Letter | Published:

Universal species–area and endemics–area relationships at continental scales

Nature volume 488, pages 7881 (02 August 2012) | Download Citation

Subjects

Abstract

Despite the broad conceptual and applied relevance of how the number of species or endemics changes with area (the species–area and endemics–area relationships (SAR and EAR)), our understanding of universality and pervasiveness of these patterns across taxa and regions has remained limited. The SAR has traditionally been approximated by a power law1, but recent theories predict a triphasic SAR in logarithmic space, characterized by steeper increases in species richness at both small and large spatial scales2,3,4,5,6. Here we uncover such universally upward accelerating SARs for amphibians, birds and mammals across the world’s major landmasses. Although apparently taxon-specific and continent-specific, all curves collapse into one universal function after the area is rescaled by using the mean range sizes of taxa within continents. In addition, all EARs approximately follow a power law with a slope close to 1, indicating that for most spatial scales there is roughly proportional species extinction with area loss. These patterns can be predicted by a simulation model based on the random placement of contiguous ranges within a domain. The universality of SARs and EARs after rescaling implies that both total and endemic species richness within an area, and also their rate of change with area, can be estimated by using only the knowledge of mean geographic range size in the region and mean species richness at one spatial scale.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    Species Diversity in Space and Time (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1995)

  2. 2.

    & Effects of range size on species–area relationships. Evol. Ecol. Res. 5, 493–499 (2003)

  3. 3.

    & A unified theory for macroecology based on spatial patterns of abundance. Evol. Ecol. Res. 5, 469–492 (2003)

  4. 4.

    The Unified Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography (Princeton Univ. Press, 2001)

  5. 5.

    & Species–area relationships from a spatially explicit neutral model in an infinite landscape. Ecol. Lett. 10, 586–595 (2007)

  6. 6.

    & Field theory for biogeography: a spatially explicit model for predicting patterns of biodiversity. Ecol. Lett. 13, 87–95 (2010)

  7. 7.

    , , eds. Extinction Rates (Oxford Univ. Press, 1995)

  8. 8.

    & Biodiversity: extinction by numbers. Nature 403, 843–845 (2000)

  9. 9.

    & Species–area relationships always overestimate extinction rates from habitat loss. Nature 473, 368–371 (2011)

  10. 10.

    Caution with curves: caveats for using the species–area relationship in conservation. Biol. Conserv. 143, 555–564 (2010)

  11. 11.

    , & The imprint of the geographical, evolutionary and ecological context on species–area relationships. Ecol. Lett. 9, 215–227 (2006)

  12. 12.

    & The statistics and biology of the species–area relationship. Am. Nat. 113, 791–833 (1979)

  13. 13.

    , & Biodiversity scales from plots to biomes with a universal species–area curve. Ecol. Lett. 12, 789–797 (2009)

  14. 14.

    , , , & Between geometry and biology: the problem of universality of the species–area relationship. Am. Nat. 178, 602–611 (2011)

  15. 15.

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

  16. 16.

    , & Geometry and scale in species–area relationships. Nature 482, E3–E4 (2012)

  17. 17.

    & Endemics–area relationships: the influence of species dominance and spatial aggregation. Ecology 84, 3090–3097 (2003)

  18. 18.

    & Cross-scale variation in species richness–environment associations. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 20, 464–474 (2011)

  19. 19.

    & Species richness, hotspots, and the scale dependence of range maps in ecology and conservation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 13384–13389 (2007)

  20. 20.

    et al. Energy, range dynamics and global species richness patterns: reconciling mid-domain effects and environmental determinants of avian diversity. Ecol. Lett. 9, 1308–1320 (2006)

  21. 21.

    & Environmental and historical constraints on global patterns of amphibian richness. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 274, 1167–1173 (2007)

  22. 22.

    et al. The quest for a null model for macroecological patterns: geometry of species distributions at multiple spatial scales. Ecol. Lett. 11, 771–784 (2008)

  23. 23.

    & Analysis of an evolutionary species–area relationship. Nature 408, 847–850 (2000)

  24. 24.

    A comprehensive framework for global patterns in biodiversity. Ecol. Lett. 7, 1–15 (2004)

  25. 25.

    Towards a unification of unified theories of biodiversity. Ecol. Lett. 13, 627–642 (2010)

  26. 26.

    & On the implications of species–area relationships for endemism, spatial turnover, and food web patterns. Oikos 80, 417–427 (1997)

  27. 27.

    & Geographic range, turnover rate and the scaling of species diversity. Ecography 25, 541–550 (2002)

  28. 28.

    Six types of species–area curves. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 12, 441–447 (2003)

  29. 29.

    & Nested species–area curves and stochastic sampling: a new theory. Oikos 79, 503–512 (1997)

  30. 30.

    & The mid-domain effect: geometric constraints on the geography of species richness. Trends Ecol. Evol. 15, 70–76 (2000)

  31. 31.

    , , & The geographical structure of British bird distributions: diversity, spatial turnover and scale. J. Anim. Ecol. 70, 966–979 (2001)

  32. 32.

    & The distance decay of similarity in biogeography and ecology. J. Biogeogr. 26, 867–878 (1999)

  33. 33.

    Sample shape, spatial scale and species counts: implications for reserve design. Biol. Conserv. 82, 369–377 (1997)

  34. 34.

    & Power-law species–area relationships and self-similar species distributions within finite areas. Ecol. Lett. 7, 60–68 (2004)

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank J. Belmaker, K. Mertes-Schwartz, C. Sheard and D. Rosauer for useful comments. The study was supported by the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic (P505/11/2387), the Czech Ministry of Education (MSM0021620845) and the EU FP7 SCALES project (‘Securing the Conservation of biodiversity across Administrative Levels and spatial, temporal and Ecological Scales’; project No. 26852). W.J. acknowledges support from National Science Foundation grants DBI 0960550 and DEB 1026764, and NASA Biodiversity Program grant number NNX11AP72G.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Center for Theoretical Study, Charles University and the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Jilská 1, 110 00, Praha 1, Czech Republic

    • David Storch
  2. Department of Ecology, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Viničná 7, 128 44 Praha 2, Czech Republic

    • David Storch
  3. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Yale University, 165 Prospect Street, New Haven, Connecticut 06520-8106, USA

    • Petr Keil
    •  & Walter Jetz

Authors

  1. Search for David Storch in:

  2. Search for Petr Keil in:

  3. Search for Walter Jetz in:

Contributions

D.S. initiated the research. D.S., P.K. and W.J. developed the ideas, methods and concepts, and wrote the manuscript. W.J. adjusted and provided the data. P.K. performed the analyses and simulations.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Storch.

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Information

    This file contains a Supplementary Discussion, Supplementary Tables 1-2 and Supplementary Figures 1-15.

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11226

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.