Plant Ecology

, Volume 196, Issue 1, pp 143–151 | Cite as

The scale of analysis determines the spatial pattern of woody species diversity in the Mediterranean environment

  • Athanasios S. Kallimanis
  • John M. Halley
  • Despina Vokou
  • Stefanos P. Sgardelis


We examine the spatial pattern of woody species diversity at different scales, in two sites of Mt. Holomontas in northern Greece, which falls within the transitional zone between temperate forests and Mediterranean-type ecosystems. We investigate how diversity is distributed in space and whether the perceived pattern changes with the scale of observation. We use two different metrics of diversity: species richness and species turnover. Our main finding is that the spatial pattern of diversity changes with the scale of observation or analysis. For a given scale, the pattern of species richness (alpha diversity) is negatively correlated with the pattern of species turnover (beta diversity). Species-rich areas have more species in common with their neighbors than species-poor areas. The between-scale disparity of the spatial pattern of diversity may be a general feature of ecological systems. For this to be validated, studies with different groups of species in different biomes and in different biogeographical areas are required; our study contributes to this direction providing evidence that this holds true for woody species in Mediterranean communities. Finally, we discuss how these findings might affect important issues in theoretical and applied ecology, such as identifying the environmental factors driving biodiversity.


Pattern matching Spatial autocorrelation Species turnover 


  1. Blackburn TM, Gaston KJ (1996) Spatial patterns in the species richness of birds in the new world. Ecography 19:369–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Clifford P, Richardson S, Hemon D (1989) Assessing the significance of the correlation between 2 spatial processes. Biometrics 45:123–134PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Foody GM (2004) Spatial nonstationarity and scale-dependency in the relationship between species richness and environmental determinants for the sub-Saharan endemic avifauna. Global Ecol Biogeogr 13:315–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Harrison S, Ross SJ, Lawton JH (1992) Beta-diversity on geographic gradients in Britain. J Anim Ecol 61:151–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. He FL, Legendre P (2002) Species diversity patterns derived from species-area models. Ecology 83:1185–1198Google Scholar
  6. He F, LaFrankie JV, Song B (2002) Scale dependence of tree abundance and richness in a tropical rain forest, Malaysia. Landscape Ecol 17:559–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Heegaard E (2004) Trends in aquatic macrophyte species turnover in Northern Ireland – which factors determine the spatial distribution of local species turnover? Global Ecol Biogeogr 13:397–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hunter JT (2005) Geographic variation in plant species richness patterns within temperate eucalypt woodlands of eastern Australia. Ecography 28:505–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hurlbert AH, White EP (2005) Disparity between range map- and survey-based analyses of species richness: patterns, processes and implications. Ecol Lett 8:319–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jetz W, Rahbek C (2002) Geographic range size and determinants of avian species richness. Science 297:1548–1551PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jetz W, Rahbek C, Lichstein JW (2005) Local and global approaches to spatial data analysis in ecology. Global Ecol Biogeogr 14:97–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kallimanis AS, Ragia V, Sgardelis SP, Pantis JD (2007) Using regression trees to predict alpha diversity based upon geographical and habitat characteristics. Biodivers Conserv (in press)Google Scholar
  13. Kati V, Devilliers P, Dufrene M, Legakis A,Vokou D, Lebrun P (2004a) Hotspots, complementarity or representativeness? Designing optimal small-scale reserves for biodiversity conservation. Biol Conserv 120:471–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kati V, Devilliers P, Dufrene M, Legakis A, Vokou D, Lebrun P (2004b) Testing the value of six taxonomic groups as biodiversity indicators at a local scale. Conserv Biol 18:667–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Koleff P, Gaston KJ (2002) The relationships between local and regional species richness and spatial turnover. Global Ecol Biogeogr 11:363–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Koleff P, Gaston KJ, Lennon JJ (2003) Measuring beta diversity for presence-absence data. J Anim Ecol 72:367–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lennon JJ, Koleff P, Greenwood JJD, Gaston KJ (2001) The geographical structure of British bird distributions: diversity, spatial turnover and scale. J Anim Ecol 70:966–979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lira-Noriega A, Soberón J, Navarro-Sigüenza AG, Nakazawa Y, Townsend Peterson A (2007) Scale dependency of diversity components estimated from primary biodiversity data and distribution maps. Divers Distrib 13:185–195Google Scholar
  19. Loreau M (2000) Are communities saturated? On the relationship between alpha, beta and gamma diversity. Ecol Lett 3:73–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Moreno CE, Halffter G (2000) Assessing the completeness of bat biodiversity inventories using species accumulation curves. J Appl Ecol 37:149–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Økland RH, Bratli H, Dramstad WE, Edvardsen A, Engan G, Fjellstad W, Heegaard E, Pedersen O, Solstad H (2006) Scale-dependent importance of environment, land use and landscape structure for species richness and composition of SE Norwegian modern agricultural landscapes. Landscape Ecol 21:969–987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Okuda T, Noda T, Yamamoto T, Ito N, Nakaoka M (2004) Latitudinal gradient of species diversity: multi-scale variability in rocky intertidal sessile assemblages along the Northwestern Pacific coast. Popul Ecol 46:159–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Orme CDL, Davies RG, Burgess M, Eigenbrod F, Pickup N, Olson VA, Webster AJ, Ding TS, Rasmussen PC, Ridgely RS, Stattersfield AJ, Bennett PM, Blackburn TM, Gaston KJ, Owens IPF (2005) Global hotspots of species richness are not congruent with endemism or threat. Nature 436:1016–1019PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Palmer MW, White PS (1994) Scale dependence and the species-area relationship. Am Nat 144:717–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pärtel M, Zobel M, Liira J, Zobel K (2000) Species richness limitations in productive and oligotrophic plant communities. Oikos 90:191–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rahbek C, Graves GR (2001) Multiscale assessment of patterns of avian species richness. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:4534–4539PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shriner SA, Wilson KR, Flather CH (2006) Reserve networks based on richness hotspots and representation vary with scale. Ecol Appl 16:1660–1673PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Soininen J, McDonald R, Hillebrand H (2007) The distance decay of similarity in ecological communities. Ecography 30:3–12Google Scholar
  29. Whittaker RM (1960) Vegetation of the Siskiyou mountains, Oregon and California. Ecol Monogr 30:279–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zhang Y, Ma K, Anand M, Fu B (2006) Do generalized scaling laws exist for species abundance distribution in mountains? Oikos 115:81–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Athanasios S. Kallimanis
    • 1
    • 2
  • John M. Halley
    • 1
    • 3
  • Despina Vokou
    • 1
  • Stefanos P. Sgardelis
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EcologyAristotle UniversityThessalonikiGreece
  2. 2.Department of Environmental and Natural Resources ManagementUniversity of IoanninaAgrinioGreece
  3. 3.Department of Biological Applications and TechnologyUniversity of IoanninaIoanninaGreece

Personalised recommendations