Book contents
- The Species–Area Relationship
- Ecology, Biodiversity and Conservation
- The Species–Area Relationship
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Preface
- Part I Introduction and History
- Part II Diversity–Area Relationships: The Different Types and Underlying Factors
- Part III Theoretical Advances in Species–Area Relationship Research
- Part IV The Species–Area Relationship in Applied Ecology
- 13 The Identification of Biodiversity Hotspots Using the Species–Area Relationship
- 14 Using the Species–Area Relationship to Predict Extinctions Resulting from Habitat Loss
- 15 Using Network Analysis to Explore the Role of Dispersal in Producing and Maintaining Island Species–Area Relationships
- 16 Does Geometry Dominate Extinction due to Habitat Loss?
- 17 Using Relict Species–Area Relationships to Estimate the Conservation Value of Reservoir Islands to Improve Environmental Impact Assessments of Dams
- 18 An Investigation of Species–Area Relationships in Marine Systems at Large Spatial Scales
- Part V Future Directions in Species–Area Relationship Research
- Index
- References
16 - Does Geometry Dominate Extinction due to Habitat Loss?
from Part IV - The Species–Area Relationship in Applied Ecology
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 March 2021
Book contents
- The Species–Area Relationship
- Ecology, Biodiversity and Conservation
- The Species–Area Relationship
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Preface
- Part I Introduction and History
- Part II Diversity–Area Relationships: The Different Types and Underlying Factors
- Part III Theoretical Advances in Species–Area Relationship Research
- Part IV The Species–Area Relationship in Applied Ecology
- 13 The Identification of Biodiversity Hotspots Using the Species–Area Relationship
- 14 Using the Species–Area Relationship to Predict Extinctions Resulting from Habitat Loss
- 15 Using Network Analysis to Explore the Role of Dispersal in Producing and Maintaining Island Species–Area Relationships
- 16 Does Geometry Dominate Extinction due to Habitat Loss?
- 17 Using Relict Species–Area Relationships to Estimate the Conservation Value of Reservoir Islands to Improve Environmental Impact Assessments of Dams
- 18 An Investigation of Species–Area Relationships in Marine Systems at Large Spatial Scales
- Part V Future Directions in Species–Area Relationship Research
- Index
- References
Summary
We simulate habitat loss and derive species accumulation curves (SAC) and endemics–area relationship curves (EAR) in order to predict expected extinctions. The EAR may have a very different shape depending on the geometry of habitat loss. If area is lost in a spatially random way we may preserve more species than if area is lost in a clustered way, but with a larger extinction debt. If area is lost continuously inwards (‘inward EAR’) then the immediate loss of species can be much greater than if the same area is lost from the core towards its edge (‘outward EAR’). The main reason for these effects is the spatial autocorrelation of species distributions and the definition of endemics. Spatial autocorrelation means that sampling plots that are clustered are occupied by communities with more similar composition. If endemism is defined in relation to the study area, we can observe great species losses at the edge due to the large numbers of ranges that intersect the study area edge, but most of these species persist outside the study area. If instead we examine endemism on a global scale then the pattern of species losses is not influenced by the geometry of habitat loss.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Species–Area RelationshipTheory and Application, pp. 399 - 416Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Andrle, R. F. & Carroll, J. R. (eds.) (1988) The atlas of breeding birds in New York State. New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Brooks, T. M., Mittermeier, R. A., da Fonseca, G. A., Gerlach, J., Hoffmann, M., Lamoreux, J. F., Mittermeier, C. G., Pilgrim, J. D. & Rodrigues, A. S. (2006) Global biodiversity conservation priorities. Science, 313, 58–61.Google Scholar
Dengler, J. & Oldeland, J. (2010) Effects of sampling protocol on the shapes of species richness curves. Journal of Biogeography, 37, 1698–1705.Google Scholar
Diamond, J. M. (1972) Biogeographic kinetics: Estimation of relaxation times for avifaunas of southwest Pacific islands. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 69, 3199–3203.Google Scholar
Diniz‐Filho, J. A. F., Bini, L. M. & Hawkins, B. A. (2003) Spatial autocorrelation and red herrings in geographical ecology. Global Ecology & Biogeography, 12, 53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fattorini, S. & Borges, P. A. (2012) Species–area relationships underestimate extinction rates. Acta Oecologica, 40, 27–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, J. L. & Ostling, A. (2003) Endemics–area relationships: The influence of species dominance and spatial aggregation. Ecology, 84, 3090–3097.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
Halley, J. M., Monokrousos, N., Mazaris, A. D., Newmark, W. D. & Vokou, D. (2016) Dynamics of extinction debt across five taxonomic groups. Nature Communications, 7, 12283.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halley, J. M., Sgardeli, V. & Monokrousos, N. (2013) Species–area relationships and extinction forecasts. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1286, 50–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halley, J. M., Sgardeli, V. & Triantis, K. A. (2014) Extinction debt and the species–area relationship: A neutral perspective. Global Ecology & Biogeography, 23, 113–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
He, F. & Hubbell, S. P. (2011) Species–area relationships always overestimate extinction rates from habitat loss. Nature, 473, 368.Google Scholar
Kallimanis, A. S., Kunin, W. E., Halley, J. M. & Sgardelis, S. P. (2005) Metapopulation extinction risk under spatially autocorrelated disturbance. Conservation Biology, 19, 534–546.Google Scholar
Keil, P., Pereira, H. M., Cabral, J. S., Chase, J. M., May, F., Martins, I. S. & Winter, M. (2018) Spatial scaling of extinction rates: Theory and data reveal nonlinearity and a major upscaling and downscaling challenge. Global Ecology & Biogeography, 27, 2–13.Google Scholar
Keil, P., Storch, D. & Jetz, W. (2015) On the decline of biodiversity due to area loss. Nature Communications, 6, 8837.Google Scholar
Kinzig, A. P. & Harte, J. (2000) Implications of endemics–area relationships for estimates of species extinctions. Ecology, 81, 3305–3311.Google Scholar
Kuussaari, M., Bommarco, R., Heikkinen, R. K., Helm, A., Krauss, J., Lindborg, R., Öckinger, E., Pärtel, M., Pino, J., Rodà, F. & Stefanescu, C. (2009) Extinction debt: A challenge for biodiversity conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24, 564–571.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lazarina, M., Kallimanis, A. S., Pantis, J. D. & Sgardelis, S. P. (2014) Linking species richness curves from non-contiguous sampling to contiguous-nested SAR: An empirical study. Acta Oecologica, 61, 24–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legendre, P. (1993) Spatial autocorrelation: Trouble or new paradigm? Ecology, 74, 1659–1673.Google Scholar
Matias, M. G., Gravel, D., Guilhaumon, F., Desjardins‐Proulx, P., Loreau, M., Münkemüller, T. & Mouquet, N. (2014) Estimates of species extinctions from species–area relationships strongly depend on ecological context. Ecography, 37, 431–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pan, X. (2013) Fundamental equations for species–area theory. Scientific Reports, 3, 1334.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pereira, H. M., Borda-de-Água, L. & Martins, I. S. (2012) Geometry and scale in species–area relationships. Nature, 482, E3.Google Scholar
Pimm, S. L., Jenkins, C. N., Abell, R., Brooks, T. M., Gittleman, J. L., Joppa, L. N., Raven, P. H., Roberts, C. M. & Sexton, J. O. (2014) The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science, 344, 1246752.Google Scholar
Rahbek, C. (2005) The role of spatial scale and the perception of large‐scale species‐richness patterns. Ecology Letters, 8, 224–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahbek, C. & Colwell, R. K. (2011) Biodiversity: Species loss revisited. Nature, 473, 288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rybicki, J. & Hanski, I. (2013) Species–area relationships and extinctions caused by habitat loss and fragmentation. Ecology Letters, 16, 27–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scheiner, S. M., Chiarucci, A., Fox, G. A., Helmus, M. R., McGlinn, D. J. & Willig, M. R. (2011) The underpinnings of the relationship of species richness with space and time. Ecological Monographs, 81, 195–213.Google Scholar
Šizling, A. L., Kunin, W. E., Šizlingová, E., Reif, J. & Storch, D. (2011) Between geometry and biology: The problem of universality of the species–area relationship. The American Naturalist, 178, 602–611.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soininen, J., McDonald, R. & Hillebrand, H. (2007) The distance decay of similarity in ecological communities. Ecography, 30, 3–12.Google Scholar
Steinbauer, M. J., Dolos, K., Reineking, B. & Beierkuhnlein, C. (2012) Current measures for distance decay in similarity of species composition are influenced by study extent and grain size. Global Ecology & Biogeography, 21, 1203–1212.Google Scholar
Tsianou, M. A., Koutsias, N., Mazaris, A. D. & Kallimanis, A. S. (2016) Climate and landscape explain richness patterns depending on the type of species’ distribution data. Acta Oecologica, 74, 19–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulrich, W. & Buszko, J. (2005) Detecting biodiversity hotspots using species–area and endemics–area relationships: The case of butterflies. Biodiversity and Conservation, 14, 1977–1988.Google Scholar