2013
DOI: 10.1111/nyas.12073
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Species–area relationships and extinction forecasts

Abstract: The species-area relationship (SAR) predicts that smaller areas contain fewer species. This is the basis of the SAR method that has been used to forecast large numbers of species committed to extinction every year due to deforestation. The method has a number of issues that must be handled with care to avoid error. These include the functional form of the SAR, the choice of equation parameters, the sampling procedure used, extinction debt, and forest regeneration. Concerns about the accuracy of the SAR techniq… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
48
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(48 citation statements)
references
References 66 publications
0
48
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Even if habitat heterogeneity remains as habitats are lost and fragmented, the influence of the remaining heterogeneity on the maintenance of species richness might become constrained, such that fewer species can persist in smaller habitats than might have been expected from simple projections that do not consider such effects (He and Hubbell , Halley et al. ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Even if habitat heterogeneity remains as habitats are lost and fragmented, the influence of the remaining heterogeneity on the maintenance of species richness might become constrained, such that fewer species can persist in smaller habitats than might have been expected from simple projections that do not consider such effects (He and Hubbell , Halley et al. ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The EAR gives the number of species restricted to area a, which is part of A. Concerns include the possibility of overestimating extinction rates (He and Hubbell 2011, but see response by Axelsen et al 2013), the possibility of underestimating extinctions (Halley et al 2013, Chase et al 2018) and the absence of uncertainty estimates and information on individual species extinction risks (Kitzes and Harte 2014). The difference between current species richness and the value expected from the SAR for past conditions provides an estimate of the debt to be paid (Kuussaari et al 2009).…”
Section: Methodological Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since the 1920s (4,5), SARs have been applied to describe the occurrence of a wide range of organisms on true islands (6)(7)(8), in fragments of distinct habitat (9,10), and in parts of more arbitrarily delimited contiguous landscapes (1,3). In the past decades, SAR has become an important concept and a tool also in conservation biology, where it has been used to make broad assessments of species extinctions from habitat loss (11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18). These calculations have been criticized for various reasons (17,(19)(20)(21), but minimally SAR provides a valuable point of reference for the threat that habitat loss poses to biodiversity.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the past decades, SAR has become an important concept and a tool also in conservation biology, where it has been used to make broad assessments of species extinctions from habitat loss (11-18). These calculations have been criticized for various reasons (17,(19)(20)(21), but minimally SAR provides a valuable point of reference for the threat that habitat loss poses to biodiversity.SARs are typically applied to a set of habitat fragments within a single landscape, but in conservation, in contrast, the essential question is how many species will persist in different landscapes (regions) with dissimilar amounts of habitat rather than in different fragments within a single landscape. This creates a problem: Habitat loss is virtually always accompanied by fragmentation (22-24), and hence the remaining habitat is not contiguous, unlike assumed by SAR, at the landscape level.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation