Reconciliation Ecology and the Future of Species Diversity

Author(s):  
Michael L. Rosenzweig

Alexander von Humboldt (1807) provided the first hint of one of ecology’s most pervasive rules: larger areas contain more species than do small ones. Many ecologists see that rule—the species–area relationship—as one of ecology’s very few general laws (e.g., Lawton 1999, Rosenzweig and Ziv 1999). In the past two centuries, ecologists have learned a lot about species–area relationships. I will explore that knowledge and show that we can already use it in the struggle to minimize extinction losses. It teaches us what proportion of diversity is truly threatened and how to prevent most losses by applying a new strategy of conservation biology. Olaf Arrhenius (1921) and Frank Preston (1960) formalized the species–area pattern by fitting it with a power equation: . . . S = Caz (1) . . . where S is the number of species, A is the area, and C and z are constants. For convenience, ecologists generally employ the logarithmic form of this equation: . . . log S = c + z log A (2) . . . where c = log C. (Note that I do not use the jargon term “species richness.” To understand why, see Rosenzweig et al. 2003.) The species–area power equation, or SPAR, can be fitted to an immense amount of data (Rosenzweig 1995). Ecologists are not sure why a power equation fits islands or continents. But we do have a successful mathematical theory for areas within a province. Brian McGill (personal communication) has deduced the species–area curve within provinces from four assumptions: • The geographical range of each species is independently located with respect to all others. • Species vary in abundance with respect to each other. • Species have a minimum abundance. • Each species’ abundance varies significantly across its own range, being relatively scarce more often than relatively common. (“Relatively” means with respect to its own average abundance.) Data support all four assumptions. From them, McGill shows that there is a species–area curve and that it approximates a power equation whose z-value ranges between 0.05 and 0.25 with a mean of about 0.15.

2008 ◽  
Vol 96 (6) ◽  
pp. 1141-1151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Even Tjørve ◽  
William E. Kunin ◽  
Chiara Polce ◽  
Kathleen M. Calf Tjørve

2008 ◽  
Vol 2008 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Würtz ◽  
Arto Annila

The species-area relationship is one of the central generalizations in ecology; however, its origin has remained a puzzle. Since ecosystems are understood as energy transduction systems, the regularities in species richness are considered to result from ubiquitous imperatives in energy transduction. From a thermodynamic point of view, organisms are transduction mechanisms that distribute an influx of energy down along the steepest gradients to the ecosystem's diverse repositories of chemical energy, that is, populations of species. Transduction machineries, that is, ecosystems assembled from numerous species, may emerge and evolve toward high efficiency on large areas that hold more matter than small ones. This results in the well-known logistic-like relationship between the area and the number of species. The species-area relationship is understood, in terms of thermodynamics, to be the skewed cumulative curve of chemical energy distribution that is commonly known as the species-abundance relationship.


2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 116-121
Author(s):  
Corrado Battisti ◽  
Maria Paola Di Santo ◽  
Luca Luiselli ◽  
Giovanni Amori ◽  
Giuseppe M. Carpaneto

We studied species-area and diversity-dominance patterns in fish communities of a mosaic of urban ponds (Rome, Italy). We detected 10 fish species (all introduced) in 40 isolated ponds (12.9% of the total; n = 311). The log-transformed species-area relationship (logS = 0.04 logA + 0.16) was significant. Assuming the lack of mechanisms of natural immigration between totally isolated ponds, the number of fish species in this mosaic of ponds may depend exclusively on progressive extinctions and on random and arbitrary events of introduction (acting as human-mediated immigration), these latter explaining the apparently low taxon-related isolation indicated by a low z value (= 0.04). We observed a significantly lower number of species in the smallest ponds and a further threshold under 1 ha in size: these values could represent an interesting threshold for pond management. The diversity-dominance approach evidenced pond size effect acting as a factor of stress on these assemblages.


2011 ◽  
Vol 57 (3) ◽  
pp. 183-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoni Gavish

Each evolutionary-independent province has its own mainland species area relationship (SPAR). When using the power law SPAR (S = cAz), separate mainland SPARs are parallel in a log-log space (similar z value), yet they differ in species density per unit area (c value). This implies that there are two main SPAR-based strategies to identify biodiversity hotspots. The first treats all mainland SPARs of all provinces as if they form one global SPAR. This is the strategy employed by Roll et al. (2009) when questioning Israel's high biodiversity. They concluded that Israel is not a global biodiversity hotspot. Their results may arise from the fact that Israel's province, the Palaearctic, is relatively poor. Therefore, countries from richer provinces, whose mainland SPAR lies above the Palaearctic SPAR, are identified as global hotspots. The second strategy is to construct different mainland SPARs for each province and identify the provincial hotspots. In this manuscript I ask whether Israel's biodiversity is high relative to other countries within its province. For six different taxa, I analyzed data for Palaearctic countries. For each taxon, I conducted a linear regression of species richness against the country's area, both log transformed. The studentized residuals were used to explore Israel's rank relative to all other Palaearctic countries. I found that Israel lies above the 95th percentile for reptiles and mammals and above the 90th percentile for birds. Therefore, within the Palaearctic province, Israel is indeed a biodiversity hotspot.


2006 ◽  
Vol 241 (3) ◽  
pp. 590-600 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Lawson ◽  
Henrik Jeldtoft Jensen

Oryx ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 194-205 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael L. Rosenzweig

Species-area relationships (SPARs) dictate a sea change in the strategies of biodiversity conservation. SPARs exist at three ecological scales: Sample-area SPARs (a larger area within a biogeographical province will tend to include more habitat types, and thus more species, than a smaller one), Archipelagic SPARs (the islands of an archipelago show SPARs that combine the habitat-sampling process with the problem of dispersal to an island), and Interprovincial SPARs (other things being equal, the speciation rates of larger biogeographical provinces are higher and their extinction rates are lower, leading to diversities in proportion to provincial area). SPARs are the products of steady-state dynamics in diversity, and such dynamics appears to have characterized the earth for most of the last 500 million years. As people reduce the area available to wild species, they impose a linear reduction of the earth's species diversity that will follow the largest of these scales, i.e. each 1% reduction of natural area will cost about 1% of steady-state diversity. Reserving small tracts of wild habitat can only delay these reductions. But we can stop most of them by redesigning anthropogenic habitats so that their use is compatible with use by a broad array of other species. That is reconciliation ecology. Many pilot projects, whether intentionally or inadvertently espousing reconciliation ecology, are demonstrating that it can be done.


Ecography ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 224-231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tiffany L. Bogich ◽  
Gary M. Barker ◽  
Karin Mahlfeld ◽  
Frank Climo ◽  
Rhys Green ◽  
...  

2004 ◽  
Vol 163 (4) ◽  
pp. 627-633 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annette Ostling ◽  
John Harte ◽  
Jessica L. Green ◽  
Ann P. Kinzig

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document