Species accumulation in small–large vs large–small order: more species but not all species?

Deane, David C.

doi:10.1007/s00442-022-05261-1

Cited by 5 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, the use of species accumulation curves does not fully account for the scale dependence of species richness. As a consequence, through the effects of the species–area relationship, the probability of encountering new species is maximized when going from small-to-large parks and minimized when going from large-to-small parks [6], which results in an almost vertical slope of the initial small-to-large species accumulation curves (see electronic supplementary material, appendix S1). Our approach removed the steepest portion of the small-to-large species accumulation curve.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Subsequent studies confirmed the prevalence of SS > SL across taxa and geographical regions [5]. These findings, however, have been criticized as misleading due to methodological concerns regarding empirical SLOSS comparisons including the use of cross-scale species accumulation curves [6]. Nevertheless, the application of the SL > SS principle remains a dominant paradigm in conservation planning and management where large patches of natural habitat are often preserved at the expense of small patches [7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Collections of small urban parks consistently support higher species richness but not higher phylogenetic or functional diversity

La Sorte,

Clark,

Lepczyk

et al. 2023

Proc. R. Soc. B.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When prioritizing regions for conservation protection, decisions are often based on the principle that a single large reserve should support more species than several small reserves of the same total area (SLOSS). This principle remains a central paradigm in conservation planning despite conflicting empirical evidence and methodological concerns. In urban areas where small parks tend to dominate and policies to promote biodiversity are becoming increasingly popular, determining the most appropriate prioritization method is critical. Here, we document the role of SLOSS in defining the seasonal diversity of birds in 475 parks in 21 US cities. Collections of small parks were consistently associated with higher species richness, spatial turnover and rarity. Collections of both small and large parks were associated with higher phylogenetic and functional diversity whose patterns varied across seasons and cities. Thus, collections of small parks are a reliable source of species richness driven by higher spatial turnover and rarity, whereas collections of both small and large parks contain the potential to support higher phylogenetic and functional diversity. The presence of strong intra-annual and geographical variation emphasizes the need for regional prioritization strategies, where multiple diversity metrics are examined across parks and seasons.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collections of small urban parks consistently support higher species richness but not higher phylogenetic or functional diversity

La Sorte,

Clark,

Lepczyk

et al. 2023

Proc. R. Soc. B.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although the FragSAD studies are heterogeneous in design (e.g., sampling effort and method), the database includes information on the species abundance distribution sampled in each patch from each data set, thereby allowing one to control sampling effort effects while synthesizing disparate data sets. This is important because sampling effort can cause bias in SLOSS analyses, specifically by inflating biodiversity in sets of many small patches when sampling intensity across patches is not proportional to patch area (Deane, 2022; Fahrig, 2020; Gavish et al., 2012).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Empirical evidence suggesting that SS > SL could be a ubiquitous pattern elicits the question of whether this pattern can safely inform habitat protection decisions in understudied systems (Fahrig et al., 2022). However, skepticism persists around using the SS > SL pattern in conservation (Deane, 2022; Fletcher et al., 2018; Haddad et al., 2015). One reason underlying this might be that some studies suggest sensitivity to habitat fragmentation in some taxa.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Obstruction of biodiversity conservation by minimum patch size criteria

Riva

Fahrig

2023

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Minimum patch size criteria for habitat protection reflect the conservation principle that a single large (SL) patch of habitat has higher biodiversity than several small (SS) patches of the same total area (SL > SS). Nonetheless, this principle is often incorrect, and biodiversity conservation requires placing more emphasis on protection of large numbers of small patches (SS > SL). We used a global database reporting the abundances of species across hundreds of patches to assess the SL > SS principle in systems where small patches are much smaller than the typical minimum patch size criteria applied for biodiversity conservation (i.e., ∼85% of patches <100 ha). The 76 metacommunities we examined included 4401 species in 1190 patches. From each metacommunity, we resampled species–area accumulation curves to evaluate how biodiversity responded to habitat existing as a few large patches or as many small patches. Counter to the SL > SS principle and consistent with previous syntheses, species richness accumulated more rapidly when adding several small patches (45.2% SS > SL vs. 19.9% SL > SS) to reach the same cumulative area, even for the very small patches in our data set. Responses of taxa to habitat fragmentation differed, which suggests that when a given total area of habitat is to be protected, overall biodiversity conservation will be most effective if that habitat is composed of as many small patches as possible, plus a few large ones. Because minimum patch size criteria often require larger patches than the small patches we examined, our results suggest that such criteria hinder efforts to protect biodiversity.

show abstract

“…where (e.g., Chase et al, 2020;Deane, 2022;Fahrig, 2017;Gooriah et al, 2021). Counter-intuitively, the area for unbiased species representation was largest for invertebrates and smallest for nonavian vertebrates.…”

Section: Variation In Response Among Metacommunity Types and Taxonomi...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Mean landscape‐scale incidence of species in discrete habitats is patch size dependent

Deane,

Hui,

McGeoch

2024

Global Ecol Biogeogr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimA pervasive negative relationship between the species richness of an assemblage and the mean global range size of the species it contains has recently been identified. Here, we test for an effect of habitat patch size on the mean landscape‐scale incidence (estimating local range size) of constituent species independent of variation in richness.LocationGlobal.Time PeriodContemporary.Major Taxa StudiedVarious.MethodsWe devised a new standardized patch‐scale metric, Mean Species Landscape‐scale Incidences per Patch (MSLIP). Positive values indicate a patch contains more widespread (high‐incidence) species than expected relative to their frequency in the landscape; negative values indicate the presence of more narrow‐range (low‐incidence) species. For 202 metacommunity datasets (archipelagos, habitat islands and fragments) we regressed MSLIP on patch size, testing four hypotheses: (i) no effect (zero slope), (ii) more widespread species in smaller patches (negative slope), (iii) more narrow‐range species in smaller patches (positive slope), (iv) a composite effect (curvilinear/unimodal).ResultsThere was a generally negative curvilinear relationship between MSLIP and patch size, consistent with smaller and larger patches respectively containing more high‐ and low‐incidence species than expected. At intermediate patch sizes, mean species incidence approximates that of the overall landscape. Relative richness mediated this relationship; species‐rich sites of any size increasingly favoured low‐incidence species, species‐poor sites high‐incidence species. Results were consistent for taxonomic groups, and metacommunity types, except aquatic habitat islands.Main ConclusionsThe dependence of mean species incidence on both patch size and relative richness has implications for biodiversity and community assembly theory, or when seeking to understand ecological processes sensitive to species composition (e.g., ecosystem functioning, trophic web structures). We propose the ‘patch size where the MSLIP regression intersects zero’ as a benchmark distinguishing smaller from larger patches, with the expectation small patches preferentially support more high‐incidence and large patches more low‐incidence species.

show abstract

Species accumulation in small–large vs large–small order: more species but not all species?

Cited by 5 publications

References 64 publications

Collections of small urban parks consistently support higher species richness but not higher phylogenetic or functional diversity

Collections of small urban parks consistently support higher species richness but not higher phylogenetic or functional diversity

Obstruction of biodiversity conservation by minimum patch size criteria

Mean landscape‐scale incidence of species in discrete habitats is patch size dependent

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About