Acts in what Hutchinson (1965) has called the 'ecological theatre' are played out on various scales of space and time. To understand the drama, we must view it on the appropriate scale. Plant ecologists long ago recognized the importance of sampling scale in their descriptions of the dispersion or distribution of species (e.g. Greig-Smith, 1952). However, many ecologists have behaved as if patterns and the processes that produce them are insensitive to differences in scale and have designed their studies with little explicit attention to scale. Kareiva & Andersen (1988) surveyed nearly 100 field experiments in community ecology and found that half were conducted on plots no larger than 1 m in diameter, despite considerable differences in the sizes and types of organisms studied. Investigators addressing the same questions have often conducted their studies on quite different scales. Not surprisingly, their findings have not always matched, and arguments have ensued. The disagreements among conservation biologists over the optimal design of nature reserves (see Simberloff, 1988) are at least partly due to a failure to appreciate scaling differences among organisms. Controversies about the role of competition in structuring animal communities (Schoener, 1982; Wiens, 1983, 1989) or about the degree of coevolution in communities (Connell, 1980; Roughgarden, 1983) may reflect the

Acts in what Hutchinson (1965) has called the 'ecological theatre' are played out on various scales of space and time. To understand the drama, we must view it on the appropriate scale. Plant ecologists long ago recognized the importance of sampling scale in their descriptions of the dispersion or distribution of species (e.g. Greig-Smith, 1952). However, many ecologists have behaved as if patterns and the processes that produce them are insensitive to differences in scale and have designed their studies with little explicit attention to scale. Kareiva & Andersen (1988) surveyed nearly 100 field experiments in community ecology and found that half were conducted on plots no larger than 1 m in diameter, despite considerable differences in the sizes and types of organisms studied. Investigators addressing the same questions have often conducted their studies on quite different scales. Not surprisingly, their findings have not always matched, and arguments have ensued. The disagreements among conservation biologists over the optimal design of nature reserves (see Simberloff, 1988) are at least partly due to a failure to appreciate scaling differences among organisms. Controversies about the role of competition in structuring animal communities (Schoener, 1982; Wiens, 1983, 1989) or about the degree of coevolution in communities (Connell, 1980; Roughgarden, 1983) may reflect the