Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Spatial patterns in species distributions reveal biodiversity change

Abstract

Interpretation of global biodiversity change is hampered by a lack of information on the historical status of most species in most parts of the world1,2,3,4,5. Here we show that declines and increases can be deduced from current species distributions alone, using spatial patterns of occupancy combined with distribution size. Declining species show sparse, fragmented distributions for their distribution size, reflecting the extinction process; expanding species show denser, more aggregated distributions, reflecting colonization. Past distribution size changes for British butterflies were deduced successfully from current distributions, and former distributions had some power to predict future change. What is more, the relationship between distribution pattern and change in British butterflies independently predicted distribution change for butterfly species in Flanders, Belgium, and distribution change in British rare plant species is similarly related to spatial distribution pattern. This link between current distribution patterns and processes of distribution change could be used to assess relative levels of threat facing different species, even for regions and taxa lacking detailed historical and ecological information.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Maps and associated scale–area curves for 1995–99 distributions of British butterfly species.
Figure 2: Observed changes in distribution size against changes estimated from distribution pattern and size.

References

  1. Akçakaya, H. R. et al. Making consistent IUCN classifications under uncertainty. Conserv. Biol. 14, 1001–1013 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Groombridge, B. & Jenkins, M. D. World Atlas of Biodiversity (Univ. California Press, Berkeley, CA, 2002)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Keith, D. A., Auld, T. D., Ooi, M. K. J. & Mackenzie, D. E. Sensitivity analyses of decision rules in World Conservation Union (IUCN) Red List criteria using Australian plants. Biol. Conserv. 94, 311–319 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Mace, G. M. & Lande, R. Assessing extinction threats: towards a re-evaluation of IUCN threatened species categories. Conserv. Biol. 5, 148–157 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Global Biodiversity: Status of the Earth's Living Resources (Chapman & Hall, London, 1992)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hartley, S. & Kunin, W. E. Scale dependency of rarity, extinction risk, and conservation priority. Conserv. Biol. 17, 1559–1570 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Warren, M. S., Barnett, L. K., Gibbons, D. W. & Avery, M. I. Assessing national conservation priorities: an improved red list of British butterflies. Biol. Conserv. 82, 317–328 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. World Conservation Union (IUCN). IUCN Red List Categories. Version 3.1. (World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland, 2001)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cowley, M. J. R., Thomas, C. D., Thomas, J. A. & Warren, M. S. Flight areas of British butterflies: assessing species status and decline. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266, 1587–1592 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Johnson, C. N. Species extinction and the relationships between distribution and abundance. Nature 394, 272–274 (1998)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Brown, J. H., Mehlman, D. W. & Stevens, G. C. Spatial variation in abundance. Ecology 76, 2028–2043 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Rodríguez, A. & Delibes, M. Internal structure and patterns of contraction in the geographic range of the Iberian Lynx. Ecography 25, 314–328 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Channell, R. & Lomolino, M. V. Dynamic biogeography and conservation of endangered species. Nature 403, 84–86 (2000)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Shigesada, N. & Kawasaki, K. Biological Invasions: Theory and Practice (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, UK, 1997)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Heath, J., Pollard, E. & Thomas, J. A. Atlas of Butterflies in Britain and Ireland (Viking Books, Harmondsworth, UK, 1984)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Asher, J. et al. The Millennium Atlas of Butterflies in Britain and Ireland (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, UK, 2001)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Warren, M. S. et al. Rapid responses of British butterflies to opposing forces of climate and habitat change. Nature 414, 65–69 (2001)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Kunin, W. E. Extrapolating species abundance across spatial scales. Science 281, 1513–1515 (1998)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Ostling, A., Harte, J. & Green, J. L. Self-similarity and clustering in the spatial distribution of species. Science 290(Suppl.), 671a (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Condit, R. et al. Spatial patterns in the distribution of tropical tree species. Science 288, 1414–1418 (2000)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Ripley, B. D. Spatial Statistics (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1981)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  22. Brooks, T. M., Pimm, S. L. & Oyugi, J. O. Time lag between deforestation and bird extinction in tropical forest fragments. Conserv. Biol. 13, 1140–1150 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hill, J. K., Thomas, C. D. & Huntley, B. Climate and habitat availability determine 20th century changes in a butterfly's range margins. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266, 1197–1206 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hanski, I. Metapopulation Ecology (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 1999)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Maes, D. & Van Dyck, H. Butterfly diversity loss in Flanders (north Belgium): Europe's worst case scenario? Biol. Conserv. 99, 263–276 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Thomas, C. D. & Abery, J. C. G. Estimating rates of butterfly decline from distribution maps: the effect of scale. Biol. Conserv. 73, 59–65 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Caughley, G. Directions in conservation biology. J. Anim. Ecol. 63, 215–244 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Linder, E. T., Villard, M.-A., Maurer, B. A. & Schmidt, E. V. Geographic range structure in North American landbirds: variation with migratory strategy, trophic level, and breeding habitat. Ecography 23, 678–686 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Martins, E. P. & Hansen, T. F. Phylogenies and the comparative method: a general approach to incorporating phylogenetic information into the analysis of interspecific data. Am. Nat. 149, 646–667 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Martins, E. P. COMPARE, version 4.6. Computer programs for the statistical analysis of comparative data http://compare.bio.indiana.edu/ (Department of Biology, Indiana University, Bloomington IN, 2004)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the contributors to the butterfly and plant distribution surveys in Britain and Flanders; J. Asher and J. A. Thomas for calculating British rates of decline; and M. de la Cruz, A. Escudero, S. Hartley, J. Perry and M. Pocock for assistance with analyses. The work was supported by the UK Natural Environment Research Council. Maps were produced in DMap.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert J. Wilson.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Methods

Supplementary methods and analyses, including: list of species analysed; phylogenetic regression; sensitivity to sample size, scale and method used to quantify aggregation; tests of other explanatory variables (population density and mobility); analyses of Flanders butterflies and British plants; associated supplementary references S1–S19. (DOC 57 kb)

Supplementary Tables 1–8

Tables showing relationships of distribution change, pattern and size for British and Flanders butterflies. (DOC 108 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wilson, R., Thomas, C., Fox, R. et al. Spatial patterns in species distributions reveal biodiversity change. Nature 432, 393–396 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03031

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03031

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing