1996
DOI: 10.1139/f96-013
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessing the ecological effects of habitat change: moving beyond productive capacity

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

1998
1998
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 38 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Through time, the riparian landscape shaped by the Eflow regime diverged in habitat suitability from the natural and Eflow&Flush landscapes, and there were cases where the habitat suitability was modified by more than double. The relationship between fish assemblages and habitat has long been acknowledged (e.g., Clark et al, 2008;Matthews, 1998;Pusey et al, 1993) and can have a significant impact on the ecological status and function of the existing fish communities (Freeman et al, 2001;Jones et al, 1996;Randall and Minns, 2000). Effectively, habitat loss is the major threat concerning fish population dynamics and biodiversity (Bunn and Arthington, 2002), thereby promoting population changes with a proportional response to the enforced habitat change (Cowley, 2008).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Through time, the riparian landscape shaped by the Eflow regime diverged in habitat suitability from the natural and Eflow&Flush landscapes, and there were cases where the habitat suitability was modified by more than double. The relationship between fish assemblages and habitat has long been acknowledged (e.g., Clark et al, 2008;Matthews, 1998;Pusey et al, 1993) and can have a significant impact on the ecological status and function of the existing fish communities (Freeman et al, 2001;Jones et al, 1996;Randall and Minns, 2000). Effectively, habitat loss is the major threat concerning fish population dynamics and biodiversity (Bunn and Arthington, 2002), thereby promoting population changes with a proportional response to the enforced habitat change (Cowley, 2008).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Such comprehensive population dynamics models should produce output indicators that are directly relevant to management objectives, which need to be clearly specified (Jones et al 1996). For instance, when identifying temperature-sensitive streams with some upper limit on acceptable temperature, is the objective to (1) maintain (or maximize) biological diversity as measured in some specified way, (2) maintain abundance of some indicator population of a particular Distributions were derived from data from streams in Class II-specifically, 14 streams with drainage areas of at least 12 km 2 but less than 132 km 2 and average basin elevations less than 1,140 m. The dashed vertical line emphasizes the point at which the regression slope equals zero; dashed horizontal error bars represent 95% probability intervals.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, large year-to-year fluctuations in fish abundance and survival rate can hinder detection of habitat quality effects on fish abundance (Rose 2000). Scientists' attempts to clearly identify and quantify the relative importance of different types of habitat disturbances for fish are further impeded by numerous possible indicators of habitat quality and complicated cause-and-effect pathways (Jones et al 1996). Given this situation, there is a need to improve upon existing methods of evaluating and regulating the effects of proposed human activities on fish habitat.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our data suggest that disturbance created by military ordnance (e.g., bomb craters, burning, and alteration of landscapes) attracts Sonoran pronghorn. Guidelines for habitat manipulation that support conservation efforts for the subspecies include 1) outlining management objectives with respect to the BMGR activities and surrounding federal land where Sonoran pronghorn exist, 2) identifying important forage species and their responses to various habitat manipulations on alternate sites, 3) analyzing costs and benefits of habitat manipulations with respect to multispecies responses to landscape changes, 4) determining the best management strategies for habitat alterations inclusive of long-term sustainability, and 5) continued systematic monitoring to maintain positive results (Jones et al 1995…”
Section: Management Implicationsmentioning
confidence: 99%