scholarly journals Plants on small islands revisited: the effects of spatial scale and habitat quality on the species–area relationship

Ecography ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 42 (8) ◽  
pp. 1405-1414 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julian Schrader ◽  
Soetjipto Moeljono ◽  
Gunnar Keppel ◽  
Holger Kreft
Keyword(s):  
Spatial Scale ◽  
Habitat Quality ◽  
Small Islands ◽  
Species Area ◽  
Species Area Relationship

Spatial Scale and Biodiversity

Ecology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel J. McGlinn ◽  
Michael W. Palmer
Keyword(s):  
Spatial Scale ◽  
Species Interactions ◽  
Mass Extinction ◽  
Indelible Mark ◽  
Coexistence Theory ◽  
The World ◽  
Species Area ◽  
Increase Productivity ◽  
Species Area Relationship ◽  
Empirical Tests

The scale of observation leaves an indelible mark on our understanding of biodiversity. Despite wide recognition among ecologists that scale is important, most theories of biodiversity and coexistence treat mechanisms as scale-independent (e.g., coexistence theory). Furthermore, most empirical tests of theory are still only performed at a single spatial scale. A fuller understanding of scale is likely to help resolve some of ecology’s ongoing controversies. Does biodiversity increase productivity? Is the world experiencing the sixth major mass extinction? Are species interactions relevant to understanding biodiversity? Does exotic biodiversity decrease native biodiversity? We know the answers to these questions depend in large part on scale. However simply recognizing that scale plays a role is not sufficient, and currently several bodies of theory are emerging that provide a vision of a more unified ecology in which scale plays a central role. Ultimately, the daunting problems facing biodiversity require that we consider scale directly in our hypotheses. The goal of this bibliography is to highlight key papers that define scale and discuss how it influences biodiversity patterns. Another Oxford Bibliographies in Ecology article, “Species-Area Relationships” by Samantha M. Tessel, Kyle A. Palmquist, and Robert K. Peet is devoted entirely to the species-area relationship and therefore that topic is covered in less depth here.

scholarly journals The species-area relationship: new challenges for an old pattern

2001 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark V. Lomolino
Keyword(s):  
Secondary Phase ◽  
Species Number ◽  
General Tendency ◽  
Small Islands ◽  
Stochastic Variation ◽  
Causal Explanations ◽  
Island Area ◽  
Species Area ◽  
Species Area Relationship ◽  
The Relationship

The species-area relationship (i.e., the relationship between area and the number of species found in that area) is one of longest and most frequently studied patterns in nature. Yet there remain some important and interesting questions on the nature of this relationship, its causality, quantification and application for both ecologists and conservation biologists. Traditionally, the species-area relationship describes the very general tendency for species number to increase with island area; a relationship whose slope declines (but remains positive) as area increases. The true relationship, however, may be much more complicated than this, and may in many cases approximate a sigmoidal relationship. On small islands, species number may vary independently of island area. Species richness then increases as we consider larger islands, but the curve eventually slows and asymptotes or levels off when richness equals that of the the source or mainland pool. The relationship may also include a secondary phase of increase in richness if island area becomes large enough to allow in situ speciation. Causal explanations for this relationship may, therefore, need to be multifactorial and include a range of processes from disturbance and stochastic variation in habitat quality on the very small islands, to ecological interactions, immigration, extinction and, finally, evolution on the larger islands.

scholarly journals The strength of the biodiversity–ecosystem function relationship depends on spatial scale

2018 ◽  
Vol 285 (1880) ◽  
pp. 20180038 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick L. Thompson ◽  
Forest Isbell ◽  
Michel Loreau ◽  
Mary I. O'Connor ◽  
Andrew Gonzalez
Keyword(s):  
Spatial Variation ◽  
Spatial Scale ◽  
Spatial Scales ◽  
Scale Dependence ◽  
Α Diversity ◽  
Species Area ◽  
Species Area Relationship ◽  
Function Relationship ◽  
New Research ◽  
The Relationship

Our understanding of the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning (BEF) applies mainly to fine spatial scales. New research is required if we are to extend this knowledge to broader spatial scales that are relevant for conservation decisions. Here, we use simulations to examine conditions that generate scale dependence of the BEF relationship. We study scale by assessing how the BEF relationship (slope and R 2 ) changes when habitat patches are spatially aggregated. We find three ways for the BEF relationship to be scale-dependent: (i) variation among local patches in local (α) diversity, (ii) spatial variation in the local BEF relationship and (iii) incomplete compositional turnover in species composition among patches. The first two cause the slope of the BEF relationship to increase moderately with spatial scale, reflecting nonlinear averaging of spatial variation in diversity or the BEF relationship. The third mechanism results in much stronger scale dependence, with the BEF relationship increasing in the rising portion of the species area relationship, but then decreasing as it saturates. An analysis of data from the Cedar Creek grassland BEF experiment revealed a positive but saturating slope of the relationship with scale. Overall, our findings suggest that the BEF relationship is likely to be scale dependent.

scholarly journals The species–area relationship and evolution

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

Fragmentation, grazing and the species-area relationship

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

Self‐Similarity, the Power Law Form of the Species‐Area Relationship, and a Probability Rule: A Reply to Maddux

2004 ◽  
Vol 163 (4) ◽  
pp. 627-633 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annette Ostling ◽  
John Harte ◽  
Jessica L. Green ◽  
Ann P. Kinzig
Keyword(s):  
Power Law ◽  
Self Similarity ◽  
Species Area ◽  
Species Area Relationship
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document