The relationships between local and regional species richness and spatial turnover

By Patricia Koleff, Kevin J. Gaston. 2002

108 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecological Modeling, Ecology, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6b143439b51360111764e84d232dd8641d8455ff

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecological Modeling

In Ecology

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Long‐term changes in abundance and diversity of macrophyte and waterfowl populations in an estuary with exotic macrophytes and improving water quality (2007, methodology): “Koleff and Gaston (2002) also found no relationship between spatial turnover and regional species richness at the regional scale in a terrestrial system, but they did observe a negative relationship between turnover and local species richness at a smaller scale.”
Plant-insect interactions in fragmented landscapes. (2004, background): “As measures of spatial dissimilarity (or spatial turnover) have been employed in a variety of ways, interpretation of the relative importance of local diversity is difficult (47, 86).”
From communities to continents: beta diversity of herbivorous insects (2005, methodology): “The increase in alpha and gamma diversities of insect herbivores from temperate to tropical communities is driven largely by a parallel increase in plant diversity while the diversity of insect herbivores per plant species remains constant.”
Global patterns of stream detritivore distribution: implications for biodiversity loss in changing climates (2012, background): “This relationship is not necessarily linear (Caley & Schluter, 1997), as there may be a limit to the number of species that can be supported at a particular site (saturation), but different species assemblages may be found at different sites, thereby leading to higher regional diversity (e.g. Sale,…”
Explaining the global biodiversity gradient: energy, area, history and natural selection (2004, background): “The latitudinal pattern of diversity does change with quadrat size in British birds (Lennon, Koleff, Greenwood, & Gaston, 2001; Koleff & Gaston, 2002), but the fundamental power parameter of the species–area curve explains very little of the variation in the diversity of neotropical owls…”
The ecology of urban areas and their functions for species diversity (2011, unknown): “…(Pearson et al. 2004; Schröder and Seppelt 2006), filtering concept (Williams et al. 2009), local–regional species pool process (Collins et al. 2002; Koleff and Gaston 2002), patch-matrix model (Verbeylen et al. 2003; Franklin and Lindenmayer 2009), and rural–urban gradient analysis (McDonnell et…”
Spatial scale of observation affects α, β and γ diversity of cavity‐nesting bees and wasps across a tropical land‐use gradient (2006, background): “This may mask subtle differences in species diversity, because the factors that determine diversity may not scale up or down across different spatial and temporal scales (Whittaker et al., 2001; Koleff & Gaston, 2002; Willis & Whittaker, 2002; Zanette et al., 2005).”
Conservation Biogeography: assessment and prospect (2005, methodology): “This is shown by analyses using nested sets of grid cells that reveal different patterns of diversity by varying grain and holding extent constant (Stoms, 1994; Rahbek & Graves, 2000, 2001; Koleff & Gaston, 2002).”
On defining and quantifying biotic homogenization (2006, background): “…and homogenization implied in some empirical studies (e.g. Wilson, 1997), the association between different measures of diversity is highly variable (Koleff & Gaston, 2002) and the loss of native biodiversity is not related universally to increased TH (Collins et al ., 2002; Olden et al ., 2004).”