4.8 Review

Embracing scale-dependence to achieve a deeper understanding of biodiversity and its change across communities

期刊

ECOLOGY LETTERS
卷 21, 期 11, 页码 1737-1751

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ele.13151

关键词

Evenness; Hill number; rarefaction; scale-dependence; Simpson's index; species richness; species-area relationship

类别

资金

  1. German Centre of Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig (German Research Foundation) [FZT 118]
  2. Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, Alexander von Humboldt Professorship of TMK
  3. College of Charleston
  4. U.S. NSF [DEB 1257625]
  5. USDA Hatch [1011538]
  6. NSF ABI [1660000]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Because biodiversity is multidimensional and scale-dependent, it is challenging to estimate its change. However, it is unclear (1) how much scale-dependence matters for empirical studies, and (2) if it does matter, how exactly we should quantify biodiversity change. To address the first question, we analysed studies with comparisons among multiple assemblages, and found that rarefaction curves frequently crossed, implying reversals in the ranking of species richness across spatial scales. Moreover, the most frequently measured aspect of diversity - species richness - was poorly correlated with other measures of diversity. Second, we collated studies that included spatial scale in their estimates of biodiversity change in response to ecological drivers and found frequent and strong scale-dependence, including nearly 10% of studies which showed that biodiversity changes switched directions across scales. Having established the complexity of empirical biodiversity comparisons, we describe a synthesis of methods based on rarefaction curves that allow more explicit analyses of spatial and sampling effects on biodiversity comparisons. We use a case study of nutrient additions in experimental ponds to illustrate how this multi-dimensional and multi-scale perspective informs the responses of biodiversity to ecological drivers.

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

4.8
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