Power‐law species–area relationships and self‐similar species distributions within finite areas

By A. L. Šizling, David Storch. 2004

107 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6c46f2dbc89c1a897aa3411fce2bb420b1dfc111

How researchers see this paper

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

In Ecology

1. P. Adler
2. W. Lauenroth
3. Simone Fattorini
4. Melinda D. Smith
5. Ethan P. White
6. E. Tjørve
7. J. Soininen
8. J. Levine

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

1. Simone Fattorini
2. Melinda D. Smith
3. Ethan P. White
4. P. Adler
5. Jürgen Dengler
6. Petr Pyšek

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

1. P. Adler
2. W. Lauenroth
3. Simone Fattorini
4. Melinda D. Smith
5. Ethan P. White
6. E. Tjørve
7. J. Soininen
8. J. Levine

Citations in the corpus

• To Fit or Not to Fit? A Poorly Fitting Procedure Produces Inconsistent Results When the Species–Area Relationship is used to Locate Hotspots (2007, background): “Recently, several authors (e.g., Harte et al. 1999a, 1999b; Storch et al. 2003; Šizling & Storch 2004) have shown that a power model can arise from spatial self-similarity, thus providing another theoretical justification for it.”
• A comparison of the species–time relationship across ecosystems and taxonomic groups (2006, background): “…heterogeneity (Williams 1964, Harner and Harper 1976), local dispersal (Plotkin et al. 2000), population dynamics (Wissel and Maier 1992), nichebased interactions (Shmida and Wilson 1985), selfsimilarity (Harte et al. 1999, Sizling and Storch 2004), and neutral theory (Bell 2001, Hubbell 2001).”