Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:31:02.438Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Species–area curves and the geometry of nature

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2012

By
Michael W. Palmer
Edited by
David Storch ,
Pablo Marquet  and
James Brown
Michael W. Palmer
Affiliation:
Oklahoma State University
David Storch
Affiliation:
Charles University, Prague
Pablo Marquet
Affiliation:
Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile
James Brown
Affiliation:
University of New Mexico
Get access

Summary

Introduction

It is widely appreciated that species distributions and biodiversity can be strongly related to environmental factors. Likewise, it is recognized that increasing environmental heterogeneity with area is one of the determinants of species–area relationships. However, few theoretical treatments of species–area relationships specifically address how biodiversity's increase with scale should be related to the geometry of the environment. I hypothesize that this geometry is the underlying reason for the triphasic species–area curve.

Gradient analysis

One of the oldest, strongest and least contentious generalizations in ecology is that the spatial distribution of species is due, at least in part, to variation in the environment. In particular, the abundance of a species tends to be a unimodal function of important environmental variables (Whittaker, 1975; ter Braak, 1987; Austin & Gaywood, 1994). Such functions are termed species response curves, and graphs of the response curves for all species in a region combined or coenoclines (Fig. 2.1) are in almost all ecological textbooks (for example, Begon, Harper & Townsend, 1996; Ricklefs, 2001) and have played important roles in the development of ecological theory (Whittaker, 1972; Shmida & Ellner, 1984; Tilman, 1988). The study of how species respond to gradients in the environment is known as gradient analysis (Whittaker, 1967; Austin, 1987; ter Braak & Prentice, 1988).

The unimodal species response curve is a simple manifestation of a species having an optimum set of environmental conditions. As conditions deviate from the optimum, the species will occur in less abundance.

Type
Chapter
Information
Scaling Biodiversity , pp. 15 - 31
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Auerbach, M. & Shmida, A. (1987). Spatial scale and the determinants of plant species richness. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 2, 238–242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Austin, M. P. (1987). Models for the analysis of species' response to environmental gradients. Vegetatio, 69, 35–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, M. P. & Gaywood, M. J. (1994). Current problems of environmental gradients and species response curves in relation to continuum theory. Journal of Vegetation Science, 5, 473–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Begon, M., Harper, J. L. & Townsend, C. R. (1996). Ecology. Oxford: Blackwell Science.Google Scholar
Bell, G., Lechowicz, M. J., Appenzeller, A., et al. (1993). The spatial structure of the physical environment. Oecologia, 96, 114–121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bengtsson, J., Fagerström, T. & Rydin, H. (1994). Competition and coexistence in plant communities. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 9, 246–250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, J. H. (1995). Macroecology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Burnett, M. R., August, P. V., Brown, J. H. Jr. & Killingbeck, K. T. (1998). The influence of geomorphological heterogeneity on biodiversity. I. A patch-scale perspective. Conservation Biology, 12, 363–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burrough, P. A. (1981). Fractal dimensions of landscapes and other environmental data. Nature, 294, 240–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burrough, P. A. (1983). Multiscale sources of spatial variation in soil. I. Application of fractal concepts to nested levels of soil variations. Journal of Soil Science, 34, 577–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, D. B., Palmer, M. W. & Clark, D. A. (1999). Edaphic factors and the landscape-scale distributions of tropical rain forest trees. Ecology, 80, 2662–2675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowling, R. M. & Lombard, A. T. (2002). Heterogeneity, speciation/extinction history and climate, explaining regional plant diversity patterns in the Cape Floristic Region. Diversity and Distributions, 8, 163–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, J. E. & Larson, D. W. (1993). Spatial heterogeneity of vegetation and environmental factors on talus slopes of the Niagara Escarpment. Canadian Journal of Botany, 71, 323–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. P. & Whitney, S. (1992). Clonal integration across a salt gradient by a nonhalophyte, Hydrocotyle bonariensis (Apiaceae). American Journal of Botany, 79, 1344–1347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ewers, R. M., Didham, R. K., Wratten, S. D. D. & Tylianakis, J. M. (2005). Remotely sensed landscape heterogeneity as a rapid tool for assessing local biodiversity value in a highly modified New Zealand landscape. Biodiversity and Conservation, 14, 1469–1485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feder, J. (1988). Fractals. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, R. H. (1998). Vertebrate species richness at the mesoscale: relative roles of energy and heterogeneity. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters, 7, 215–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gauch, H. G. Jr. (1982). Multivariate Analysis and Community Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Giller, P. S. (1984). Community Structure and the Niche. London: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grace, J. B. & Wetzel, R. G. (1998). Long-term dynamics of Typha populations. Aquatic Botany, 61, 137–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grytnes, J. A. & Vetaas, O. R. (2002). Species richness and altitude: a comparison between null models and interpolated plant species richness along the Himalayan altitudinal gradient, Nepal. American Naturalist, 159, 294–304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hallgren, E., Palmer, M. W. & Milberg, P. (1999). Data diving with cross validation: an investigation of broad-scale gradients in Swedish weed communities. Journal of Ecology, 87, 1037–1051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
He, F., LaFrankie, J. V. & Song, B. (2002). Scale dependence of tree abundance and richness in a tropical rain forest, Malaysia. Landscape Ecology, 17, 559–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubbell, S. P. (2001). The Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hubbell, S. P., Foster, R. B., O'Brien, S. T.et al. (1999). Light gap disturbances, recruitment limitation, and tree diversity in a neotropical forest. Science, 283, 554–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Journel, A. G. & Huijbregts, C. (1978). Mining Geostatistics. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kerr, J. T. & Packer, L. (1997). Habitat heterogeneity as a determinant of mammal species richness in high-energy regions. Nature, 385, 252–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lepš, J. & Šmilauer, P. (2003). Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data using Canoco. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mandelbrot, B. B. (1983). The Fractal Geometry of Nature. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Milne, B. T. (1992). Spatial aggregation and neutral models in fractal landscapes. American Naturalist, 139, 32–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nilsson, C. & Wilson, S. D. (1991). Convergence in plant community structure along disparate gradients: are lakeshores inverted mountainsides? American Naturalist, 137, 774–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, D. A. (1994). Relationships between pteridophytes and topography in a lowland South Westland podocarp forest. New Zealand Journal of Botany, 32, 401–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odland, A. & Birks, H. J. B. (1999). The altitudinal gradient of vascular plant richness in Aurland, western Norway. Oikos, 22, 548–566.Google Scholar
Oliveira-Filho, A. T., Vilela, E., Carvalho, D. A. & Gavilanes, M. L. (1994). Effects of soils and topography on the distribution of tree species in a tropical riverine forest in south-eastern Brazil. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 10, 483–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onipchenko, V. G. & Pokarzhevskaya, G. A. (1994). “Mass-effect” in alpine communities of the northwestern Caucasus. Veröfflichung Geobotanischen Institutes ETH, Stiftung Rübel, Zürich, 115, 61–68.Google Scholar
Palmer, M. W. (1988). Fractal Geometry: a tool for describing spatial patterns of plant communities. Vegetatio, 75, 91–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, M. W. (1990). Spatial scale and patterns of species-environment relationships in hardwood forests of the North Carolina piedmont. Coenoses, 5, 79–87.Google Scholar
Palmer, M. W. (1992). The coexistence of species in fractal landscapes. American Naturalist, 139, 375–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, M. W. (1994). Variation in species richness: towards a unification of hypotheses. Folia Geobotanica et Phytotaxonomica, 29, 511–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, M. W. (1995). How should one count species? Natural Areas Journal, 15, 124–135.Google Scholar
Palmer, M. W. (2005). Temporal trends of exotic species richness in North American floras: an overview. Écoscience, 12, 336–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, M. W., Wade, G. L. & Neal, P. R. (1995). Standards for the writing of floras. BioScience, 45, 339–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, M. W., Earls, P., Hoagland, B. W., White, P. S. & Wohlgemuth, T. M. (2002). Quantitative tools for perfecting species lists. Environmetrics, 13, 121–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poulson, T. L. & Platt, W. J. (1989). Gap light regimes influence canopy tree diversity. Ecology, 70, 553–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qian, H., Song, J. S., Krestov, P., et al. (2003). Large-scale phytogeographical patterns in East Asia in relation to latitudinal and climatic gradients. Journal of Biogeography, 30, 129–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Retuerto, R. & Carballeira, A. (1991). Defining phytoclimatic units in Galicia, Spain, by means of multivariate methods. Journal of Vegetation Science, 2, 699–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ricklefs, R. E. (2001). The Economy of Nature, 3rd edn. New York: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Rosenzweig, M. L. (1995). Species Diversity in Space and Time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saupe, D. (1988). Algorithms for random fractals. In The Science of Fractal Images, ed. Petigen, H. O. & Saupe, D., pp. 71–113. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Schmid, B. & Bazzaz, F. A. (1987). Clonal integration and population structure in perennials: effects of severing rhizome connections. Ecology, 68, 2016–2022.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shmida, A. & Ellner, S. (1984). Coexistence of plant species with similar niches. Vegetatio, 58, 29–55.Google Scholar
Shmida, A. & Wilson, M. V. (1985). Biological determinants of species diversity. Journal of Biogeography, 12, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Šizling, A. L. & Storch, D. (2004). Power-law species-area relationships and self-similar species distributions within finite areas. Ecology Letters, 7, 60–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braak, C. J. F. (1987). Unimodal Models to Relate Species to Environment. Wageningen: Agricultural Mathematics Group.Google Scholar
Braak, C. J. F. & Prentice, I. C. (1988). A theory of gradient analysis. Advances in Ecological Research, 18, 271–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilman, D. (1988). Plant Strategies and the Dynamics and Structure of Plant Communities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Tuomisto, H., Ruakolainen, K., Poulsen, A. D., et al. (2002). Distribution and diversity of pteridophytes and Melastomataceae along edaphic gradients in Yasuni National Park, Ecuadorian Amazonia. Biotropica, 34, 516–533.Google Scholar
Umbanhowar, C. E. Jr. (1995). Revegetation of earthen mounds along a topographic-productivity gradient in a northern mixed prairie. Journal of Vegetation Science, 6, 637–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maarel, E. (1995). Vicinism and mass effect in a historical perspective. Journal of Vegetation Science, 6, 445–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humboldt, A. V. & Bonpland, A. (1807). Essai sur la Geographie des Plantes. Paris: Librarie Lebrault Schoell.Google Scholar
Wagner, H. H. (2003). Spatial covariance in plant communities: integrating ordination, geostatistics and variance testing. Ecology, 84, 1045–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wassen, M. J. & Barendregt, A. (1992). Topographic position and water chemistry of fens in a Dutch river plain. Journal of Vegetation Science, 3, 447–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittaker, R. H. (1967). Gradient analysis of vegetation. Biological Reviews, 42, 207–264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whittaker, R. H. (1972). Evolution and measurement of species diversity. Taxon, 21, 213–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittaker, R. H. (1975). Communities and Ecosystems, 2nd edn. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Whittaker, R. J. (1998). Island Biogeography: Ecology, Evolution, and Conservation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wijesinghe, D. K. & Hutchings, M. J. (1997). The effects of spatial scale of environmental heterogeneity on the growth of a clonal plant: an experimental study with Glechoma hederacea. Journal of Ecology, 85, 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, M. (1988). Relationship of species number to area, distance and other variables. In Analytical Biogeography, ed. Myers, A. A. & Giller, P. S., pp. 91–115. New York: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, M., Gaston, K. J. & Lonsdale, W. M. (2001). The species-area relationship does not have an asymptote! Journal of Biogeography, 28, 827–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Withers, M. A., Palmer, M. W., Wade, G. L., White, P. S. & Neal, P. R. (1998). Changing patterns in the number of species in North American floras. In Perspectives on the Land-Use History of North America: A Context for Understanding our Changing Environment, ed. Sisk, T. D., pp. 23–32. USGS, Biological Resources Division, BSR/BDR-(1998–0003).Google Scholar
Wondzell, S. M., Cornelius, J. M. & Cunningham, G. L. (1990). Vegetation patterns, microtopography, and soils on a Chihuahuan desert playa. Journal of Vegetation Science, 1, 403–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zonneveld, I. S. (1995). Vicinism and mass effect. Journal of Vegetation Science, 6, 441–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zunzunegui, M., Diaz Barradas, M. C. & Garcia Novo, F. (1998). Vegetation fluctuation in mediterranean dune ponds in relation to rainfall variation and water extraction. Journal of Vegetation Science, 1, 151–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×