No abstract

Summary 1.Fifteen species richness estimators (three asymptotic based on species accumulation curves, 11 nonparametric, and one based in the species-area relationship) were compared by examining their performance in estimating the total species richness of epigean arthropods in the Azorean Laurisilva forests. Data obtained with standardized sampling of 78 transects in natural forest remnants of five islands were aggregated in seven different grains (i.e. ways of defining a single sample): islands, natural areas, transects, pairs of traps, traps, database records and individuals to assess the effect of using different sampling units on species richness estimations. 2. Estimated species richness scores depended both on the estimator considered and on the grain size used to aggregate data. However, several estimators (ACE, Chao1, Jackknife1 and 2 and Bootstrap) were precise in spite of grain variations. Weibull and several recent estimators [proposed by Rosenzweig et al . ( Conservation Biology , 2003, 17 , 864-874), and Ugland et al . ( Journal of Animal Ecology , 2003, 72 , 888-897)] performed poorly. 3. Estimations developed using the smaller grain sizes (pair of traps, traps, records and individuals) presented similar scores in a number of estimators (the above-mentioned plus ICE, Chao2, Michaelis-Menten, Negative Exponential and Clench). The estimations from those four sample sizes were also highly correlated. 4. Contrary to other studies, we conclude that most species richness estimators may be useful in biodiversity studies. Owing to their inherent formulas, several nonparametric and asymptotic estimators present insensitivity to differences in the way the samples are aggregated. Thus, they could be used to compare species richness scores obtained from different sampling strategies. Our results also point out that species richness estimations coming from small grain sizes can be directly compared and other estimators could give more precise results in those cases. We propose a decision framework based on our results and on the literature to assess which estimator should be used to compare species richness scores of different sites, depending on the grain size of the original data, and of the kind of data available (species occurrence or abundance data).

Aim: Higher-elevation areas on islands and continental mountains tend to be separated by longer distances, predicting higher endemism at higher elevations; our study is the first to test the generality of the predicted pattern. We also compare it empirically with contrasting expectations from hypotheses invoking higher speciation with area, temperature and species richness. Location: 32 insular and 18 continental elevational gradients from around the world. Methods: We compiled entire floras with elevation-specific occurrence information, and calculated the proportion of native species that are endemic ('percent endemism') in 100 m bands, for each of the 50 elevational gradients. Using generalized linear models, we tested the relationships between percent endemism and elevation, isolation, temperature, area and species richness. Results: Percent endemism consistently increased monotonically with elevation, globally. This was independent of richness-elevation relationships, which had varying shapes but decreased with elevation at high elevations. The endemism-elevation relationships were consistent with isolationrelated predictions, but inconsistent with hypotheses related to area, richness and temperature. Main conclusions: Higher per-species speciation rates caused by increasing isolation with elevation are the most plausible and parsimonious explanation for the globally consistent pattern of higher endemism at higher elevations that we identify. We suggest that topography-driven isolation increases speciation rates in mountainous areas, across all elevations, and increasingly towards the equator. If so, it represents a mechanism that may contribute to generating latitudinal diversity gradients in a way that is consistent with both present-day and palaeontological evidence.

Habitat destruction is the leading cause of species extinctions. However, there is typically a time-lag between the reduction in habitat area and the eventual disappearance of the remnant populations. These ''surviving but ultimately doomed'' species represent an extinction debt. Calculating the magnitude of such future extinction events has been hampered by potentially inaccurate assumptions about the slope of speciesÁarea relationships, which are habitat-and taxon-specific. We overcome this challenge by applying a method that uses the historical sequence of deforestation in the Azorean Islands, to calculate realistic and ecologically-adjusted speciesÁarea relationships. The results reveal dramatic and hitherto unrecognized levels of extinction debt, as a result of the extensive destruction of the native forest: !95%, in B600 yr. Our estimations suggest that more than half of the extant forest arthropod species, which have evolved in and are dependent on the native forest, might eventually be driven to extinction. Data on species abundances from Graciosa Island, where only a very small patch of secondary native vegetation still exists, as well as the number of species that have not been found in the last 45 yr, despite the extensive sampling effort, offer support to the predictions made. We argue that immediate action to restore and expand native forest habitat is required to avert the loss of numerous endemic species in the near future.

Aims The 50th anniversary of the publication of the seminal book, The Theory of Island Biogeography, by Robert H. MacArthur and Edward O. Wilson, is a timely moment to review and identify key research foci that could advance island biology. Here, we take a collaborative horizon‐scanning approach to identify 50 fundamental questions for the continued development of the field. Location Worldwide. Methods We adapted a well‐established methodology of horizon scanning to identify priority research questions in island biology, and initiated it during the Island Biology 2016 conference held in the Azores. A multidisciplinary working group prepared an initial pool of 187 questions. A series of online surveys was then used to refine a list of the 50 top priority questions. The final shortlist was restricted to questions with a broad conceptual scope, and which should be answerable through achievable research approaches. Results Questions were structured around four broad and partially overlapping island topics, including: (Macro)Ecology and Biogeography, (Macro)Evolution, Community Ecology, and Conservation and Management. These topics were then subdivided according to the following subject areas: global diversity patterns (five questions in total); island ontogeny and past climate change (4); island rules and syndromes (3); island biogeography theory (4); immigration–speciation–extinction dynamics (5); speciation and diversification (4); dispersal and colonization (3); community assembly (6); biotic interactions (2); global change (5); conservation and management policies (5); and invasive alien species (4). Main conclusions Collectively, this cross‐disciplinary set of topics covering the 50 fundamental questions has the potential to stimulate and guide future research in island biology. By covering fields ranging from biogeography, community ecology and evolution to global change, this horizon scan may help to foster the formation of interdisciplinary research networks, enhancing joint efforts to better understand the past, present and future of island biotas.