Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-11T19:50:14.285Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

19 - Extinction and population scaling

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2012

William E. Kunin
Affiliation:
University of Leeds
David Storch
Affiliation:
Charles University, Prague
Pablo Marquet
Affiliation:
Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile
James Brown
Affiliation:
University of New Mexico
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Arguably, the most important development in ecology in the past few decades has been the discovery of space. The spatial structure of populations and their interactions has become increasingly central to our understanding of ecological dynamics, revolutionizing many areas of both theory and application (e.g. Tilman & Kareiva, 1997). While this is true of all organisms, spatial aspects of population biology are particularly apparent in sessile organisms such as plants. Plant populations are spatially complex, with individuals typically clustered within patches that are themselves aggregated in habitats that are patchily distributed in space. Despite attempts to define the “natural” scale of patchiness (reviewed in Dale, 1999), most populations I know of appear aggregated at virtually any spatial scale. This greatly complicates the description of the abundance and distribution of species, as most of the useful measures are intrinsically scale bound. Indeed, many different aspects of abundance can be reflected by grid occupancy at some appropriate scale of resolution (Kunin, 1998). Thus the extent of a species' geographic range reflects its coarse-scale distribution, whereas population size or cover reflects fine-scale abundance, with factors such as the number of discrete subpopulations or habitat specialization being reflected at intermediate scales.

In an attempt to summarize such spatially complex patterns, the area occupied by a species may be plotted at multiple spatial scales on logarithmic axes, into a “scale area curve” that could summarize abundance scaling.

Type
Chapter
Information
Scaling Biodiversity , pp. 396 - 408
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aars, J., Lambin, X., Denny, R. & Griffin, A. C. (2001). Water vole in the Scottish uplands: distribution patterns of disturbed and pristine populations ahead and behind the American mink invasion front. Animal Conservation, 4, 187–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akçakaya, H. R. & Atwood, J. L. (1997). A habitat-based metapopulation model of the California gnatcatcher. Conservation Biology, 11, 422–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. H. & Kodric-Brown, A. (1977). Turnover rates in insular biogeography: effects of immigration on extinction. Ecology, 58, 445–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Channell, R. & Lomolino, M. V. (2000). Dynamic biogeography and conservation of endangered species. Nature, 403, 84–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cuzick, J. & Edwards, R. (1990). Spatial clustering for inhomogeneous populations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B – Methodological, 52, 73–104.Google Scholar
Dale, M. R. T. (1999). Spatial Pattern Analysis in Plant Ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, J. M. (1975). The island dilemma: lessons of modern biogeographic studies for the design of natural reserves. Biological Conservation, 7, 129–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fahrig, L. (1998). Relative effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on population extinction. Journal of Wildlife Management, 61, 603–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flather, C. H. & Bevers, M. (2002). Patchy reaction-diffusion and population abundance: the relative importance of habitat amount and arrangement. American Naturalist, 159, 40–56.Google ScholarPubMed
Gaston, K. J., Blackburn, T. M. & Gregory, R. (1999). Does variation in census area confound density comparisons?Journal of Applied Ecology, 36, 191–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilpin, M. E. & Soulé, M. E. (1986). Minimum viable populations: processes of extinction. In Conservation Biology: Science of Scarcity and Diversity, ed. Soulé, M. E., pp. 19–34. Sunderland, MD: Sinauer.Google Scholar
Halley, J. M., Hartley, S., Kallimanis, A. S., Kunin, W. E., Lennon, J. J. & Sgardelis, S. P. (2004). Uses and abuses of fractal methodology in ecology. Ecology Letters, 7, 254–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartley, S. & Kunin, W. E. (2003). Scale dependency of rarity, extinction risk, and conservation priority. Conservation Biology, 17, 1559–1570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartley, S., Kunin, W. E., Lennon, J. J. & Pocock, M. J. O. (2004). Coherence and discontinuity in the scaling of species distribution patternsProceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 271, 81–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, M. F. & Caswell, H. (1999). Habitat fragmentation and extinction thresholds on fractal landscapes. Ecology Letters, 2, 121–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubbell, S. P. (2001). The Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kallimanis, A. S., Kunin, W. E., Halley, J. & Sgardelis, S. P. (2005). Metapopulation extinction risk under spatially autocorrelated disturbance. Conservation Biology, 19, 534–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunin, W. E. (1998). Extrapolating species abundance across spatial scales. Science, 281, 1513–1515.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
LaHaye, W. S., Gutierrez, R. J. & Akçakaya, H. R. (1994). Spotted owl metapopulation dynamics in southern California. Journal of Animal Ecology, 63, 775–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lecomte, J., Boudjemadi, K., Sarrazin, F., Cally, K. & Clobert, J. (2004). Connectivity and homogenisation of population sizes: an experimental approach in Lacerta vivipara. Journal of Animal Ecology, 73, 179–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levins, R. (1969). Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental heterogeneity for biological control. Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America, 15, 237–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, M. A. & Lindenmayer, D. B. (2000). Spatially-correlated extinction in a metapopulation model of Leadbeater's possum. Biodiversity and Conservation, 9, 47–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, M. A., Thompson, C. P. & Possingham, H. P. (2005). Theory for designing nature reserves for single species. American Naturalist, 165, 250–257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDowall, W. (2003). Extinction in a spatially autocorrelated environment. MSc dissertation, University of Leeds.
Ostling, A., Harte, J. & Green, J. L., (2000). Self-similarity and clustering in the spatial distribution of species. Science, 290, Supplement 671a.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ovaskainen, O. (2002). Long term persistence of species and the SLOSS problem. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 218, 419–433.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pelletier, J. D. (1997). Analysis and modeling of the natural variability of climate. Journal of Climate, 10, 1331–1342.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pocock, M. J. O., Hartley, S., Telfer, M. G., Preston, C. D. & Kunin, W. E. (2006). Ecological correlates of range structure in rare and scarce British plants. Journal of Applied Ecology, 94, 581–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodriquez, A. & Delibes, M. (2002). Internal structure and patterns of contraction in the geographic range of the Iberian lynx. Ecography, 25, 314–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodriguez, A. & Delibes, M. (2003). Population fragmentation and extinction in the Iberian lynx. Biological Conservation, 109, 321–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, C. & Hastings, A. (1996). Density dependence: are we searching at the wrong scale?Journal of Animal Ecology, 65, 556–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Royama, T. (1992). Analytical Population Dynamics. London: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Šizling, A. L. & Storch, D. (2004). Power-law species-area relationships and self-similar species distributions within finite areas. Ecology Letters, 7, 60–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smallwood, K. S. & Schonewald, C. (1996). Scaling population density and spatial pattern for terrestrial mammalian carnivores. Oecologia, 105, 329–355.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stapp, P., Antolin, M. F. & Ball, M. (2004). Patterns of extinction in prairie dog metapopulations: plague outbreaks follow El Nino events. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2, 235–240.Google Scholar
Steffan-Dewenter, I., Münzenberg, U., Bürger, C., Thies, C. & Tscharntke, T. (2002). Scale-dependent effects of landscape context on three pollinator guilds. Ecology, 83, 1421–1432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, A., Pearman, D. A. & Preston, C. D. (1994). Scarce Plants in Britain. Peterborough: JNCC.Google Scholar
Storch, D., Šizling, A. & Gaston, K. (2003). Geometry of the species-area relationship in central European birds: testing the mechanism. Journal of Animal Ecology, 72, 509–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, C. D., Thomas, J. A. & Warren, M. S. (1992). Distribution of occupied and vacant butterfly habitats in fragmented landscapes. Oecologia, 92, 563–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilman, D. & Kareiva, P. (eds.) (1997). Spatial Ecology: the Role of Space in Population Dynamics and Interspecific Interactions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Turcotte, D. L. (1997). Fractals and Chaos in Geology and Geophysics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westphal, C., Steffan-Dewenter, I. & Tscharntke, T. (2003). Mass flowering crops enhance pollinator densities at a landscape scale. Ecology Letters, 6, 961–965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wigginton, M. J. (1999). British Red Data Books. 1: Vascular Plants, 3rd edn. Peterborough: JNCC.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. J., Thomas, C. D., Fox, R., Roy, D. B. & Kunin, W. E. (2004). Spatial patterns in species diversity reveal biodiversity change. Nature, 432, 393–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
With, K. A. & King, A. W. (1999). Extinction thresholds for species in fractal landscapes. Conservation Biology, 13, 314–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×