scholarly journals Species-area relationship: separating the effects of species abundance and spatial distribution

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.


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.


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

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

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonardo A Saravia

Species-area relationships (SAR) and species abundance distributions (SAD) are among the most studied patterns in ecology, due to their application to both theoretical and conservation issues. One problem with these general patterns is that different theories can generate the same predictions, and for this reason they cannot be used to detect different mechanisms of community assembly. A solution is to search for more sensitive patterns, for example by extending the SAR to the whole species abundance distribution. A generalized dimension ($D_q$) approach has been proposed to study the scaling of SAD, but to date there has been no evaluation of the ability of this pattern to detect different mechanisms. An equivalent way to express SAD is the rank abundance distribution (RAD). Here I introduce a new way to study SAD scaling using a spatial version of RAD: the species-rank surface (SRS), which can be analyzed using $D_q$. Thus there is an old $D_q$ based on SAR ($D_q^{SAD}$), and a new one based on SRS ($D_q^{SRS}$). I perform spatial simulations to examine the relationship of $D_q$ with SAD, spatial patterns and number of species. Finally I compare the power of both $D_q$, SAD, SAR exponent, and the fractal information dimension to detect different community patterns using a continuum of hierarchical and neutral spatially explicit models. The SAD, $D_q^{SAD}$ and $D_q^{SRS}$ all had good performance in detecting models with contrasting mechanisms. $D_q^{SRS}$, however, had a better fit to data and allowed comparisons between hierarchical communities where the other methods failed. The SAR exponent and information dimension had low power and should not be used. SRS and $D_q^{SRS}$ could be interesting methods to study community or macroecological patterns.


2002 ◽  
Vol 357 (1421) ◽  
pp. 667-681 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ricard V. Solé ◽  
David Alonso ◽  
Alan McKane

Why are some ecosystems so rich, yet contain so many rare species? High species diversity, together with rarity, is a general trend in neotropical forests and coral reefs. However, the origin of such diversity and the consequences of food web complexity in both species abundances and temporal fluctuations are not well understood. Several regularities are observed in complex, multispecies ecosystems that suggest that these ecologies might be organized close to points of instability. We explore, in greater depth, a recent stochastic model of population dynamics that is shown to reproduce: (i) the scaling law linking species number and connectivity; (ii) the observed distributions of species abundance reported from field studies (showing long tails and thus a predominance of rare species); (iii) the complex fluctuations displayed by natural communities (including chaotic dynamics); and (iv) the species–area relations displayed by rainforest plots. It is conjectured that the conflict between the natural tendency towards higher diversity due to immigration, and the ecosystem level constraints derived from an increasing number of links, leaves the system poised at a critical boundary separating stable from unstable communities, where large fluctuations are expected to occur. We suggest that the patterns displayed by species–rich communities, including rarity, would result from such a spontaneous tendency towards instability.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document