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.

  • Brief Communications Arising
  • Published:

Geometry and scale in species–area relationships

Nature volume 482, pages E3–E4 (2012)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Arising from F. He & S. P. Hubbell Nature 473, 368–371 (2011)10.1038/nature09985.

He and Hubbell developed a sampling theory for the species–area relationship (SAR) and the endemics–area relationship (EAR)1. They argued that the number of extinctions after habitat loss is described by the EAR and that extinction rates in previous studies are overestimates because the EAR is always lower than the SAR. Here we show that their conclusion is not general and depends on the geometry of habitat destruction and the scale of the SAR. We also question their critique of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment estimates, as those estimates are not dependent on the SAR only, although important uncertainties remain due to other methodological issues.

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

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

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

Figure 1: The outward EAR and the inward EAR.
Figure 2: The influence of scale and geometry on the EAR and the SAR.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. He, F. & Hubbell, S. P. Species–area relationships always overestimate extinction rates from habitat loss. Nature 473, 368–371 (2011)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. van Vuuren, D., Sala, O. & Pereira, H. M. The future of vascular plant diversity under four global scenarios. Ecol. Soc. 11, 25 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Pimm, S. L., Russell, G. J., Gittleman, J. L. & Brooks, T. M. The future of biodiversity. Science 269, 347–350 (1995)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Reid, W. V. in Tropical Deforestation and Species Extinction (eds Whitmore, T. C. & Sayer, J. A. ) 53–73 (Chapman and Hall, 1992)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Kinzig, A. & Harte, J. Implications of endemics–area relationships for estimates of species extinctions. Ecology 81, 3305–3311 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Rosenzweig, M. L. Loss of speciation rate will impoverish future diversity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 98, 5404–5410 (2001)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Dengler, J. Which function describes the species–area relationship best? A review and empirical evaluation. J. Biogeogr. 36, 728–744 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Pereira, H. M. & Daily, G. C. Modeling biodiversity dynamics in countryside landscapes. Ecology 87, 1877–1885 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Mace, G. M. et al. in Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Current States and Trends 77–126 (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Mace, G. M. & Kunin, W. Classifying threatened species—means and ends. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 344, 91–97 (1994)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  11. Smith, F. D. M., May, R. M., Pellew, R., Johnson, T. H. & Walter, K. S. Estimating extinction rates. Nature 364, 494–496 (1993)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  12. Pereira, H. M. et al. Scenarios for global biodiversity in the 21st century. Science 330, 1496–1501 (2010)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Jetz, W., Wilcove, D. S. & Dobson, A. P. Projected impacts of climate and land-use change on the global diversity of birds. PLoS Biol. 5, e157 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Sinervo, B. et al. Erosion of lizard diversity by climate change and altered thermal niches. Science 328, 894–899 (2010)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Sekercioglu, C. H., Schneider, S. H., Fay, J. P. & Loarie, S. R. Climate change, elevational range shifts, and bird extinctions. Conserv. Biol. 22, 140–150 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centro de Biologia Ambiental, Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, 1749-016, Portugal

    Henrique Miguel Pereira, Luís Borda-de-Água & Inês Santos Martins

Authors
  1. Henrique Miguel Pereira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luís Borda-de-Água
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Inês Santos Martins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors participated in the discussion of the ideas that resulted in this paper. H.M.P. wrote the paper, L.B.-d.-A. performed the data analysis, and I.S.M. prepared the data sets for analysis.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Henrique Miguel Pereira.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

Declared none.

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pereira, H., Borda-de-Água, L. & Martins, I. Geometry and scale in species–area relationships. Nature 482, E3–E4 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10857

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10857

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

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

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