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: 2024-12-26T16:47:40.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - The Species–Area Relationships of Ecological Neutral Theory

from Part III - Theoretical Advances in Species–Area Relationship Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2021

By
James Rosindell  and
Ryan A. Chisholm
Edited by
Thomas J. Matthews ,
Kostas A. Triantis  and
Robert J. Whittaker
Thomas J. Matthews
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham
Kostas A. Triantis
Affiliation:
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
Robert J. Whittaker
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Get access

Summary

Ecological neutral theory refers to a suite of neutral models that all assume the demographic properties of an individual are independent of its species identity. This is a strong assumption that precludes explicit ecological niches or trophic interactions. Nevertheless, neutral models have been historically successful in replicating classic ecological patterns and linking these to mechanisms in insightful ways. Here we review the species–area relationship (SAR) predicted by various neutral models in different contexts. We discuss ‘mainland SARs’ relevant to large swathes of uninterrupted habitat and show that neutral theory predicts a triphasic SAR shape across broad spatial scales. We discuss ‘island SARs’ relevant to isolated patches of habitat and show that neutral theory predicts no effect of area and a single species for small islands and potentially rich behaviour for larger islands which may harbour endemic species. We also discuss two more complex types of SAR corresponding to cases where the areas sampled and sometimes the habitat itself are distributed unevenly across space in a fragmented pattern. We conclude by demonstrating specific applications of neutral SARs, including calculating extinction debt as well as optimal design of sampling schemes and nature reserves.

Keywords

Ecological neutral theoryneutral modelsspecies–area relationshipspatially implicit neutral modelspatially explicit neutral modelsPreston functionisland SARsdispersalfragmented SARbiodiversity conservation
Type
Chapter
Information
The Species–Area Relationship
Theory and Application
 , pp. 259 - 288
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

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

Abramowitz, M. & Stegun, I. A. (eds.) (1972) Handbook of mathematical functions with formulas, graphs, and mathematical tables, 10th Printing. National Bureau of Standards Applied Mathematics Series 55. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Allouche, O. & Kadmon, R. (2009) Demographic analysis of Hubbell’s neutral theory of biodiversity. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 258, 274–280.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alzate, A., Janzen, T., Bonte, D., Rosindell, J. & Etienne, R. S. (2019) A simple spatially explicit neutral model explains the range size distribution of reef fishes. Global Ecology & Biogeography, 28, 875–890.Google Scholar
Bell, G. (2001) Neutral macroecology. Science, 293, 2413–2418.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bewick, S., Chisholm, R. A., Akçay, E. & Godsoe, W. (2015) A stochastic biodiversity model with overlapping niche structure. Theoretical Ecology, 8, 81–109.Google Scholar
Chisholm, R. A. & Lichstein, J. W. (2009) Linking dispersal, immigration and scale in the neutral theory of biodiversity. Ecology Letters, 12, 1385–1393.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chisholm, R. A. & Pacala, S. W. (2010) Niche and neutral models predict asymptotically equivalent species abundance distributions in high-diversity ecological communities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 107, 15821–15825.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chisholm, R. A., Fung, T., Chimalakonda, D. & O’Dwyer, J. P. (2016) Maintenance of biodiversity on islands. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 283, 20160102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chisholm, R. A., Lim, F., Yeoh, Y. S., Seah, W. W., Condit, R. & Rosindell, J. (2018) Species–area relationships and biodiversity loss in fragmented landscapes. Ecology Letters, 21, 804–813.Google Scholar
Clark, J. S. (2009) Beyond neutral science. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24, 8–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, J. S. (2012) The coherence problem with the unified neutral theory of biodiversity. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 27, 198–202.Google Scholar
Clark, J. S., Silman, M., Kern, R., Macklin, E. & HilleRisLambers, J. (1999) Seed dispersal near and far: Patterns across temperate and tropical forests. Ecology, 80, 1475–1494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, J. M. (1975) The island dilemma: Lessons of modern biogeographic studies for the design of natural reserves. Biological Conservation, 7, 129–146.Google Scholar
Durrett, R. & Levin, S. (1996) Spatial models for species–area curves. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 179, 119–127.Google Scholar
Etienne, R. S. & Alonso, D. (2005) A dispersal-limited sampling theory for species and alleles. Ecology Letters, 8, 1147–1156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haegeman, B. & Etienne, R. S. (2017) A general sampling formula for community structure data. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 8, 1506–1519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halley, J. M. & Iwasa, Y. (2011) Neutral theory as a predictor of avifaunal extinctions after habitat loss. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 108, 2316–2321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hansen, M. C., Potapov, P. V., Moore, R., Hancher, M., Turubanova, S. A., Tyukavina, A., Thau, D., Stehman, S. V., Goetz, S. J., Loveland, T. R., Kommareddy, A., Egorov, A., Chini, L., Justice, C. O. & Townshend, J. R. G. (2013) High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science, 342, 850–853.Google Scholar
Hanski, I., Zurita, G. A., Bellocq, M. I. & Rybicki, J. (2013) Species–fragmented area relationship. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 110, 12715–12720.Google Scholar
He, F. (2005) Deriving a neutral model of species abundance from fundamental mechanisms of population dynamics. Functional Ecology, 19, 187–193.Google Scholar
He, F. & Legendre, P. (2002) Species diversity patterns derived from species–area models. Ecology, 83, 1185–1198.Google Scholar
Heaney, L. R. (2000) Dynamic disequilibrium: A long‐term, large‐scale perspective on the equilibrium model of island biogeography. Global Ecology & Biogeography, 9, 59–74.Google Scholar
Holley, R. A. & Liggett, T. M. (1975) Ergodic theorems for weakly interacting systems and the voter model. The Annals of Probability, 3, 643–663.Google Scholar
Hubbell, S. P. (1997) A unified theory of biogeography and relative species abundance and its application to tropical rain forests and coral reefs. Coral Reefs, 16, S9–S21.Google Scholar
Hubbell, S. P. (2001) The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kingman, J. F. C. (1982) The coalescent. Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 13, 235–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, O. T. (2006) Climate change, species–area curves and the extinction crisis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 361, 163–171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lomolino, M. V. & Weiser, M. D. (2001) Towards a more general species–area relationship: Diversity on all islands, great and small. Journal of Biogeography, 28, 431–445.Google Scholar
MacArthur, R. H. & Wilson, E. O. (1963) An equilibrium theory of insular zoogeography. Evolution, 17, 373–387.Google Scholar
MacArthur, R. H. & Wilson, E. O. (1967) The theory of island biogeography. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human bell-being. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
McGarigal, K. & Marks, B. J. (1995) FRAGSTATS: Spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-351. Portland, OR: Northwest Research Station, USDA-Forest Service.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGill, B. J. (2003) A test of the unified neutral theory of biodiversity. Nature, 422, 881–885.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Niering, W. A. (1963) Terrestrial ecology of Kapingamarangi Atoll, Caroline Islands. Ecological Monographs, 33, 131–160.Google Scholar
O’Dwyer, J. P. & Cornell, S. J. (2018) Cross-scale neutral ecology and the maintenance of biodiversity. Scientific Reports, 8, 10200.Google Scholar
O’Dwyer, J. P. & Green, J. L. (2010) Field theory for biogeography: A spatially explicit model for predicting patterns of biodiversity. Ecology Letters, 13, 87–95.Google Scholar
Pigolotti, S. & Cencini, M. (2009) Speciation-rate dependence in species–area relationships. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 260, 83–89.Google Scholar
Plotkin, J. B., Potts, M. D., Yu, D. W., Bunyavejchewin, S., Condit, R., Foster, R., Hubbell, S., LaFrankie, J., Manokaran, N., Seng, L. H., Sukumar, R., Nowak, M. A. & Ashton, P. S. (2000) Predicting species diversity in tropical forests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 97, 10850–10854.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Preston, F. W. (1960) Time and space variation of species. Ecology, 41, 611–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ricklefs, R. E. (2006) The unified neutral theory of biodiversity: Do the numbers add up? Ecology, 87, 1424–1431.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosindell, J. & Cornell, S. J. (2007) Species–area relationships from a spatially explicit neutral model in an infinite landscape. Ecology Letters, 10, 586–595.Google Scholar
Rosindell, J. & Cornell, S. J. (2009) Species–area curves, neutral models, and long-distance dispersal. Ecology, 90, 1743–1750.Google Scholar
Rosindell, J. & Phillimore, A. B. (2011) A unified model of island biogeography sheds light on the zone of radiation. Ecology Letters, 14, 552–560.Google Scholar
Rosindell, J., Cornell, S. J., Hubbell, S. P. & Etienne, R. S. (2010) Protracted speciation revitalizes the neutral theory of biodiversity. Ecology Letters, 13, 716–727.Google Scholar
Rosindell, J., Hubbell, S. P. & Etienne, R. S. (2011) The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography at age ten. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 26, 340–348.Google Scholar
Rosindell, J., Hubbell, S. P., He, F., Harmon, L. J. & Etienne, R. S. (2012a) The case for ecological neutral theory. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 27, 203–208.Google Scholar
Rosindell, J., Jansen, P. A. & Etienne, R. S. (2012b) Age structure in neutral theory resolves inconsistencies related to reproductive-size threshold. Journal of Plant Ecology, 5, 64–71.Google Scholar
Rosindell, J., Wong, Y. & Etienne, R. S. (2008) A coalescence approach to spatial neutral ecology. Ecological Informatics, 3, 259–271.Google Scholar
Scheiner, S. M. (2003) Six types of species–area curves. Global Ecology & Biogeography, 12, 441–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storch, D., Keil, P. & Jetz, W. (2012) Universal species–area and endemics–area relationships at continental scales. Nature, 488, 78–81.Google Scholar
Thomas, C. D., Cameron, A., Green, R. E., Bakkenes, M., Beaumont, L. J., Collingham, Y. C., Erasmus, B. F. N., Siqueira, M. F. D., Grainger, A., Hannah, L., Hughes, L., Huntley, B., Jaarsveld, A. S. V., Midgley, G. F., Miles, L., Ortega-Huerta, M. A., Peterson, A. T., Phillips, O. L. & Williams, S. E. (2004) Extinction risk from climate change. Nature, 427, 145–148.Google Scholar
Thompson, S. E., Chisholm, R. A. & Rosindell, J. (2019) Characterising extinction debt following habitat fragmentation using neutral theory. Ecology Letters, 22, 2087–2096.Google Scholar
Tilman, D., May, R. M., Lehman, C. L. & Nowak, M. A. (1994) Habitat destruction and the extinction debt. Nature, 371, 65–66.Google Scholar
Vallade, M. & Houchmandzadeh, B. (2003) Analytical solution of a neutral model of biodiversity. Physical Review E, 68, 0619021–0619025.Google Scholar
Volkov, I., Banavar, J. R., Hubbell, S. P. & Maritan, A. (2003) Neutral theory and relative species abundance in ecology. Nature, 424, 1035–1037.Google Scholar
Volkov, I., Banavar, J. R., Hubbell, S. P. & Maritan, A. (2007) Patterns of relative species abundance in rainforests and coral reefs. Nature, 450, 45–49.Google Scholar
Wright, S. J., Jaramillo, M. A., Pavon, J., Condit, R., Hubbell, S. P. & Foster, R. B. (2005) Reproductive size thresholds in tropical trees: Variation among individuals, species and forests. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 21, 307–315.Google Scholar
Zillio, T., Volkov, I., Banavar, J., Hubbell, S. P. & Maritan, A. (2005) Spatial scaling in model plant communities. Physical Review Letters, 95, 098101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] 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
×