Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T01:23:35.961Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Geometry of species distributions: random clustering and scale invariance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2012

Arnošt L. Šizling
Affiliation:
Charles University, Prague
Storch David
Affiliation:
Charles University, Prague; The Santa Fe Institute
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

Spatial biodiversity patterns are tightly related to the patterns of spatial distribution of individual species. It has been recognized that the spatial distribution of individuals is never random nor homogeneous within some well-defined clusters but is aggregated on many spatial scales: individuals form clusters which themselves are aggregated into larger clusters and so on. The most useful way to capture these patterns is with fractal geometry, which treats such patterns as self-similar sets (Kunin, 1998; Halley et al., 2004). Indeed, it has been shown that species spatial distribution is often close to fractal (Virkkala, 1993; Condit et al., 2000; Ulrich & Buszko, 2003) and that the assumption of fractality of species spatial distribution is appropriate for deriving multispecies macroecological patterns, namely the species–area relationship (Harte, Kinzig & Green, 1999; Šizling & Storch, 2004). By contrast, species sometimes reveal distributions that deviate from strict fractality (Hartley et al., 2004; He & Condit, this volume; Lennon et al., this volume). More importantly, although there are several ways in which fractal distributions could emerge (Halley et al., 2004), there is no strong biological reason why species spatial distribution should be exactly fractal, i.e. it is unclear which biological processes should produce fractal distribution.

Here we show that species spatial distributions which are very close to fractal can emerge from random processes leading to aggregation on several spatial scales. These processes have relatively straightforward biological interpretation and the spatial patterns they produce are in many parameters effectively undistinguishable from classical fractals.

Type
Chapter
Information
Scaling Biodiversity , pp. 77 - 100
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

Allen, T. F. H. & Starr, T. (1982). Hierarchy: Perspectives for Ecological Complexity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bell, G. (2000). The distribution of abundance in neutral communities. American Naturalist, 155, 606–617.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bell, G. (2001). Neutral macroecology. Science, 293, 2413–2418.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
BirdLife International/European Bird Census Council (2000). European Bird Populations: Estimates and Trends. Cambridge: BirdLife International.
Chave, J. (2004). Neutral theory and community ecology. Ecology Letters, 7, 241–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, D. B. (1981). On random placement and species-area relations. Mathematical Biosciences, 54, 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Condit, R., Ashton, P. S., Baker, P., et al. (2000). Spatial patterns in the distribution of tropical tree species. Science, 288, 1414–1418.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Falconer, K. J. (1990). Fractal Geometry: Mathematical Foundations and Applications. Chichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Gaston, K. J. & Blackburn, T. M. (2000). Pattern and Process in Macroecology. Oxford: Blackwell Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagemeijer, W. J. M. & Blair, M. J. (1997). The EBCC Atlas of European Breeding Birds. London: T. & A. D. Poyser.Google Scholar
Halley, J. M., Hartley, S., Kallimanis, S. A., Kunin, W. E., Lennon, J. J. & Sgardelis, S. P. (2004). Uses and abuses of fractals in ecology. Ecology Letters, 7, 254–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harte, J., Kinzig, A. & Green, J. L. (1999). Self-similarity in the distribution and abundance of species. Science, 284, 334–336.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harte, J., Conlisk, E., Ostling, A., Green, J. L. & Smith, A. B. (2005). A theory of spatial structure in ecological communities at multiple spatial scales. Ecological Monographs, 75, 179–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartley, S., Kunin, W. E., Lennon, J. J. & Pocock, M. J. O. (2004). Coherence and continuity in the scaling of species' distribution patterns. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 271, 81–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hastings, H. M. & Sugihara, G. (1993). Fractals, a User's Guide for the Natural Sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
He, F. L. (2005). Deriving a neutral model of species abundance from fundamental mechanisms of population dynamics. Functional Ecology, 19, 187–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
He, F. L. & Gaston, K. J. (2000). Estimating species abundance from occurrence. American Naturalist, 156, 553–559.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hubbell, S. P. (2001). The Unified Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kunin, W. E. (1998). Extrapolating species abundances across spatial scales. Science, 281, 1513–1515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunin, W. E., Hartley, S. & Lennon, J. J. (2000). Scaling down: on the challenge of estimating abundance from occurrence patterns. American Naturalist, 156, 560–566.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lennon, J. J., Kunin, W. E. & Hartley, S. (2002). Fractal species distributions do not produce power-law species-area relationships. Oikos, 97, 378–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marquet, P. A., Keymer, J. E. & Cofré, H. (2003). Breaking the stick in space: of niche models, metacommunities and patterns in the relative abundance of species. In Macroecology: Concepts and Consequences, ed. Blackburn, T. M. & Gaston, K. J., pp. 64–81. Oxford: British Ecological Society and Blackwell Science.Google Scholar
Ney-Nifle, M. & Mangel, M. (1999). Species-area curves based on geographic range and occupancy. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 196, 327–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, L. F. (1961). The problem of contiguity: an appendix of statistics of deadly quarrels. General Systems Yearbook, 6, 139–187.Google Scholar
Rosenzweig, M. L. (1995). Species Diversity in Space and Time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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
Št'astný, K., Bejček, V. & Hudec, K. (1996). Atlas of Breeding Bird Distribution in the Czech Republic 1985–1989. Jihlava: Nakladatelství a vydavatelství H & H, in Czech.Google Scholar
Sugihara, G. (1980). Minimal community structure: an explanation of species abundance pattern. American Naturalist, 116, 770–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tokeshi, M. (1996). Power fraction: a new explanation for species abundance patterns. Oikos, 75, 543–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tokeshi, M. (1999). Species Coexistence: Ecological and Evolutionary Perspectives. Oxford: Blackwell Science.Google Scholar
Ulrich, W. & Buszko, J. (2003). Self-similarity and the species-area relation of Polish butterflies. Basic and Applied Ecology, 4, 263–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Virkkala, R. (1993). Ranges of northern forest passerines: a fractal analysis. Okois, 67, 218–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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
×