Theory in Biosciences

, Volume 133, Issue 3–4, pp 175–178 | Cite as

Estimation of species extinction: what are the consequences when total species number is unknown?

Short Communication

Abstract

The species–area relationship (SAR) is known to overestimate species extinction but the underlying mechanisms remain unclear to a great extent. Here, I show that when total species number in an area is unknown, the SAR model exaggerates the estimation of species extinction. It is proposed that to accurately estimate species extinction caused by habitat destruction, one of the principal prerequisites is to accurately total the species numbers presented in the whole study area. One can better evaluate and compare alternative theoretical SAR models on the accurate estimation of species loss only when the exact total species number for the whole area is clear. This presents an opportunity for ecologists to simulate more research on accurately estimating Whittaker’s gamma diversity for the purpose of better predicting species loss.

Keywords

Diversity partitioning Species–area curve Power-law models Biodiversity conservation Biodiversity crisis 

References

  1. Arrhenius O (1921) Species and area. J Ecol 9:95–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chen Y (2013a) Species–area relationship is overestimated using distributional range maps. Theor Biol Forum 106:17–21PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Chen Y (2013b) The biases of utilizing species’ range maps to identify priority areas for conservation. Econ J 4:21–30Google Scholar
  4. Fattorini S, Borges P (2012) Species–area relationships underestimate extinction rates. Acta Oecol 40:27–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Grilli J, Azaele S, Banavar J, Maritan A (2012) Spatial aggregation and the species–area relationship across scales. J Theor Biol 313:87–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. He F, Hubbell S (2011) Species–area relationships always overestimate extinction rates from habitat loss. Nature 473:368–371PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. He F, Hubbell S (2012) Geometry and scale in species–area relationships; extinction and climate change: a reply. Nature 482:E5–E6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. He F, Hubbell S (2013) Estimating extinction from species–area relationships: why the numbers do not add up? Ecology 94:1905–1912PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Liu H, Lin Z, Teng W, Liang R (2007) The mechanism of species extinction under habitat destruction at different rates. Acta Ecol Sin 27:2410–2418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. May R, Lawton J, Stork N (1995) Assessing extinction rates. In: Lawton J, May R (eds) Extinction rates. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1–24Google Scholar
  11. Plotkin JB, Potts MD, Leslie N, Manokaran N, Lafrankie J, Ashton PS (2000) Species–area curves, spatial aggregation, and habitat specialization in tropical forests. J Theor Biol 207:81–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Rosenzweig M (1995) Species diversity in space and time. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Triantis K, Mylonas M, Whittaker R (2008) Evolutionary species–area curves as revealed by single-island endemics: insights for the interprovincial species–area relationship. Ecography 31:401–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Triantis K, Borges PAV, Ladle R, Hortal J, Cardoso P, Gaspar C, Dinis F, Mendonca E, Silveira L, Gabriel R, Melo C, Santos A (2010) Extinction debt on oceanic islands. Ecography 33:285–294Google Scholar
  15. Whittaker R (1972) Evolution and measurement of species diversity. Taxon 21:213–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Wurtz P, Annila A (2008) Roots of diversity relations. J Biophys 2008:654672PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Wurtz P, Annila A (2010) Ecological succession as an energy dispersal process. BioSystems 100:70–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Renewable ResourcesUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  2. 2.Department of ZoologyUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations