4.5 Article

Universal scaling of species-abundance distributions across multiple scales

期刊

OIKOS
卷 122, 期 7, 页码 1101-1111

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2012.20751.x

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. EPSRC [EP/F043112/1]
  2. NERC [NE/I021179]
  3. National Science Foundation [DEB-0640386, DEB-0425651, DEB-0346488, DEB-0129874, DEB-00753102, DEB-9909347, DEB-9615226, DEB-9405933, DEB-9221033, DEB-9100058, DEB-8906869, DEB-8605042, DEB-8206992, DEB-7922197]
  4. Center for Tropical Forest Science
  5. Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute
  6. John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
  7. Mellon Foundation
  8. Small World Institute Fund
  9. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/F043112/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  10. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/I021179/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  11. EPSRC [EP/F043112/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  12. NERC [NE/I021179/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The scale-dependent species abundance distribution (SAD) is fundamental in ecology, but few spatially explicit models of this pattern have thus far been studied. Here we show spatially explicit neutral model predictions for SADs over a wide range of spatial scales, which appear to match empirical patterns qualitatively. We find that the assumption of a log-series SAD in the metacommunity made by spatially implicit neutral models can be justified with a spatially explicit model in the large area limit. Furthermore, our model predicts that SADs on multiple scales are characterized by a single, compound parameter that represents the ratio of the survey area to the species' average biogeographic range (which is in turn set by the speciation rate and the dispersal distance). This intriguing prediction is in line with recent empirical evidence for a universal scaling of the species-area curve. Hence we hypothesize that empirical SAD patterns will show a similar universal scaling for many different taxa and across multiple spatial scales.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据