How to allow SAR collapse across local and continental scales: a resolution of the controversy between Storch et al. (2012) and Lazarina et al. (2013)

Abstract

Up‐scaling species richness from local to continental scales is an unsolved problem of macroecology. Macroecologists hope that proper up‐scaling can uncover the hidden rules that underlie spatial patterns in species richness, but a machinery to up‐scale species richness also has a purely practical side at the scales and for the habitats where direct observations cannot be performed. The species–area relationship (SAR) could provide a tool for up‐scaling, but no valid method has yet been put forward. Such a method would have resulted from Storch et al.'s (2012) suggestion that there is a universal curve to which each rescaled SAR collapses, if Lazarina et al. (2013) had not shown that it does not: both arguments were supported by data analyses. Here we present an analytical model for mainland SAR and argue in favour of the latter authors. We identify 1) the variation in mean species‐range size, 2) the variation in forces that drive SAR at various scales, and 3) the finite‐area effect, as the reasons for the absence of collapse. Finally, we suggest a rescaling that might fix the problem. We conclude, however, that ecologists are still far from finding a practical, robust and easy‐to‐use solution for up‐scaling species richness from SARs.