Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Macroecological Analyses (macroecological + analysis)
Selected AbstractsThe significance of geographic range size for spatial diversity patterns in Neotropical palmsECOGRAPHY, Issue 1 2006Holger Kreft We examined the effect of range size in commonly applied macroecological analyses using continental distribution data for all 550 Neotropical palm species (Arecaceae) at varying grain sizes from 0.5° to 5°. First, we evaluated the relative contribution of range-restricted and widespread species on the patterns of species richness and endemism. Second, we analysed the impact of range size on the predictive value of commonly used predictor variables. Species sequences were produced arranging species according to their range size in ascending, descending, and random order. Correlations between the cumulative species richness patterns of these sequences and environmental predictors were performed in order to analyse the effect of range size. Despite the high proportion of rare species, patterns of species richness were found to be dominated by a minority of widespread species (,20%) which contained 80% of the spatial information. Climatic factors related to energy and water availability and productivity accounted for much of the spatial variation of species richness of widespread species. In contrast, species richness of range-restricted species was to a larger extent determined by topographical complexity. However, this effect was much more difficult to detect due to a dominant influence of widespread species. Although the strength of different environmental predictors changed with spatial scale, the general patterns and trends proved to be relatively stabile at the examined grain sizes. Our results highlight the difficulties to approximate causal explanations for the occurrence of a majority of species and to distinguish between contemporary climatic factors and history. [source] Dynamic macroecology on ecological time-scalesGLOBAL ECOLOGY, Issue 1 2010Jonathan A. D. Fisher ABSTRACT Aim, The discipline of macroecology is increasingly being regarded as an effective vehicle for the evaluation of recent population- to ecosystem-level responses to widespread human and environmental influences. However, due to the prevalent use of time-averaged and cumulative data in macroecological analyses, the majority of the patterns that emerge from research in this field can be regarded as static. Here we review the application of dynamic macroecological analyses to changes in relationships between macroecological variables on seasonal to decadal scales. We illustrate the strength of this perspective for documenting changing patterns and testing hypotheses related to these dynamics on ecological time-scales. Location, Studies were compiled and reviewed from terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Methods, We review examples of temporal changes in macroecological patterns driven by recent anthropogenic influences and environmental change. Results, The dynamic nature of macroecological patterns on ecological time-scales has been revealed in recent years across a wide range of ecosystems, largely through the development, maintenance and analysis of biotic and environmental monitoring time series. The resultant analyses complement examinations of dynamics over evolutionary time and have similarly revealed that static portrayals can conceal important temporal dynamics that underlie the patterns of interest. As a consequence, static depictions, resting as they do on comparative analyses in which the validity of space-for-time substitutions is assumed, may be of limited use for testing hypotheses related to the mechanisms underlying the patterns revealed and, by extension, the development of reliable predictions of future states. Main conclusions, Recent dynamic macroecological analyses have demonstrated the utility of combined spatial and temporal replication, and have contributed to hypothesis testing related to the mechanistic processes underlying changes in macroecological patterns on ecological time-scales. We suggest four specific avenues of future research to further the development and application of temporal approaches on similar time-scales within the field of macroecology. [source] Defying the curse of ignorance: perspectives in insect macroecology and conservation biogeographyINSECT CONSERVATION AND DIVERSITY, Issue 3 2010JOSE ALEXANDRE FELIZOLA DINIZ-FILHO Abstract., 1. Despite the abundance, richness and ecological importance of insects, distribution patterns remain unknown for most groups, and this creates serious difficulties for the evaluation of macroecological patterns and the underlying drivers. Although the problem is real, we provide an optimistic perspective on insect macroecology and conservation biogeography. 2. Although data for macroecological analysis of insects are not as complete as for many other organisms (e.g., mammals and birds), at least for some insect groups they are equivalent to what existed 10 or 20 years ago for the charismatic megafauna, so initiatives to compile data for broad-scale analyses are feasible. 3. The primary constraint for studies in insect macroecology and conservation biogeography is not (only) poor data; part of the problem arises from a lack of knowledge on how macroecological patterns and processes can be analysed and interpreted. 4. Finally, we present an overview of recent papers using insects as model organisms in macroecology, including richness and diversity gradients, ecogeographical rules, inter-specific relationships, conservation planning and modelling species distributions. Although our list is not exhaustive, it may be useful as guidelines for future research and encourage ICD readers to develop analyses for other insect groups. [source] The distribution,abundance (density) relationship: its form and causes in a tropical mammal order, PrimatesJOURNAL OF BIOGEOGRAPHY, Issue 4 2005A. H. Harcourt Abstract Aim, Across a wide variety of organisms, taxa with high local densities (abundance) have large geographical ranges (distributions). We use primatology's detailed knowledge of its taxon to investigate the form and causes of the relationship in, unusually for macroecological analysis, a tropical taxon. Location, Africa, Central and South America, Asia, Madagascar. Methods, To investigate the form of the density,range relationship, we regressed local density on geographical range size, and also on female body mass, because in the Primates, density correlates strongly with mass. To investigate the biological causes of the relationship, we related (1) abundance (density × range size) and (2) residuals from the density,range regression lines to various measures of (i) resource use, (ii) reproductive rate and (iii) potential specialization. All data are from the literature. Analyses were done at the level of species (n = 140), genera (n = 60) and families/subfamilies (n = 17). We present various levels of results, including for all data, after omission of outlier data, after correction for phylogenetic dependence, and after Bonferroni correction of probabilities for multiple comparisons. Results, Regarding the form of the relationship, Madagascar primates are clear outliers (high densities in small ranges). Among the remaining three realms, the relation of density to range is weak or non-existent at the level of species and genera. However, it is strong, tight and linear at the level of families/subfamilies (r2 = 0.6, F1,10 = 19, P < 0.01). Although among primates, density is very significantly related to mass, at no taxonomic level is range size related to body mass. Consequently, removing the effects of mass makes little to no difference to density,range results. Regarding the biology of the relationship, only traits indicative of specialization are associated with abundance (meaning numbers): rare taxa are more specialized than are abundant taxa. The association is largely via range size, not density. Across families, no traits correlate significantly with the density,range relationship, nor with deviations from it, despite the strength of the relationship at this taxonomic level. Main conclusions, We suggest that in macroecology, analysis at taxonomic levels deeper than that of the relatively ephemeral species can be appropriate. We argue that the several purely methodological explanations for the positive density,range size relationship in primates can be rejected. Of the various biological hypotheses, those having to do with specialization,generalization seem the only applicable ones. The fact that the relationship is entirely via range size, not via density, means that while we might have a biology of range size, we do not yet have one of the density,geographical range relationship. It is probably time to search for multivariate explanations, rather than univariate ones. However, we can for the first time, for at least primates, suggest that any association of abundance or range size with specialization is via the number of different subtaxa, not the average degree of specialization of each subtaxon. The implication for conservation is obvious. [source] | ||||||||||