihanwula Nature Reserve, China

Four Decades of Plant Community Change in the Alpine Tundra of Southwest Yukon, Canada

Human Geography and the “New Ecology”: The Prospect and Promise of Integration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About