SPECIES DIVERSITY PATTERNS DERIVED FROM SPECIES–AREA MODELS

By Fangliang He, Pierre Legendre. 2002

410 citations recorded by the source corpus.

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

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a04afc77710d6dd4805f8e361b14a987d48f37e6

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, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Changes in species diversity following habitat disturbance are dependent on spatial scale: theoretical and empirical evidence (2008, background): “Thus, measures of species richness (Palmer & White 1994; He & Legendre 2002) and many measures of species diversity vary with spatial scale (Crawley & Harral 2001; Gering & Crist 2002; Willis & Whittaker 2002).”
Species abundance distributions: moving beyond single prediction theories to integration within an ecological framework. (2007, background): “He & Legendre (2002) systematically explored how the SAR changes depending on the degree of aggregation of individuals within species.”
How is diversity related to species turnover through time (2007, background): “…basis for systematic variation in the shape of the species area relationship has been explored (Preston 1960, Connor and McCoy 1979, Sugihara 1980, He and Legendre 1996, 2002, Harte et al. 1999, Hubbell 2001), temporal turnover in species composition has received less theoretical attention.”
Self-similarity in species-area relationship and in species abundance distribution (2006, methodology): “For each of the 2000 sets, I calculated the expected number of species S when randomly taking N of the N0 organisms (for N from 2 up to half the size of the smallest set), from the equation S S0 a S0 j 1(1 N=N0) nj (He and Legendre 2002).”
The island species–area relationship: biology and statistics (2012, background): “With the notable exception of just a few models (e.g. Archibald, 1949; Preston, 1962; May, 1975; He & Legendre, 2002; Martin & Goldenfeld, 2006) ‘realism’ cannot be rigorously assessed for most of the functions considered herein, as an appropriate theoretical, mechanistic background remains lacking.”
Consequences of dominance: a review of evenness effects on local and regional ecosystem processes. (2008, background): “First of all, evenness alters the number of species per unit area (or volume) by altering the shape of species–area relationships (SARs) (He and Legendre 2002, Green and Ostling 2003).”
Predicting the effects of increasing temporal scale on species composition, diversity, and rank-abundance distributions (2010, background): “The magnitude of timeaveraging effects is thus driven both by rates of change in the composition of assemblages at local spatial scales and by the metacommunity structure governed by speciationextinction dynamics at larger spatial scales (He and Legendre 2002; McGlinn and Palmer 2009).”
Spatial patterns of tree species richness in two temperate forests (2011, background): “…of whether ecological communities are dispersal assembled or niche assembled (Hubbell 2001; McGill, Maurer & Weiser 2006), but researchers are now generally convinced that these assembly mechanisms are mutually complementary rather than mutually exclusive (He & Legendre 2002; Shen et al. 2009).”
The state of plant population modelling in light of environmental change (2008, background): “Here, numerous modelling studies deal with the drivers and consequences of species diversity (e.g. Hubbell 2001, 2005; He and Legendre, 2002; Chave et al., 2002; Chave, 2004; Mouquet et al., 2006), although not all of these models explicitly incorporate population dynamics in their design.”
Intensive monitoring of forest ecosystems in Europe: 1. Objectives, set-up and evaluation strategy (2003, background): “Thus the increase in herbs and shrubs species that we observed is not surprising, since it supports the species-area relationship, one of the most robust generalisation in ecology, that is largely driven by species abundance and spatial distribution (He and Legendre, 2002).”
From Classical to Canonical Ordination (2012, methodology): “This well-known fact has been embedded in the theory of species-abundance models; see He and Legendre (1996, 2002) for a synthetic view of these models.”
Power‐law species–area relationships and self‐similar species distributions within finite areas (2004, background): “This is in accord with most models of the SAR based on random species distributions (Coleman 1981; Williams 1995; Muriel & Mangel 1999; He & Legendre 2002).”
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): “... (e.g., Harte et al. 1999a, 1999b; Storch et al. 2003 ;S y izling & Storch 2004) have shown that a power model can arise from spatial self-similarity, thus providing another theoretical justification for it. However, Maddux and Athreya (1999) considered invalid some assumptions of self-similarity”
ENDEMICS–AREA RELATIONSHIPS: THE INFLUENCE OF SPECIES DOMINANCE AND SPATIAL AGGREGATION (2003, methodology): “Here we assume, as did He and Legendre (2002), that the individuals of the set of S species with abundances {Ni, i 5 1, 2, . . . , S} are distributed such that the probability of species i being present in a subregion of area x is independent of the spatial distribution of all other species and…”